Talk:Russell's Teapot
From RationalWiki
excellent addition. humanbe in 19:31, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- Hah! This is a great article. I think I will go and visit the teapot sometime, it has to exist, you know, because you can't prove it doesn't exist. I may spend my entire lifetime searching for it, but that does not mean that it does not exist. --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 18:18, 8 January 2008 (EST)
The Celestial Teapot brought down to Earth by Conservapedia.Barbara Shack 10:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- Hehe, nice one! We should grab that and add it to the article. human random 17:50, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Edit war
What’s the problem? Why are my edits reverted?Barbara Shack 09:47, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- There is no need to respond to Phillip J. Rayment's argument in that manner. The first half of the article has already made our case perfectly. Dark Matter Glaucopis 09:53, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- Plus, the tone for railway worker seems to suggest his opinion is less weighty because of his profession. MarcusCicero 10:03, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- I feel it's best to spell everything out. I want to make sure that any 12 year old home schooled Conservapedian who ventures here can understand it clearly.Barbara Shack 11:06, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- We are not writing for Conservapedians. Dark Matter Glaucopis 11:25, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- Perhaps we can deconvert some of those kids.Barbara Shack 07:09, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- We are not writing for Conservapedians. Dark Matter Glaucopis 11:25, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- I feel it's best to spell everything out. I want to make sure that any 12 year old home schooled Conservapedian who ventures here can understand it clearly.Barbara Shack 11:06, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- Redoctrination sounds great! Wait till I get our tickets to the gulag together! MarcusCicero 07:12, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
In my experience, talking down to people is usually a pretty bad way of convincing them you're right about something. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT) The Gallery of deceitful liberal mockery talks down to people more than the disputed section does.Barbara Shack 03:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- Doesn't look like an edit war to me (and I saw no wholesale reversions), so much as three editors expanding and improving an article. By the way, can we find a footnote for the "railway worker" bit? Some of this still needs some tweaking, language-wise. I hope that won't be considered reversion or edit-warring! human be in 13:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not really sure that we need to refute that famous philosopher Phillip J. Rayment.--Bobbing up 14:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Me neither. But does it hurt the article? Or does it just grab at a straw man? humanly possible 15:01, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not really sure that we need to refute that famous philosopher Phillip J. Rayment.--Bobbing up 14:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Doesn't look like an edit war to me (and I saw no wholesale reversions), so much as three editors expanding and improving an article. By the way, can we find a footnote for the "railway worker" bit? Some of this still needs some tweaking, language-wise. I hope that won't be considered reversion or edit-warring! human be in 13:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
It won't be edit warring.Barbara Shack 17:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT) I called it edit war because edit wars can lead to blocks. I've had trouble with blocks on other Wikis. I just wanted to sort everything before it became a serious edit war. It wasn't an edit war and has been successfully defused. Barbara Shack 14:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
