Talk:Star Wars Theorem

Being that I put the Mission template on the article, I should provide reasons for doing so.

I do not feel that this article could ever be relevant in any possible way to RationalWiki's goals. Unlike the other "laws" that have articles on RationalWiki, this has no relevance to debates on pseudoscience or even Conservapedia. That it deals entirely with "fictional works" and not pseudo-anything should communicate that clearly enough. 00:58, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Agreed, seconded, priorly approved destruction, whatever, etc. Star fucking Wars? Come on...  ħ uman  01:28, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Should I wait for a third to weigh in, or should I delete it now?  01:33, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * How about waiting 24 hours? Just to let more users see this on RC? In case some idiot gives a shit?  Hahahahaha. Does anything even link here?  ħ uman  01:42, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Thirded. Is that enough?  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  02:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * For me it is. It's only linked from Internet Law.  It's a neologism no one ever uses anywhere.  ħ uman  03:02, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I think we should keep this talk page, so that way there is at least a record of this discussion recorded for posterity. 03:14, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What was the theorem? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 03:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Quote, "In any discussion of a fictional work on the internet, a comparison will inevitably be made to a plot line in Star Wars."  03:25, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Some crap about "you" = "Hans Solo"? Or some equal tripe?  ħ uman  03:30, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it's more like: "This isn't the talk page you're looking for." --Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  03:36, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You made me laugh, out loud. Hehe.  ħ uman  03:42, 22 June 2008 (EDT)