Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 3:
Line 3: − − == Confusion == − − I'm somewhat confused by the fact that two edits that I have added to this page have been reverted. In my first edit, I added a paragraph that said that this study only proves that lesbianism and obesity are related. It does not prove that lesbianism causes obesity. Douglas A deleted this edit, saying on the history page, "Quite the contrary, it very much does prove it." So I proceeded to edit the page again, this time adding a conclusion paragraph that agrees with Douglas A's analysis that homosexuality causes obesity. My edits involved no foul language, and did not, from my understanding, violate the Conservapedia Commandments. Basically, I'd like an explanation for why two consecutive edits, that said totally opposite things, were both reverted.--[[User:Triddle|Triddle]] 08:30, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
Talk:Lesbianism and obesity (view source)
Revision as of 13:46, August 6, 2009
, 13:46, August 6, 2009Reverted edits by Triddle (Talk) to last version by Shortcat
I hate to say it, but is this page necessary? It cites a useless figure, which is probably inaccurate, insinuating that being a lesbian means you're going to become fat, then reminds us that this probably isn't true. All in all, the page is merely a weak scare tactic. Try harder. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]
I hate to say it, but is this page necessary? It cites a useless figure, which is probably inaccurate, insinuating that being a lesbian means you're going to become fat, then reminds us that this probably isn't true. All in all, the page is merely a weak scare tactic. Try harder. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]