Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn/Archive 2

message: Holy cr**, that's a word? --Tzarius 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, OED and everything: Disputatiousness: the quality of being disputatious. --maru 04:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's in Heritage too, found via dictionary.com : "Inclined to dispute. See Synonyms at argumentative." Seems to be a perfectly cromulent word. --Bryan 05:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ("Cromulent"=Made-up words in The Simpsons#Cromulent; don't bother looking in your handy-dandy compact OED.) --maru 13:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's in Webster's. The joke's on the Simpsons, their made-up word has become common enough that now it's real. :)  --Bryan 15:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatiousness 

message: This article has been removed from the Good Articles list because it fails to cite its references.  Several of the images used by this article also fail to cite their source or have potential copyright problems. --Allen3 talk 17:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: This page could be excellent.
The phrase "Invisible Pink Unicorn", and phrases like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" are very interesting to syntax and semantics specialists alike .. I'd love to edit this page and properly sort it out - no more pictures of invisible green unicorns .. just an entry about the phrase "invisible green unicorns" and a proper discussion of what it means ... from every point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hackershandbook (talk • contribs) .
:This is not an article about the phrase, as such, it is an article about the (fictional) entity the phrase refers to. There are articles about semantics and syntax and you are welcome to add to them. You might start with Colorless green ideas sleep furiously which is an article about that phrase and which links to lots of interesting things. Jonathunder 22:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Serious Comment

message: Damn you Steve Eley! Kyaa the Catlord 11:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Eley

message: Do we need 2 blank images? The one with the alpha channel seems clever enough, can't we combine the comments for the two to have just one blank picture? Kuroune 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't blank images, they're images of the IPU Bmearns 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I once saw an episode of Higglytown Heroes, where there was some thump noise. And twinbkle suggested it was an invisible pink unicorn who got trapped. That's stupid and referential. Whatever. Homfrog 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higglytown Heroes 

message: The article seems rather one sided, and doesn't mention anything about theists respond to statements made using the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  It's clearly not perfect, I can see a flaw in the arguement just by reading this article.DevinOfGreatness 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Original Poster means that theres nothing regarding theists (e.g. Chrisitans et al) and their criticisms against the IPU. Jacobshaven3 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti, Russel's teapot and all the other invisible, scentless, colourless deities only make sense in a positivist framework, so I think it should have a criticism section. You don't have to be a theist to criticise positivism, right? --193.203.157.188 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still hard to formulate. IPU's official argumentation is completely anti-positivist. You're right that this is only to shed light on the absurdity of the anti-positivism of other religions, but since it would be theoretically possible to really believe in IPU, any anti-positivist criticism would be a critique of IPU's followers, but absolutely not of IPU "theology" itself. Malc82 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't think other religions are anti-empirical. As far as I know, the Catholic Church are firm believers in natural theology. They just don't value it higher than their sacred texts or dogma or whatever. --Onias 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, the Catholic church has made a kind of "peace" with science for practical reasons, but they still hold positivist beliefs like the Lourdes miracles or canonization. Besides, natural theology could at best be an argument for any god, extending it to believe that this god must be the god of the bible is positivist in nature. Malc82 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: I cleaned up the external links. One was broken (*Alt.Atheism FAQ) I think its because that site went down after Katrina. We can put it back up when the site returns. Another link was removed because it was just a listing with all the same external links. 
Silknscarlet 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I just want to congradulate whoever evolved my rather poorly-worded sentence about how the IPU is just as credible as God, in the first and second sentences of the Dogma section, into just what I was trying to make it. My first attempt at describing this was:
It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist, thereby making the point that simply by claiming that something cannot be sensed in any way, shape or form, such as God in Theistic beleifs, someone could claim that any divine object or entity existed and argue that no one can prove this theory right, but no one could prove it wrong, either, and saying that this is reason to beleive in said divine object/entity - which is the main point of the satire, namely pointing out that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has all the credibility of God from Theistic beleifs, and that it is no different to beleive in the IPU than to beleive in God.
Now, I was trying my darndest to convey my point, but I kind of tangled it up a bit and made it one huge run-on sentence. I improved it as much as I could, but when I couldn't make it any better I simply posted it. Then I come back and find that someone or several people have evolved it into something wonderfully better that carries my point perfectly:
It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist.  This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God, i.e. that because God is omnipresent, inability to detect him does not reduce his believability.  The IPU serves as a parodic demonstration that utilising a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's nature is ultimately absurd; that by this logic the IPU is just as credible as God.
This is a perfect example of the improvement system in Wikipedia. Someone adds something poor, other people improve it, detangle it, punctuate it, fix it, and integrate it until the valid point is given a clearer, easier to understand voice. I just wanted to say thank you, and extend my congrats for making my point so much clearer. -Jetman123 07:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did some digging in the edit history and found that it was Irrevenant who actually improved my badly-worded sentence. Great work! -Jetman123 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First/second sentence of Dogma 

message: The IPU logo shown in the "Iconography" section bears a striking resemblance to the emblem for the Klingon empire, as any casual observer familiar with Star Trek's iconography can quickly ascertain.  Coincidence or not, I feel this is worth mentioning.  I've twice tried to place mention of this fact in the "Iconography" section of the article, but each time my mention was quickly edited back out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermw (talk • contribs) 
:It's probably only worth mentioning if it's something that has been commented on in some significant way in external sources. I don't see your edits in the history anywhere (I recommend using the edit summary field in future), so I can't tell if you included any references. Bryan 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Klingon Connection?