Talk:Walnut oil: Difference between revisions
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=stub|importance=mid}} |
→Caution?: new section |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:Quite right Capi, there are places where it's just bizarre to leave out all opinion - which is doubtless one reason why [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1543693 Everything2's entry on walnut oil] is obviously ''vastly'' superior to what we have here. Still: This is Wikipedia, the site where you come when you want content squeezed of all opinion and original thought, and that's the way it works - and, actually, for many things it works better than one might imagine. It just means Wikipedia is not the place to come for anything which calls for the least bit of passion - except for the arguments in the Talk pages, which are arguably among the finest on the Web! --[[User:Oolong|Oolong]] 12:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
:Quite right Capi, there are places where it's just bizarre to leave out all opinion - which is doubtless one reason why [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1543693 Everything2's entry on walnut oil] is obviously ''vastly'' superior to what we have here. Still: This is Wikipedia, the site where you come when you want content squeezed of all opinion and original thought, and that's the way it works - and, actually, for many things it works better than one might imagine. It just means Wikipedia is not the place to come for anything which calls for the least bit of passion - except for the arguments in the Talk pages, which are arguably among the finest on the Web! --[[User:Oolong|Oolong]] 12:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Caution? == |
|||
May need a mention that food use can cause anaphylactic shock in a few sensitive people. [[Special:Contributions/86.158.25.77|86.158.25.77]] ([[User talk:86.158.25.77|talk]]) 14:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:41, 22 September 2010
![]() | Food and drink Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
This is obviously written from an opinionated standpoint rather than a factual one. It certainly needs a lot of work. ____________________________
I don't really get the whole... encylopedia thing to tell the truth. The articles I filled in were blank in the first place and I felt it would be better to fil them in a bit.
As for my opinion, I would rather have an opinion then to not have an opinion. To display ones opinion is human nature. To seperate oneself from opinion in order to reach a truth would be death. If you truley wish that, maybe you should follow Socrates words in his final discussion. Since the Gods he spoke of, for his argument against suicide, are obviously non-existent. I think you would be best following Silenus' words in Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy.
At least in death you could be with your purities and leave me and my article alone.
So there are your two options, suicide or fix the problem you complain of.
~capi crimm
- Quite right Capi, there are places where it's just bizarre to leave out all opinion - which is doubtless one reason why Everything2's entry on walnut oil is obviously vastly superior to what we have here. Still: This is Wikipedia, the site where you come when you want content squeezed of all opinion and original thought, and that's the way it works - and, actually, for many things it works better than one might imagine. It just means Wikipedia is not the place to come for anything which calls for the least bit of passion - except for the arguments in the Talk pages, which are arguably among the finest on the Web! --Oolong 12:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Caution?
May need a mention that food use can cause anaphylactic shock in a few sensitive people. 86.158.25.77 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)