Talk:Gone but not left

Whenever I edit it means I have given in to temptation to come back. It's only 'cause I'm not used to this. I'll go away soon, when I get used to not editing. --58.168.187.38 04:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Removed text.
Some on the far-left'' here have been intolerant of them at times. However, at Rational Wiki our goal is to shed the light of rationality on matters, not attack others because of what they believe, so long as they are not wing-nuts, Schlafly variety, or blatant racist trolls. Our editors are encouraged to seek to convince and/or discuss issues amicably, not denigrate and attack those with whom we disagree.''

I have removed the above text, basically because it's not true or it goes beyond a description of the phenomenon. I think we have been amazingly tolerant of the global warming conspiracy theorists and various denialists who have come our way. Furthermore, if people have have really irrational ideas I see no reason not to point out that such ideas are stupid. --Bobbing up 05:34, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Right-wing snap
"The users who tend to fit into this category are right-wing." (paraphrased)

It seems like an uncalled for insult to conservatives, not based on anything but maybe three examples at most. 20:14, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


 * It is a simple observation, not an attempt to insult. And is it really an insult to say someone has "gone but not left"?  Let's see if we can remember the examples...  ħ uman  20:40, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Move?
I notice this was moved but then brought back. It's entirely about RationalWiki so really belongs in the RW space or at RWW. 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. This should be at RWW.   06:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be at RWW or project space. Regardless, it needs to leave mainspace. 17:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a project or site discussion. At best it could go in essay; but I don't think there's enough here to be worth keeping.  It's woefully out of date, & the claims about the political leanings of those who do this seem tenuous at best.  Even at RWW it would need a rewrite, & the subject is already covered by their "living dead" stub.  I reckon leave it up to the RWW whether they want to copy any of it over, & delete it from here in a week or so.   17:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It details an internet phenonomon and is a clear example of woo. And it most certainly not a preserve of the right, what a stupid statement. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a clear example of any of our definitions of woo. 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also redundant, since we already have an article on LANCB. Röstigraben (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sad to note that I was the original stub creator here. But I rather think that its time is now up.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)