Talk:Søren Kierkegaard

There is a hilarious circularity to the structure of this first draft - the "thought" section is phrased to follow logically from the end of the "influence" section, and yet should precede it, sensibly. I am scrathin' mah head to figure out a way to reconcile this while not knowing enough to really alter anything (ie, I gotta work with the facts and sentences pretty much as they are). human 12:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

That's because I just started writing sort of in the middle of everything. The obvious solution is that I should keep writing. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:11, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Weaseloid: There's no shortage of mainspace articles which discuss the pronunciation of their subjects. It's informative. Ergo: good reason to include it, inclusion is accepted by convention, and certainly no reason not to include back. Reverted. Frostbyte (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Kierk & Scalia

I did not know any of this about Kierkegaard, thanks. I"d read his works, but never really studied him. I did like this concept, though, and think stupid scalia should bother to understand that all people make choices, and all choices have repercussions and the potential for regret. Sadly, Scalia thinks women who have regrets about abortion should be protected in the future from having to have regrets. (Ok, that made no sense,... not my fault, really!)--WaitingforGodot 10:13, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

That reads like a PC joynt... ħuman 21:20, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Sources

I'll go through tomorrow and add some sources Anim (Carfa) 14:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)