Talk:Squaring the circle
Since this article shows no visible signs of being on mission, I vote we delete it. Sam Tally-ho! 06:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It's sort of on mission (joking about the habits of stupid/stubborn people), but it's pretty much entirely snark. Haven't read it all. Funspace?--"Shut up, Brx." 06:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Reference 2 no longer leads to anything valid.ZeroIsLogic (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
y=4x is not a vertical line and does not pass through (4,0). — Unsigned, by: 24.30.98.166 / talk / contribs
The reason this is a "problem" is never stated.[edit]
Aside from mentioning a desire to make Pi rational, why is this an "issue"? Surely there are other reasons for cranks to consider this important, and I thought that the article implied such. — Unsigned, by: 73.148.28.17 / talk / contribs 19:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Use of ad hominem emotive terms is irrational.[edit]
Why so cranky? For a wiki labeled as 'Rational,' the use of emotive and denigrating terms seems to be the antithesis thereof... But, that's none of my business, right?
Not everyone who is interested in the subject (whether they think it can be done or not) is a 'moron' or a 'crank.' Some folks simply enjoy tilting at windmills (for sport), regardless of whether it is a futile mission, or not. Calling such people "cranks" is simply rude, and makes the layman running across this site think it's full of cranky, irrational people with their own biases and knee-jerk over-reactions. Frankly, it makes me roll my eyes and take this wiki non-seriously, if folks can't be serious and objective about the subject(s) herein, and feel the need to be rude or denigrating to others, or engage in name-calling. That is neither rational, nor helpful. What is this, a schoolyard full of insecure bullies? 50.53.86.214 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing neutrality with objectivity and rationality. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)