Category talk:Pseudohistory

I propose this vanity cruft cat goes bye bye. 04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this vanity? And more importantly - whose vanity is it? (Not mine in any case, I only wrote one article.) And the main article pseudohistory is almost two years old already. Nobody has ever disputed its legitmacy. If you delete this cat why not delete other subfields of pseudoscience (Category:Parapsychology, Category:Ufology, Category:Alternative medicine) as well? M the T 06:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pseudohistory is an area we should do more on. Keep this and fil it with stuff. Totnesmartin 09:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see it get "filled", then... oh, and "other stuff exists" isn't an argument to have something, as WP puts it, I think.  20:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say keep, as it is certainly well within our mission to catalog and refute crank ideas. Secret Squirrel 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Human's objections seem a bit on the thin side, honestly. --Kels 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Random off topic discussion

 * Ye will be fine so long as you don't replace pseudohistory with a pseudohistory of your own. MarcusCicero 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Totnesmartin 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He was just lurking waiting for an opportunity to say something hateful. What a sad inner life you must have MC that you waste your precious bodily fluids here at all. 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second with the self righteousness. This is coming from a website solely devoted to lurking and preying on a mistake made on another website. Forgive me if I take your criticism with a pinch of salt. MarcusCicero 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those of us who do WIGOCP's are in the vast majority of circumstances not addressing mistakes made on another website, but rather addressing what we view to be intentional misconduct and batshittery occuring on CP. You can disagree with the project all you want, but don't say RW is solely devoted to "preying on a mistake." It's just demonstrably false and you know it, as much as you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you wish about whether ideas from CP that get attacked here are correct or not. If you want to come out and actually try to substantiate the insinuation that RW is also engaged in a project of rewriting its own history, I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with. 16:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in hearing what, specifically, what this "mistake" we're preying upon is. Should be good for a giggle. --Kels 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that RW is a website devoted to lurking and preying on mistakes made on Conservapedia. Along with the insanity over there. (Don't play the innocent, ye are very often simply pointing our uninteresting factual errors for the benefit of your collective E-Penis') I'm not saying anything wrong with that. I was commenting on Nutty Roux who believes I have a 'sad inner life' for doing the exact same thing you lot do with regards to Conservapedia. To be honest, I find your hypocrisy, double standards, and attempts to laugh off criticism hilarious and exhilirating. The reason I'm so hostile when I come here is because I tend to come online whenever I'm in the middle of something laborious or stressful. It really makes me laugh my gut off when I think about the great material you lot would make for an absurdist, satirical novelist. Priceless really. MarcusCicero 17:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, looks like I was wrong. We just got boring self-justification instead.  Maybe next time. --Kels 18:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)