Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bear"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Tmtoulouse (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::I concur if DunScotus puts this on Homosexuality I won't complain. but ONLY that article. Okay? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ::I concur if DunScotus puts this on Homosexuality I won't complain. but ONLY that article. Okay? [[User:Tmtoulouse|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. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 16:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:03, 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)