G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Talk:Negative proof

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Thats odd. If your talking about me then i must point out that the "evendence" was very weak. It smelled like trash. 15:44, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

"Smells like trash" is not much of a rebuttal. But as you pointed out, since you are just trolling this isn't a "debate" and so the fact that you have failed to substantiate your points beyond mud flinging is meainingless. tmtoulouse pester 15:46, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Google

this page is showing up in Google's predictive text thingy. Has somebody linked to it or sumpfink? If so, perhaps it should be added to Category:Entry points. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"One might also note that the saying itself is a negative." Hahaha! (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Weak

"This point, however, is completely lost on most creationists (such as intelligent design advocates) who shout from the rooftops that there are no transitional fossils long after they've been repeatedly shown them."

This is so POV. Atheists are atrocious when it comes to resorting to logical fallacies. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 03:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools