Talk:Clam chowder: Difference between revisions
→Oh no you didn't.: new section |
→ATTENTION bibliomaniac.: new section |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
When a suspicious statement in an article is tagged with {{citation needed}}, I fail to understand how anyone can be so hopelessly unintelligent as to think it's in any way, shape, or form okay to remove it if you're not actually including a citation. If you're so sure that in some long ago age clam chowder was clear and restaurant patrons added cream themselves, find a respectable source that agrees with you. When you inevitably can't do that, because this idea is straight up nonsense, you need to let the citation tag stay or admit defeat and delete the garbage you dropped upon this innocent article. |
When a suspicious statement in an article is tagged with {{citation needed}}, I fail to understand how anyone can be so hopelessly unintelligent as to think it's in any way, shape, or form okay to remove it if you're not actually including a citation. If you're so sure that in some long ago age clam chowder was clear and restaurant patrons added cream themselves, find a respectable source that agrees with you. When you inevitably can't do that, because this idea is straight up nonsense, you need to let the citation tag stay or admit defeat and delete the garbage you dropped upon this innocent article. |
||
== ATTENTION bibliomaniac. == |
|||
You blame me, in private, for "cluttering up" this article. Someone else has cluttered it up this with their unsourced statements; by comparison, my citation tags are harmonious works of art, adorning this text like morning dew drops upon a flower, a coy smile upon a fair young maiden. I'm calling out this editor on their malicious vandalism, and their multiple unsourced statement deserve multiple demands for truth. Next time, take your balls out of your purse and challenge me in public on the discussion page, where all the world can see the frail, brittle foundation upon which your self-righteousness is standing. |
|||
Revision as of 19:50, 1 December 2007
{{unreferenced} Thyme imparts a distinctive taste that sets Manhattan clam chowder apart.
what is with the reference to legal seafoods?
- Well aparantly their Clam chowder is famous. "The chain boasts that its clam chowder has been served at every U.S. presidential inauguration since 1981."
This probably doesn't have much to do with the topic in itself, but anyone who puts corn in a fish chowder should be shot. Same goes for anyone who eats, makes, or supports in any way the abortion that is Manhattan Chowder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.53.24 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no you didn't.
When a suspicious statement in an article is tagged with [citation needed], I fail to understand how anyone can be so hopelessly unintelligent as to think it's in any way, shape, or form okay to remove it if you're not actually including a citation. If you're so sure that in some long ago age clam chowder was clear and restaurant patrons added cream themselves, find a respectable source that agrees with you. When you inevitably can't do that, because this idea is straight up nonsense, you need to let the citation tag stay or admit defeat and delete the garbage you dropped upon this innocent article.
ATTENTION bibliomaniac.
You blame me, in private, for "cluttering up" this article. Someone else has cluttered it up this with their unsourced statements; by comparison, my citation tags are harmonious works of art, adorning this text like morning dew drops upon a flower, a coy smile upon a fair young maiden. I'm calling out this editor on their malicious vandalism, and their multiple unsourced statement deserve multiple demands for truth. Next time, take your balls out of your purse and challenge me in public on the discussion page, where all the world can see the frail, brittle foundation upon which your self-righteousness is standing.