User talk:202.161.3.104

Yes, this is rationalwiki. We expect rational arguments. You can put that segment back in if you can argue for it in the talk page for the Dawkins article. Also, if you're going to be putting that kind of stuff in, we'd like it if you get yourself an account so we know who we're talking to. I was going to put a template up, but I'll give you another chance to make an edit before you do that, because I'm a big old softie. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) Welcome, anonymous user. I'm also not very fond of that part of the Richard Dawkins article, but other voices here chose to keep it in (see the talk page).

Anyhoo, why not stick around & make a name for yourself? :-)  w easeLOId ~ 09:16, 22 October 2008 (EDT)


 * I added a disclaimer to that section. Генгис    09:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
 * And then I added a link to the article which explains why I found it objectionable. I think we can leave it in now. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)