Fun talk:Cat

Shouldn't this glorious work of art be living out its golden years in "fun"? I'm not sure the "two young earths" joke is enough to keep it anywhere near "mission"... human  10:17, 24 January 2008 (EST)


 * Heh! Of course it should. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. Susan  Purrrrrrr  10:56, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Do cats have souls?
This is mostly a test to see if it is actually possible to edit rationalwiki, or only a false illusion presented to those who do not actually edit something. If a sandbox exists it may not be a true test since it might be set up differently. I will delete this test in a few seconds. 75.164.251.69 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a letter in The Times (of London) of today about a 15th century church discussion on the matter - it was decided that plants and animals did have souls but at a simpler level than humans. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone gets their own personal RationalWiki. All the other users are part of the illusion. 2.126.237.115 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And 'persistent nuisances' are banished to a Hobbesian wiki where there is a war of all spammers, uncreative editors, trolls and the rest of the crew against each other - and fully-trained cat-typists wandering around to transform anything witty (so 'I am important' becomes 'I am ...')

Creatures and plants do have souls or spirits of sorts (as do the things whose main intent is to get lost when being looked for/to trip you up).82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Obligatory xkcd Ref
https://xkcd.com/231/ All things are inevitable. Including links to xkcd. Chair tater (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ninja cats
Do someone remembers those animes where a character attacks other and the latter is fine until it collapses of worse victim of the former?. Well, it seems cats are very used to that -it seems they've not damaged you when they use their claws until it starts to bleed later and pain arrives- --Panzerfaust (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Another website
Is this website too 'cute' to be on mission? Anna Livia (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant and stupid
this article is. 22:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when has that stopped articles being created on RW (and elsewhere in the Wikiverse)? Anna Livia (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Plague statement
Could the word 'catastrophe' be worked into the statement? Anna Livia (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion
In order to delete an article there should be a discussion about it, right? 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have and article about goats. In mainspace.  Actually if I find the energy this week I might draft a proposal for a mainspace cleanup --Hastur! (talk)  14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hit me up if you need help  14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That was my opinion, hence the undelete. I personally don't mind either keeping the article or funspacing it. No reason to instadelete it. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and moved this to funspace where it should remain without doing any harm to anyone. No need to delete it or even talk about deleting it. Spud (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
Personal attack on whom? No one is identified. Furthermore the remark abou not recognizing humour is the height of irony.




 * You inserted some pretty problematic claims about cat-lovers and clearly didn't understand that "facts about cats you won't believe" was just a joke. And you edit-warred. And put some passive-aggressive concern trolling into your edit rationales, which doesn't much help my perception of you. And you clearly can't even be arsed to sign your posts. Need I go on? -- Goatspeed. 20:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

“pretty problematic claims”?
“pretty problematic claims”? You have got to be kidding me. It’s you who has no sense of humour, and you who can’t recognize a joke. Yes do go on. I’m quite impressed already by your cursing and accusations of concern trolling and passive aggressive behavior as well as your mastery of signing posts. Evidently even a website that prides itself on rational behavior has its share of those ruled by their emotions. 174.198.195.227 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC) (Did I do that correctly?)


 * Your edits were not funny; they were spiteful and trollish and don't belong in a fun page. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Spiteful and trollish better describes blocking someone without explanation or warning. It’s interesting how you assume bad faith and attempt to judge what is funny.   Tell me, is the remark about the city of Boston in that section “spiteful and trollish”? 2600:1002:B12F:B5FC:80C8:1CB2:8496:4C44 (talk)


 * Again, throwing around the word "troll" towards me specifically, an established user whose judgement RW editors mostly trust, doesn't help my perception of you at all; after all, assuming bad faith without any proof is never good form. Do you really think insulting me is gonna make us let you continue shitting on our site? -- Goatspeed. 21:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Greeting new users with curses, blocks, insults and hypocrisy does little to help my perception of you. Perhaps encourage people to post on your site, in true wiki spirit?  Now can you rationally answer my question?  Is the remark about the city of Boston spiteful and trolling?  2600:1002:B12F:B5FC:80C8:1CB2:8496:4C44 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC). (Gee, I sure hope I got the indenting and signature correct or I’ll get another unhinged rant in reply “Rational”wiki, indeed)


 * As I further review the history of this page, I find much of its content was generated before it was moved to the Fun section. Which makes me speculate on whether it was developed to be funny or simply because its authors wish it were the truth 2600:1002:B12F:B5FC:80C8:1CB2:8496:4C44 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If by "encouraging people to post on [our] site in true wiki spirit" you mean "letting people shit on our articles with obviously bad-faith edits/ideologically-motivated whitewashing", no thank you. That's not what "rational" actually means. -- Goatspeed.  00:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

For God's Sake
It's funspace, why is everyone so ANGRY?IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Has
 * Oh. It's just some dipshit, drive-by, humorless BoN concern troll who tried to put spiteful attacks into this article, and then later tried to whitewash our anarchism article, indicating that we've got ourselves yet another drive-by young anarchist tankie with more passion than sense. And then threw around accusations of me being the troll, starting a huge, Drink!-able fight above. Oh joy. -- Goatspeed. 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How on earth can someone even be an anarchist tankie? Someone's got their words mixed up here, lol --Zoe Kirk (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As you can see Frank, the ONLY angry person is the one above me, whose replies consist almost entirely of insults, curses and unfounded accusations, along with what I suppose is some kind of threat, that I can’t continue posting on “our” page until I impress him or her.
 * Now, this unhinged individual is throwing around accusations of vandalism on another page, evidently seeing my hand in ever edit he or she doesn’t like. I suppose a certain amount of emotion is inevitable on even a rational website, although I didn’t expect outright paranoia.
 * Also if this individual had bothered with some research instead of hysterics he or she would have noticed a different computer address on the edits that appeared on the other page. Evidently, my new friend believes that I’m too unskilled to sign correctly but at the same time am cunning enough to understand how to post from two different computer addresses

2600:1002:B12F:B5FC:80C8:1CB2:8496:4C44 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC) (continuing to hope I get this right)

Seriously, what's wrong with this page
It keeps getting vandalized and protected. Why? GeeJayK (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)