There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Molehill mountaineering
While I'm confident this will attract a delete tag at some point, I have to defend it by pointing out that we should really look in to acknowledging and developing terms that don't "officially" exist providing they have some use. I quite like this one and it has stuck with me since originally reading the article some time ago. It's a shame Brooker didn't go into more detail on this bit. pathetic 23:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a fine article. In fact, powerful new terms such as this are created geometrically as the inevitable triumph of liberalism over conservatism continues.... Se7enEight 23:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps[edit]
... The molehills can be bigger than they seem, as they serve as the foci/lightning rods for a more widespread range of popular views and discussions that would otherwise be 'below the media radar.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Not for inclusion[edit]
This and this. Anna Livia (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)