|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Fun talk:Evolution
What is really sad is that you could reference every second word in this article with actual quotes from Conservapedia, from Satan to Andy peer-reviewing the Bible (Liberal parables don't belong to it). (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 05:53, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Genius! Pure genius. That;ll teach those evul scientists what's what!falco1029 22:37, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Truth about evolution section[edit]
I don't see anything in it. Unless my installation of Flash Player is screwed up. --GastonRabbit (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Atribution[edit]
This was a good faith addition by EddieMonah to the Evolution article. I moved it here as it fits better. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Evolution Prohibited[edit]
I just got done adding a section for fun, and I mentioned it in the talk page of the serious evolution page, as follows...
On the subject of the evolution of these wiki pages being a good example of simple-to-understand evolution that might encourage people who think there's no such thing as evolution to reconsider their working definition if enough people point such things out to them as evolution, I added a section to the Fun:Evolution page which I think humorously illustrates my point. Fun:Evolution#Real_Evolution_Doesn't_Happen. --
Before I would even try the link from there, it was deleted here, with no discussion. Really? Is that how we do things here? WOuld somebody PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME how this is RATIONAL?
DonaldKronos (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I explained in my edit comment. A concern troll grinding an axe is neither fun nor funny. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that pretty much covers it. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I will attempt to edit it and make it funnier. If I fail, please consider editing it yourself to make it more humorous rather than deleting it, as the concept should at least be good for a laugh. Yes, I do have a point to make, but that's not off-limits to humor. George Carlin generally did a rather nice job of it. DonaldKronos (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- DK, let's cut to the chase... you were pretty much given the broom on WP for your editing of the evolution article, and you're not fairing much better here. Give it a rest. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- EC. The only way in which the "concept is good for a laugh" is that your trollish persistence in arguing...well, whatever the hell it is you've been trying to argue is marginally bemusing. Carlin was a professional comedian. Don't give up your day job. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you're quite welcome to censor the revised version also, if you really think it's necessary. Just leave this link to its fossil record in this talk page, in case anyone disagrees with you, besides me. #Real Evolution Doesn't Happen DonaldKronos (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- EC. The only way in which the "concept is good for a laugh" is that your trollish persistence in arguing...well, whatever the hell it is you've been trying to argue is marginally bemusing. Carlin was a professional comedian. Don't give up your day job. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- DK, let's cut to the chase... you were pretty much given the broom on WP for your editing of the evolution article, and you're not fairing much better here. Give it a rest. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I will attempt to edit it and make it funnier. If I fail, please consider editing it yourself to make it more humorous rather than deleting it, as the concept should at least be good for a laugh. Yes, I do have a point to make, but that's not off-limits to humor. George Carlin generally did a rather nice job of it. DonaldKronos (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that pretty much covers it. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Not Funny[edit]
Okay, so I added a section. It was deleted less than 2 minutes later. I was told the reason was that is wasn't funny, and that it had nothing to do with anything but the content, but I was also reminded by a different person of the trouble I was given in Wikipedia for attempting to find some acceptable way of representing evolution on the "evolution" page, and the person who deleted it and said it was only because it wasn't funny, added some things which indicate to me that was actually not the reason. I edited the new section, from the fossil record, to try to make it more funny, and asked if they did not see the humor in it to please leave it long enough to find out if someone else might. It was deleted in less than 6 minutes. Okay.... I tried. I'm not complaining. I'm just explaining. If anyone wants to investigate, I would highly encourage it. It seems to me that undoing hard work in wikis is far too easy to do, and taken far too lightly, but that is just my opinion. I have better things to do.
DonaldKronos (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Great. Go do them. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. Exactly. Considering the complaint about my contribution to this "fun" page was that it supposedly seemed I have an "axe to grind", just like everything else on the page, my input is obviously of no value here. Nor the input of anyone else who isn't perfectly content with the status quo, for that matter. Might just as well delete the entire page, or for that matter, the entire site, with that attitude. DonaldKronos (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)