From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JRFinn (Talk | contribs) at 18:51, 25 February 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Wow! Feature this right now! I never saw a more subtlely biased article in my life. --MrMetalFLower 14:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

The article will remain as it is, thank you very much. DanH 14:47, 7 March 2008 (EST)
I'm not saying change it. --MrMetalFLower 14:49, 7 March 2008 (EST)
What is your problem, then? The very term 'lust' doesn't exactly express approval of the act. Koba 14:56, 7 March 2008 (EST)
It was a joke. I was just saying the article goes right out and says "This is bad" :P --MrMetalFLower 14:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

In defining a negative term such as lust I would naturally express it in 'negative' terms. Had I been defining 'desire' I might have expressed it differently. But this was a wanted term. If you would like to help here, have a look at the wanted terms list and have a crack at a few. Koba 14:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I said it was a joke, QED, it was a joke. --MrMetalFLower 15:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)
  1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
  2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
  3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.

that's a dictionary definition, in case anyone feels like increasing the length and depth of the article. --MrMetalFLower 15:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

This article has a picture of a nearly naked woman. You can see her NIPPLE!!!! That is not family-friendly in the slightest, and is an abomination unto God, and I am ashamed and horrified that Conservapedia would use such a thing. I demand it be removed, and whoever placed it in the article to be reported to the proper authorities. --JRFinn 13:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)