| Article: Ontological Argument
|
Score: 0.5 Ontologically prone teapots
|
| Nominated by:
|
Jlsmith 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
|
For: 2.5
|
- For. 74.230.122.208 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hehe. NaturalBornKieler (talk)
 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- For. 72.139.0.168 12:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- For. 144.82.106.148 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
|
Against: 2
|
- against. i feel like this could have been drawn out / presented better. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Against. For some reason, I think an article on the Ontological Argument really needs to use dry wit to skewer the argument. This article seems a little too... exuberant. Also, I don't think the FSM should be in there.
 pillow talk 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
- I corrected a few capitalization thingies and, for consistency, formatted Anselmo's argument to match the later argument by Stirner. Not sure about my vote yet, though. I seems to have fallen into my oatmeal and gotten all sticky; I can't tell if it's yea or nay until I sponge it off. ----OEJ 13:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- 'abstain. No pictures, to start with. 206.213.157.4 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- LARGE COMMENT: Is there a Pee Review for this? I couldn't find one, and if not, it's an invalid nomination. --Mr. Monkey
 Pant-hoot here. 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 Abstain. - As per my review — Sir Sycamore (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
Abstain. - As per my review — 
