Wikipedia talk:You spat in my soup!

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2011. The result of the discussion was snow keep.

OK, you lost me

I would rewrite this, but I am really not certain exactly what point it is trying to make. Adrian M. H. 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point: "I don't know how to discuss, I don't know how to debate, I don't know how to define spit and soup, I have no arguments at all, my opinion is so subjective and I'm afraid I can't prove that I'm right, you are so stupid to try to argue with me about such an obvious thing that everyone understands... I'm writing an essay so I don't have to explain to you how nonsensical it is what you are saying! Yes, if there were an essay, the essay would have the authority to tell people to shut up, and I would only have to link the essay every time anyone wished to debate anything with me!" A.Z. 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only just ran into this via Google (I didn't know it had been quoted, though I certainly don't mind). The point concerns a form of wikilawyering: editors who are disruptive by deliberate obfuscation. They make some contentious edit - maybe a personal attack or display of blatant POV - then justify it by some rambling pompous essay about definitions and Wikipedia procedure, while professing their utmost reasonability and readiness to discuss. Tearlach 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense because it is demonstrating a type of argument that does not make sense. I find it very familiar and a useful page to point certain editors to. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great page, but it would be futile to direct the soup spitters here. Their appalling habits are not so easily remedied. Rumiton (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is not reasonable

To every ignorant person, a person arguing a different position looks like a "soup spitter", whether that person is right or not. This essay is a codification of ignorance.Likebox (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts and Opinions

Just remember concerning information re any subject matter there are only 2 categories of material, namely 1: Facts and 2: Opinions. And I hate to see this used to eliminate pertinent facts.WFPM (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]