Talk:Steven Anderson/Archive1
Delete[edit]
Delete. Тytalk 02:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- He has gotten some news coverage[1]. But he is not now infamous like Phelps and Peters, and there is something to be said for keeping obscurities like him obscure and hopefully irrelevant. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- My problem with the article was that it is completely unsourced, so that it would be far more difficult to verify each specific claim in it than to write a completely new article.
ListenerXTalkerX 02:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have a similar sentiment. Тytalk 02:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Some of this nonsense may actually rise to the level of being defamatory, who knows when there's not a single cite. I'm deleting it. If someone with rights wants to build on this and write an article about Steven Anderson that doesn't look like it came from the pen of a disgruntled 6th grader, make sure to read and cite the massive corpus of 6 news articles there is on this nobody.
02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Some of this nonsense may actually rise to the level of being defamatory, who knows when there's not a single cite. I'm deleting it. If someone with rights wants to build on this and write an article about Steven Anderson that doesn't look like it came from the pen of a disgruntled 6th grader, make sure to read and cite the massive corpus of 6 news articles there is on this nobody.
- I have a similar sentiment. Тytalk 02:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- My problem with the article was that it is completely unsourced, so that it would be far more difficult to verify each specific claim in it than to write a completely new article.
There are citations being added right now. user:Aurelius2015
use of humor on this site[edit]
I just came here from Google to see if this Steven Anderson dipshit actually had any bona fides, and was disappointed to see that this is more of a humor/snark site than an actual resource I can use to point people towards in order to learn more about skepticism, rationality, logical fallacies, and examples to which one might relate when on a path from dogmatic, possibly religious, thinking to one of free thought.
I'm not bothering to look further. I'm assuming this page represents the whole. Name that logical fallacy. — Unsigned, by: Skeptimus Prime / talk / contribs
- Three quick points.
- You created an account solely to bitch about how you dislike this site? That has to be one of the most wasteful things I've seen anyone do all week.
- You should have capitalized the first letter in your topic header.
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
- Thank you for completely ignoring this post. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sexism Omitted[edit]
You have left out Anderson's rampant sexism, which is even worse than his stand on homosexuality. He believes women should not have paying jobs, should not have the right to vote, should not be in the public sphere at all, and girls should remain at home until they get married. SN — Unsigned, by: 70.56.31.191 / talk
- You are free to edit this page and add it, if you want. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)