Hi Bob. Is there any reason for the Hoare's dictum page to exist other than to provide a link to your blog? You don't appear to have made any effort to link it to an existing part of the wiki. Also, just because you can paraphrase a quote that very clearly isn't actually intended to be applied to atheism or theism into an argument against complex, illogical arguments doesn't mean you have a particularly good reason to promote it here. Furthermore, the modified argument is really just a refutation of Argumentum verbosium, which we already have a page for. Unless you're proposing that the incredibly large number of irrelevant quotes you could modify into a relevant argument should all receive pages here?
For example, the Cookie Monster has famously sung, "C is for cookie, that's good enough for me". With a little adaptation, you can make it "G is for God, that's good enough for me". I don't see any reason to make a page to refute that particular argument for the existence of God. I'm not even sure what category it falls into. Argument from design? From desire? From nonsense? A horrible misinterpretation of the argument from goodness? Jdog 02:04, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
This is my first addition to this wiki, so I'm probably doing it wrong. Not linked with the rest of the wiki? Good point--never occurred to me.
I thought that this concept was a useful addition to counterapologetics. If you say it's not, delete it. Seidensticker
I'm a bit concerned that Jdog may be discouraging potentially useful contributors by being over critical. There are no clear rules about when external links become spam, different wikis have different policies. I personally think this link should stay because it is a well reasoned website promoting atheism as this site does. Proxima Centauri 03:01, 23 October 2011 (CDT)