Conservapedia talk:Conservapedian fallacy

I copyedited this a bit, but, wow, what does this article actually "say"????? It reads like utter bullshit right now. IE, it makes no point, and addresses no issue, has no footnotes or references. I am tempted to mark it with the "delete" template...  ħ uman  02:07, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * I think it would be more diplomatic, and sparing to Defiant Element's feelings (they are only a newcomer, after all), if the article was moved to their userspace.  02:43, 24 January 2009 (EST)


 * It does have wit, very dry wit. Let's water it and see what happens. I think it has possibilities.


 * Besides, it'll drive Andrew nuts trying to figure out the syllogisms.


 * --UnicornTapestry 03:10, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * Well, wit (dry or not) was kinda what I was goin' for, so I'm glad someone saw that. Regardless, I have no particular issue with this being moved to my userspace.   14:45, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * I guess it's just too dry for me. I still can't even understand what this article says (maybe my bairns is too small?).  Can anyone improve it?  Perhaps it should be moved by its primary author to "essay" and expanded, where it might flourish?  ħ uman  01:19, 25 January 2009 (EST)