Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(thanks for the clue stick) |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:::You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT) | :::You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::There isn't much sign that this is intended as humor, given User:Conservative's other output (much of which is in this style). If it is humor I propose it be moved from the essay space to the humor space, along with other "essays" like this one. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 13:46, 14 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:46, July 14, 2012
Man this page is insane. :) Cmurphynz 08:42, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- Could you make your criticism more specific, please? --Ed Poor Talk 10:16, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- User Ed Poor, the person who wrote this comment can't be more specific, they have been blocked for 1 day. Davidspencer 12:53, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- Why this page is beyond substandard and quite frankly embarrassing:
- It is not actually an essay. It is actually a collection of captioned pictures and links. In fact, there are no words in it that are not links or captions to pictures.
- It claims that one's "machismo" is linked to one's preference in peanut butter, despite no link ever being shows between the two.
- The main thesis, that Richard Dawkins likes creamy peanut butter, has never been proven anywhere.
- Other main points of this piece, like the claims that Chuck Norris and John Wayne enjoy/enjoyed chunky peanut butter, have never been proven.
- Large components of it, namely the bunny and bullfighting pictures, have been used in countless other "essays" by User:Conservative and don't really prove anything.
- Ed Poor, if you can't see that this page is an utter embarassment to the readers and editors of Conservapedia, then I don't know what else to say. I am interested in hearing your defense of this article. AndrewTompkins 11:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- I agree that it's not actually an essay. It looks like a joke: i.e., the page author is probably using it to tease atheists.
- Please don't respond as if you think it wasn't meant humorously. There's no "thesis"; he's just kidding around.
- You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --Ed Poor Talk 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- There isn't much sign that this is intended as humor, given User:Conservative's other output (much of which is in this style). If it is humor I propose it be moved from the essay space to the humor space, along with other "essays" like this one. AndrewTompkins 13:46, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --Ed Poor Talk 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT)