Talk:Lawsonomy

	This religion related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

I could have sworn we had this already. Maybe all these new-age grab-bag philosophies all run into one after a while. ^{— Unsigned, by: Totnesmartin / talk / contribs}

A stub created from material lifted directly from another wiki. Super, CUR. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Better a stub (that is on-mission) then nothing at all. -- 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He has a point--even a stub is better than nothing. And Lawsonomy's pretty obscure these days. Wait til someone tries to get Lawsonomy taught in science classes, THEN this article will flourish. --Gulik 18:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If the stub is lifted wholesale it should at least be credited. AS it is, CUR is claiming that he "wrote" this, which would raise his credibility somewhat. (well, about 1.5 cm, but still...) ħuman 06:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it. -- 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

cult?

are idiots who make up their own religions - could they be considered cult? I mean, cult technically requires a cult following but, there must be some way to classify all these one-off religions.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to admit

I've heard of crazier religions. --194.81.33.226 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)