Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mammary glands"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(twhat a 2 line article of a major topic)
m (Prudes.)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
:Myles here. Well, do you think it has improved now? A two line definition which would be less than a $1 dictionary in the remainder stacks gives you, which spends fully HALF its time on telling you male bats have got 'em. What on Earth would be the point in having this. If the super-holy evangelists here can't bring themselves to face this gopic, then just perhaps the women here might hopefully be able to put togeether a couple of pars in a reasonable and mature way. As it is, the current text is more of a joke than any amount of satire would be. --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 19:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:Myles here. Well, do you think it has improved now? A two line definition which would be less than a $1 dictionary in the remainder stacks gives you, which spends fully HALF its time on telling you male bats have got 'em. What on Earth would be the point in having this. If the super-holy evangelists here can't bring themselves to face this gopic, then just perhaps the women here might hopefully be able to put togeether a couple of pars in a reasonable and mature way. As it is, the current text is more of a joke than any amount of satire would be. --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 19:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Family friendly is one thing, but are we allowed to say for forbidden word here? Its BREAST everyone... say it... go on... its not *that* unmentionable a term. I will see what I can do... - BornAgainBrit

Revision as of 05:58, 11 July 2007

Oh for crying out loud, this is what makes turns this place into a laughing stock: "In humans, the mammary glands are generally not refered to directly." Is this really necessary. I mean what kind of sex-obsessed weirdo would come up with that. And what does an "indirect reference" amount to.

This is obviously one of those parody articles designed to make CP into a joke. Teresita 13:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Myles here. Well, do you think it has improved now? A two line definition which would be less than a $1 dictionary in the remainder stacks gives you, which spends fully HALF its time on telling you male bats have got 'em. What on Earth would be the point in having this. If the super-holy evangelists here can't bring themselves to face this gopic, then just perhaps the women here might hopefully be able to put togeether a couple of pars in a reasonable and mature way. As it is, the current text is more of a joke than any amount of satire would be. --MylesP 19:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Family friendly is one thing, but are we allowed to say for forbidden word here? Its BREAST everyone... say it... go on... its not *that* unmentionable a term. I will see what I can do... - BornAgainBrit