Conservapedia talk:Summa Homosexualita
In regards to the figures here, ieems to be a problem with the math. Last I checked, 53 was not 89% of 5000. DickTurpis 16:42, 30 November 2007 (EST)
- D'oh NightFlare 16:54, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Egads![edit]
There's even more of that crap than I thought. :-( --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:58, 30 November 2007 (EST)
- And more to come (plus I bet I missed one or two). Maybe the refreshbots should be brought back til we get these to 34 of the top 35 or whatever. DickTurpis 17:07, 30 November 2007 (EST)
- The list is truly amazing. human
22:54, 10 January 2008 (EST)
- The list is truly amazing. human
MOAR[edit]
Since the start of this article, Conservative's homosexuality articles have been on the rise once again. The military, Scotland, Greece... is anyone or anything safe from an individial article on its relation to homosexuality? I'd almost like to think he was purposefully catering to our lulz. :p UchihaKATON! 23:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
- In regards to these articles, I think we need to suggest more articles for Out Li'l Suppressed Homosexual Guy, lest he find himself running out of topics. So far it seems he's missing:
- Homosexuality and the Elderly
- Homosexuality and the Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia
- Homosexuality and Deceit
- Homosexuality and Bias in Wikipedia
- Homosexuality and Scabies
- Homosexuality and Tooth Decay
- Homosexuality and Fermat's Last Theorem
- Homosexuality and My Family
- Homosexuality and Your Mom
- Almost forgot: Obsessive Writing About Homosexuality and Repressed Homosexuals
- Just to name a few. There are probably others a well. DickTurpis 23:46, 1 December 2007 (EST)
- Homosexuality and Global Warming
- --82.61.20.92 11:43, 2 December 2007 (EST)
- How about "Homosexuality & RationalWiki"? That should get his juices going! Susanpurrrrr ... 12:13, 2 December 2007 (EST)
- Please don't discuss Ken's "juices" in this context. --Kels 12:17, 2 December 2007 (EST)
- Or any context, I suppose. Susanpurrrrr ... 12:23, 2 December 2007 (EST)
- Please don't discuss Ken's "juices" in this context. --Kels 12:17, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, right...[edit]
I just thought about it. Every one of those pages links to "homosexuality", and not much else. And how do Google rankings work? This isn't really a new obsession of Conservative's. He's just optimizing the ol' search engines again. Ta-da!
...not that I don't still have my suspicions... UchihaKATON! 22:30, 2 December 2007 (EST)
alt versions[edit]
someone wanted a more pacmanish version:
?
Sterileminichatroomthingy 13:49, 5 December 2007 (EST)
- I removed the extra space around the content on that image, hope no one minds. human 17:13, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Conservative and the Quarantine of Homosexuals[edit]
This is mildly funny if you have prior assumptions about the guy. Presumably this derives from the Mike Huckabee thing that flared briefly on the main talk page. But Conservative, why wouldn't you want an article suggesting homosexuals should be quarantined? UchihaKATON! 20:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Important research![edit]
So when is Ken
going to create an article around this? It's certainly more valid and applicable than his gay bowel stuff. --Kels 19:14, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
- You know, I don't think about homosexuality a tiny fraction as much as Ken does, and I am homosexual. Mega 19:33, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
- I feel the same way about religion. If no one ever brought it up, I'd forget that it exists. ħuman 00:38, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- I feel the same way about religion. If no one ever brought it up, I'd forget that it exists. ħuman
The new name ain't gunna work[edit]
Too many references to the old one, which everyone is extremely familiar with at this point - the new name is just confusing and unnecessarily picky. I propose it gets moved back. 
00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Doesn't matter if it's a made-up word. ħuman 01:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think we still should put the correct latin term somewhere for more lulz (Ken is only worthy of us using a made-up word?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- How about here, to start? It might be that we can come up with a good phrasing for it. Also, while "homosexualita" may be "made up", it looks like it was made up correctly. What exactly does that "correct" term mean? ħuman 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the dog-Latin is probably part of the joke. But citing the "better" translation somewhere is probably worth it.
gnostic 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would suppose the one given in the latin page of WP is (homo -- same in greek/ man in latin) (phylo -- group[like phylum]?) (philia -- attracted to). Latin for Gender is Genus (same for Genus in taxonomy). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you've got your teeth on an utter waste of time here, K/T, although I know you mean well. "Homosexualita" is not a made up word for "homosexuality", which your word "Homophylophilia" apparently means. It's made-up Latin for "The Summit of Homosexual Obsessions" or some such. It's ok, we make up words here, one, so they mean what we want them to, and two, so we don't have to pay them. ħuman 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- My bad: Moar research: Apparently the word used in the Latin WP Page is Greek (Ouch) by checking the corresponding spelling in the Greek WP Page. Vatican Latin uses homosexualitas (Not sure if the suffix "s" is of any word form or derivative). Source: Catechism in English Catechism in Latin (The line above #2357). Now is that something minor enough to put in? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd just say leave it alone. It's someone's joke, it's funny, they worked really hard to build this article... you know how you like to add your jokes to articles, let's just leave it alone. This commentary is here now and will probably be forever, I think that's enough. If you want to change the header of this section to Summa Homosexualitas that'd be fine with me. ħuman 06:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- One more question then: Is it summary (summa in Summa Theologica) or summit (top of mountains, perhaps more close to maximus/culmen)? I would like to add "(Latin for Summary of Homosexuality)" in the article if it is summary. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd just say leave it alone. It's someone's joke, it's funny, they worked really hard to build this article... you know how you like to add your jokes to articles, let's just leave it alone. This commentary is here now and will probably be forever, I think that's enough. If you want to change the header of this section to Summa Homosexualitas that'd be fine with me. ħuman
- My bad: Moar research: Apparently the word used in the Latin WP Page is Greek (Ouch) by checking the corresponding spelling in the Greek WP Page. Vatican Latin uses homosexualitas (Not sure if the suffix "s" is of any word form or derivative). Source: Catechism in English Catechism in Latin (The line above #2357). Now is that something minor enough to put in? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you've got your teeth on an utter waste of time here, K/T, although I know you mean well. "Homosexualita" is not a made up word for "homosexuality", which your word "Homophylophilia" apparently means. It's made-up Latin for "The Summit of Homosexual Obsessions" or some such. It's ok, we make up words here, one, so they mean what we want them to, and two, so we don't have to pay them. ħuman
- I would suppose the one given in the latin page of WP is (homo -- same in greek/ man in latin) (phylo -- group[like phylum]?) (philia -- attracted to). Latin for Gender is Genus (same for Genus in taxonomy). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the dog-Latin is probably part of the joke. But citing the "better" translation somewhere is probably worth it.
- How about here, to start? It might be that we can come up with a good phrasing for it. Also, while "homosexualita" may be "made up", it looks like it was made up correctly. What exactly does that "correct" term mean? ħuman
- I think we still should put the correct latin term somewhere for more lulz (Ken is only worthy of us using a made-up word?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE K/T! IT'S FINE WHERE IT IS! IT AIN'T LATIN, IT'S A GODDAMN JOKE! Really, are you not getting it? Language is malleable, and as long as Humpty Dumpty can express himself well, he's free to use words to mean what he wants them to mean - even if he has to pay them extra! ħuman 05:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- You said it's ok to move it to have an s at the end of title... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)