Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive1

"Knackers" versus "Knickers..."
Well, shut my mouth...PFoster 15:27, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Beoch. Doggedpersistance  15:33, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

A kick in the knackers sounds good to me. Keep»»» going ««« 16:29, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
 * knickers, knockers, knackers... undergarments, bewbies (and testes?), what? A horse is said to be "knackered" when it is lame, so he "knackered the religionists by knocking them in the knickers" would at least be grammatically correct. human be in 20:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Baal-damned brits...--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Marriage
Something less Serious and, I Hope, in Keeping with the Spirit of the Site.--Tolerance 12:12, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * So would you accept doing the same thing to a Biblical person? I reverted it. Now, I will put it in the wandalism section. --"C, U Rthe,. 12:24, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why would that be vandalism? It's not fake (best source I could find for now) --  Nx  talk 12:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Original is here, but for some reason it doesn't like me and blanks the page after loading it. -- Nx  talk 12:33, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I was Actually trying to be a Productive Member. Is such a light-hearted but True thing not what is wanted on the site?--Tolerance 12:35, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Though maybe we shouldn't have the whole list of pros and cons in the article, as it's almost as long as the rest, but instead have it as a reference? -- Nx  talk 12:46, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I thought that is showed a Picture of him as a Human Being. Would it be possible to put it in two Columns?--Tolerance 12:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry, Tolerance. I thought it was vandalism. Obviously I was wrong. Whoops. --"C, U Rthe,. 12:53, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think it's quite amusing, and see no real need for columns - since several of the lines are quite long, it wouldn't really save much space. It would, however, be nice to have a footnote for it at some point.  Tolerance, surely you got this from some source you can list here?  ħ uman  14:28, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Gave it my Best Shot. Heard the Story on a Radio Programme and thought it was funny.  Looked it up and Put It In.--Tolerance 14:45, 28 February 2009 (EST)

last revert
was kind of funny and made a good point. 200 years since darwin was born? we hardly idolize anyone like that.. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block 01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for this SHITE!
Thank you again for this site! I find it shameful that this great man, this incredible scientist of biology have close to nothing of information on him on this site! He did save us from ignorant bliss and falsehood of the morbid religions and have helped biology fight diseases and etc because of his work et al!

any way - KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! I applaud this site once again!


 * I agree with BoN above; this article is pitiful. It mentions more-or-less in passing that Darwin came up with a theory, & that creationists don't think much of him, both of which should be fairly important issues in terms of the site missions, but instead the rest of the page is taken up with an anecdote about his thoughts on marriage, something which IMO should only be mentioned in passing within a decent biography section.  + There's only one citation & it's the Daily Mail.  Not bronze; shit.  We can & should do better.  20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go copy-paste the relevant Wikipedia article, that should do the trick. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 03:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)