Talk:Explanation-as-argument straw man

Um, there doesn't seem to be much point to this. Is more forthcoming, like perhaps some real-world examples? ħuman 01:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Human's immaturity

Ha ha ha ha! Human just can't stand me making constructive contributions to this wiki. It upsets the hell out of him. Now he's even taken it to this article. [1] [2] [3]

Oh and by the way, this is an explanation, not an argument. Research psychologist (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Care factor = 0. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I just can't stand when I come across illiteracy and incompetence. This is not "constructive", it's gibberish. ħuman 03:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! I see that my constructive contributions have upset you enough to characterize them with childish insults! Research psychologist (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange claim considering the header you created for this section. Are you even going to bother to make the example in the article make sense? ħuman 03:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) +1 for deletion. It seems to be more concern trolling a poorly formed attempt to credit ad hominem attacks, if anything. Even if it had to do with straw men, it'd fit in the the page about them. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Tag

Seconded. Ace will third it. I will delete it. P-Foster (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But Repsy still needs to make three more sections, lest we not realize we're all immature... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha! All of the people that support deletion are just the same old people that indiscriminately reverted my edits on the metapedia article! How pathetic...!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! You guys are too much. Research psychologist (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It was rubbish.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)