Conservapedia talk:Rant according to Andrew

Awww, I was quoted. I feel so special... Kalliumtalk 11:13, 11 December 2008 (EST)

This has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many steps. JazzMan 14:59, 11 December 2008 (EST)


 * It can be boiled down to "You disagree with me, therefore you're evil" but overall I think it's a good snarky look at how Andy deals with "rants." What do you think needs to be removed?  Stile4aly 15:02, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * Nothing in particular, I guess. I was mostly adding my own snark. If we are going for "accurate" we might want to strike steps 2-5, and 8-10. And "Glance at user contributions" could be stricken from step 7 and the whole step can be combined with 5. Thus we are left with:


 * Check the length of the post to establish that it qualifies as a rant (> 3 or 4 lines, or until it gets blurry).
 * Reply along the lines of "I'm not going to waste time reading your liberal rant, you're clueless", etc, making sure to accuse user of "talk, talk, talk". Define all talk as "unsubstantive". Declare that all non-talk contributions are frivolous.
 * Return to important duties of brainwashing youngsters, copying random chunks of the internet, and so on, and so on.


 * Seems pretty accurate to me. We have to keep in mind that the use of big numbers might be confusing. (The whole less than 1% thing which is really 89%.) JazzMan 18:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)


 * Fair enough. I still want to reinsert the bit about tiny genitals, but waiting to hear back from Kallium first.  Stile4aly 11:06, 12 December 2008 (EST)