Talk:Fnord: Difference between revisions
revert, having realized I'd answered that point months ago. Mea culpa. Fnord. |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
None forthcoming, it seems. |
None forthcoming, it seems. |
||
:Principia Discordia, page 10, at the bottom. Consider it substantiated. |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 21:59, 14 December 2003
Should this really be a redirect to Illuminatus? "Fnord" pre-dates Illuminatus by some fifteen years!
- Now there's a claim that cries out for substantiation.
None forthcoming, it seems.
- Principia Discordia, page 10, at the bottom. Consider it substantiated.
I dispute that this word needs an article of its own. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the subject canbe (and is) covered in the article on the Illuminati Trilogy. If someone writes 10K+ on the subject then by all means we can think about splitting them up, but until that time I believe we should avoid the creation of stubs... Martin
(1) Can everybody please remember to sign your talk entries? (2) Discordianism, and specifically the Principia Discordia, predates Illuminatus! by 10-15 years (depending in part on whether you count publication date or date of writing). Fnord does not appear in the Principia, however. Vicki Rosenzweig
Can we keep at least some fnords in the article, please? Even if only to keep the Alligator Control folks happy? -- The Anome 22:43, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I can see some fnords in the article. Can't you? :-) -- Infrogmation 22:46, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)