Conservapedia talk:Call me, I'll sue, Andy Schlafly

Andy's not a PhD is he? He's a JD. Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Are you joking? If there is a mistake please correct it. I feel sure this should stay in RationalWiki. It's referenced. I started a new article partly because the Assfly article is getting a bit long. Also I suspect others will find ways of adding to the article. You must get regular careful legal advice about this Wiki. Those who advise you may well add more interesting stuff to this. Proxima Centauri 15:26, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

And let's not fergit his assault on reason during the FBI debacle...-- -PalMD ^{--4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain} 15:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Title

You know, I can't say that I care much for the title of this article.--Bob^{bing up} 16:01, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, Oh, I have some! How about, "Reality too liberal? Call me, I'll sue!"-- -PalMD ^{--4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain} 16:09, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

The content isn't much to write home about either. This certainly doesn't belong in the mainspace. ħuman 22:22, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

What are you talking about? This slanderous article alleges that Schlafly is a dishonest, immoral, and unethical. Seems like just the kind of article RashunalWiki needs. Bohdan2 22:36, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Human: one word -- Fun. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 23:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Eh, I think if it were fleshed out a bit, and written as well as Ames' blog, which it is mostly based on, it would be a decent addition in the CP namespace. Especially if it had a descriptive title. Trouble is, the only thing I'm motivated to do is hit the delete button. And that would be rude to do before it's moved... ħuman 23:57, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Delete

I ended up at this article from the snarky version of the Andy Schlafly page. Immediatly apparent is that the article lacks goat and some other things:

• Content is repeated elsewhere, such as Andy Schlafly or Richard Lenski
• Anything new can be merged into those articles
• It's very poorly written in comparison to the other articles

Bondurant 08:41, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

There's been no work on it in the last few months, and thus the old objections still apply. On the other hand, I rather like it, and it's a nice bit of fleshing out from the original article. I'd say keep it. Researcher 18:09, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's kind of quaint. And the writing style is... well, classic Proxy. A sort of gentle naivete combined with full and furious understanding. It's not actually poor writing, just a bit different from what most of our pieces are like. I see no real reason to delete. ħuman 18:26, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Gone. - User $\pi$ 01:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean by that, Pi? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:43, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I see. You mean you're going to delete it. By the way, I retroactively endorse deleting this article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:44, 28 October 2008 (EDT)