Talk:Nebraska Senator sues God

OR

Read the initial lawsuit filing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

God comment

Give me a break. We are having a little bit of fun with this nonsense. IRC might have been a bit much, but with the fact that Chambers admits his lawsuit is as frivolous, I see no problem with "God could not be reached for comment." I readded that, and I say its funny as this is Wackynews anyways. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, what methods did you attempt to reach God via. As obvious a statement as that is, you need to provide notes on the talk page, detailing your methodology of trying to reach him. (Most people aren't IRC users, anyway, so that's not really a proper way to exhaust measures. Send a email to the Vatican, however pointless that is (as they never reply in my experience), and you then can honestly say this.) -- Zanimum 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he prayed...? --Nzgabriel | Talk 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The direct line to God? Wouldn't Wikinews require statement on the talk that he did indeed try that method? Hate to be nit-picky, especially considering I'm often one of the worst offenders of not putting reporting notes in, but if it's featured like this... -- Zanimum 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Lets get things sorted here, I added the IRC comment back - our more technical readers will be falling about laughing at this and all go on Freenode to verify there is a user "God". Well, there is - I tried to /msg Him, I tried joining a channel he was in and asking him for comment - no reply. And, to my great regret, the Chatzilla client doesn't support a "/pray" command. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we're writing for an average user. I've never heard of IRC outside of Wikimedia.

If we were wanting to get a comment from Madonna, the singer, could I just go on IRC and message a random user with the name Madonna, without confirming the identity? No, likely the article would be marked back to "develop". So I can't see how we can let this go, just presuming that the user "God" is God, which is highly unlikely. -- Zanimum 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! It is just meant to be funny... I don't think a little hilarious comment harms anybody at all... - Jurock ^{(reply here)} 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (PD: How about e-mail?)

I agree, it doesn't. But where do we draw the line in terms of when it's okay to disregard our rules? -- Zanimum 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually God DID comment

'God' responds to legislator's lawsuit Cnn.com or atleast it's some who claims to be 'God'--71.170.106.104 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OR NOTES

OK. I would just like to say, I attempted to contact God for comment, I got an open line, and he was listening, just his responses are always a bit cryptic, and sometimes takes time to understand what he meant. terinjokes | Talk 20:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There, that would be acceptable by Wikinews' standards. -- Zanimum 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

2001 film

Would it be appropriate to include a reference to the 2001 comedy, w:The Man Who Sued God? Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. Matt | ^userpage | ^contribs 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Parody!

Ain't it great? --66.31.174.231 18:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Factual error in the article

The lawsuit was not filed in the "city" of Lancaster, it was filed in the city of Lincoln which is in the county of Lancaster. Richnat (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)