Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Registering my disgust) |
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:This appears to be the sick pornography of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. I am disgusted and '''did not need to encounter this article'''. While we are at it, why not go ahead and have a full article describing gay sex!([[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 20:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)) | :This appears to be the sick pornography of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. I am disgusted and '''did not need to encounter this article'''. While we are at it, why not go ahead and have a full article describing gay sex!([[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 20:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)) | ||
| + | ::::The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] does not describe an pornographic acts. It merely describes a medical condition which is the result of a homosexual act. Deleting [[Gay Bowel Snydrome]] would be like deleting our [[AIDS]] article. Please show me specifically where the article is pornographic. It merely quotes medical publications. By the way, liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" as I demonstrated in my article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:36, October 4, 2007
What the bloody heck is this?!!-MichaelS 20:20, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- This appears to be the sick pornography of Conservative. I am disgusted and did not need to encounter this article. While we are at it, why not go ahead and have a full article describing gay sex!(ErstBlenchPoet 20:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT))
- The article Gay Bowel Syndrome does not describe an pornographic acts. It merely describes a medical condition which is the result of a homosexual act. Deleting Gay Bowel Snydrome would be like deleting our AIDS article. Please show me specifically where the article is pornographic. It merely quotes medical publications. By the way, liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" as I demonstrated in my article.Conservative 20:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)