8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + +
→A joke: heh! A serious reply
Dont take this offensivly, when I found that this article had been deleted and protected against re-creation, I thought it was a joke. I understand that conservapedia is supposed to be family friendly. By not having an article on it here, it will encourage younger family members to search elsewhere for the information. It would not be hard to create an article, explaining the purpose of sex, perhaps some historical references to it without going into the details of how it is done etc etc. [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Dont take this offensivly, when I found that this article had been deleted and protected against re-creation, I thought it was a joke. I understand that conservapedia is supposed to be family friendly. By not having an article on it here, it will encourage younger family members to search elsewhere for the information. It would not be hard to create an article, explaining the purpose of sex, perhaps some historical references to it without going into the details of how it is done etc etc. [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: What does sex have to do with families? Oh, wait... :o)
: Seriously, this won't last, I think. You can't have a project with these stated aims and ''not'' discuss sex at some level. Experience on Wikipedia indicates that "ZOMG! No article on ''foo''! The entire project should be deleted!" are spectacularly unpersuasive, the way forward is probably to write a scratch version in your user space that is within policy and then propose that be moved in. If that doesn't work, or if admins won't even discuss it, ''then'' you know the project is doomed. --[[User:JzG|JzG]] 12:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)