Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bear"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DunsScotus (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::Putting it on the forsaken page of homosexuality seems to be a wise idea. Most good Christians would not want to go there and thus will never be exposed to this sort of debauchery. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 16:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | :::Putting it on the forsaken page of homosexuality seems to be a wise idea. Most good Christians would not want to go there and thus will never be exposed to this sort of debauchery. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 16:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm glad others are beginning to see the true perfidiousness of the homosexual agenda. Even furry forest animals are not exempt from their smear campaigns (cf. [[rainbows]]). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:07, March 23, 2007
@DunsScotus: I believe it would make more sense to append that definition of 'Bear' to the article on Homosexuality, or to create it as a separate article, instead of appending it to this one about the quadrupedal mammal. SquidFriend 14:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- That might be a good compromise, SquidFriend. DunsScotus 14:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- I concur if DunScotus puts this on Homosexuality I won't complain. but ONLY that article. Okay? Tmtoulouse 14:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Putting it on the forsaken page of homosexuality seems to be a wise idea. Most good Christians would not want to go there and thus will never be exposed to this sort of debauchery. touchedbyabear 16:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm glad others are beginning to see the true perfidiousness of the homosexual agenda. Even furry forest animals are not exempt from their smear campaigns (cf. rainbows). DunsScotus 16:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)