Talk:Shockofgod

Typos

I just wanted to point out a few typos in this page, because it is linked to on the front page. In the second sentence, "cummulatively," should be "cumulatively" if I'm not mistaken. Also, in the first section after the Table of Contents, "In June of 2011, Shockofgoddeclared" should have a space before "declared." That's all I can find at the moment; please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 20:35, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Hi everyone. Could someone please address the aforementioned copy-editing mistakes? Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 10:49, 2 December 2011 (EST)

These typos have been left uncorrected for over 6 months, as Kevin pointed out. Can an admin please fix them? :) CWest 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Word to substance ratio

The definition of the word accurate includes the word "correct" in it. Therefore, the word-to-substance ratio of Shockofgod's request for "proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct" could be improved if the words "and correct" were omitted. CWest 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

To be fair, my understanding is that it is a quote from SoG. You should take that up with SoG himself. GregG 17:39, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

A comma splice

"These false reports are not isolated incidents, many atheists will try this deceitful tactic to block out Christianity and creation science." A semicolon is appropriate instead of the comma. Thanks, GregG 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Is he really significant?

This article kind of seems like an advertisement for a YouTube channel and a podcast... Don't anti-atheist argument articles do the job here well enough? Not sure it really helps the argument to be featuring a guy who's most "famous" quotation is barely even English.Editman 7:04, 21 December 2013 (EST)

Converage out of proportion to importance

I'm new to Conservapedia. I'm surprised how many articles link to this person. He doesn't seem to be a particularly prominent Conservative Christian.

Special:WhatLinksHere/Shockofgod&limit=500

I don't propose removing the article but perhaps we don't to link to this page from such a huge number of pages? Perhaps just keep the references where he is most relevant.