Talk:Do you want to be descended from a monkey?

I kind'a think that there should be a better title for this - but I'm not sure what.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone is making abunch of articles with random titles that need to be rounded up. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sub-section of How come there are still monkeys. ^gnostic 19:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be. Or part of a new article "Questions dumb theists think are clever". Like "How come there are still fish?"--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, I can definitely see that as quite an awesome category. ^moral 20:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - but it works better as an article title. Otherwise we get articles titled like this one. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps dumb questions and make a bit of a project of it. ^sshole 20:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

> Forum:EvoWiki ports Blue (pester) 20:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This shouldn't be in how come there are still monkeys because it's a completely different stupid question about monkeys. It should be included as an example in argument from adverse consequences, with Rev Moon's quote (from here) & a short explanation of why it's silly. We don't need the rest of this, which is just a series of laboured counterexamples appealing to the same fallacy. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to descend from a monkey? No; having ascended this monkey, I am enjoying the ride. Giddyup ! Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, holding onto their tails are useful when descending, but I must say, when descending from monkeys, be careful of random droppings. (at least the title could be well written. This doesn't bode well for EvoWiki. grins)GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 23:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

'Depends upon the monkey' :) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete tag.

I do want to see this disappear. it's embarrassing. Ken-like in substance. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The best thing is the weasel's comment above. Burn. Тy^talk 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aye. Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone here

object to being related to [1] or [2]? (Search 'cute monkey' on the web for more - you know you want to). 109.150.43.10 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)