Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?"

Revision as of 18:37, June 7, 2010

Should we not attack his view point than attack the person? This essay does not appear to be in a very good taste. --Johntalbot 22:28, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Are you saying that an essay cannot comment on a person's behavior or use satire? If so, please justify. conservative 01:51, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

No I am not saying that. But I do not have any special knowledge about Richard Dawkin's manhood or machismo. I don't think any information is publicly available about his manhood related behaviour as well, So how do you comment on that? Satire is great if used well. For example Catch 22 is a great satire, but unfortunately your essay is not. It would be rude if I really express what I think about it. --Johntalbot 15:41, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps, you should read the essay and the linked resources a few times more and see if you can spot a pattern of cowardice by Richard Dawkins. Anyways, I wrote the essay when I was rather tired and I am made some revisions to it. By the way, the Google algorithm loves the essay. It ranks #1 for Richard Dawkins and Machismo and ranks #1 for Dawkins and machismo. However, I am guessing given Dawkins' behavior that many people don't associate the Richard Dawkins with machismo so there is probably not too many searches for this term. There are a 11,900 Google search results for Richard Dawkins and cowardice, just in case you are looking for further evidence concerning the subject of Richard Dawkins and cowardice. By the way, could you define "special knowledge". Also, do all Conservapedia essays need to pass a "special knowledge" litmus test? conservative 20:12, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

I wouldn't use the number of google results to prove a point, it's not a very accurate indicator.RaymondP 21:22, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

so.. are you writing this for google algorithm. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one is going to search for Dawkins and Machismo. May be you should clear your cache and search it, because when I do that, your page is not even in the top 10. I don't understand what you aim to say by 11900 results for Dawkins and cowardice. conservative and cowardice brings up 287000 results. does that mean anything? I am not sure why you are so much obsessed about Richard Dawkins' manhood. Shouldn't you be trying to refute his arguments in that precious time? --Johntalbot 20:24, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess you need to take some reading comprehension classes. I did indicate that I didn't believe there were going to be many searches for the term Dawkins and machismo. I also noticed you also didn't answer my questions. I will return the favor and not answer yours. conservative 20:57, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

I was given a link to this essay on youtube, and I can say that it certainly hits the target! Dawkins is well know for being a coward with regards to avoid all debate with those who don't agree with his worldview, so this kind of hard-hitting satire suits him perfectly! Keep up the good work Mr Conservative, sadly it's no surprise that the the liberal 'Dawkins Defenders' do nothing but criticize anything that exposes their evolutionist leaders for the frauds that they are. - Andrew.

Thanks for the positive review. Here is something I just put at the bottom of the essay: QUICK NOTE: The above essay was produced as part of the Conservapedia:Richard Dawkins Project. If you like this essay, please feel free to give it three "oles!" by creating a YouTube video on it. Also, feel free to mention it on your blog or Facebook page. There are also some tips HERE on spreading the word about this essay. Ole!Ole!Ole! conservative 17:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Unconservapedia?

What's the point of all those essays about Richard Dawkinds? Is this the embryo of an unconservapedia, parody of uncyclopedia, the official parody of wikipedia? That would be fun, a parody of a parody. Might as well be called liberopedia, and have articles with the Khaddaffi Peace Prize or the Stalin Human Rights awards. Sunda62 10:01, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

All those essays? Two essays have been written. Did Richard Dawkins teach you how to count? :) conservative 00:57, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Messed up

Purposefully creating provocative pages and then limiting the editing for such pages is ridiculous. I can't even fix the spelling errors.

First prove yourself by fixing up or writing other articles. We're not here just to talk, talk, talk. --ReligiousRight 22:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Obviously this user needs to open his mind. He probably doesn't support school prayer and I'm 96% certain he also believes in gun control. KevinO 22:46, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

If there are typos and/or spelling errors, please list them on the talk page. Unless, of course, you lack the machismo to do so!  :) conservative 00:53, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Grammar/Spelling problems:

Senor ---> Señor

Ole ---> Olé

Polling in 2006 indicates that less than half of the US and British populace accept the evolutionary paradigm as the best description for the development of life.

In addition.

polling indicates that the evolutionary paradigm is losing public support in the United States.[8]

So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....

Within the evolutionaryscience community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and has also faced charges of committing elementary errors.[10]

Of course, if Senor Dawkins published fine works in the field of Christian apologetics, Senor Dawkins would have great confidence his work could withstand scrutiny and he wouldn't have to spend so much time in his "intellectual bunnyhole" hiding from strong debaters of the opposition.

And there's more. This article needs many, many corrections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnnaO (talk)

And you're unable to work on other articles, why? Karajou 10:10, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

This article is in the forefront right now. There are many errors on it. Keeping this article in the condition its in paints the entire Conservapedia in a bad light. The deflection "work on something else" is weak and garners no enthusiasm for effort elsewhere.

Then why are you so desperate to fix the "errors" in just this article? Is there something about you you're not telling us? Karajou 10:30, 7 June 2010 (EDT)