Talk:Boobpedia

I don't want to be a spoilsport but I can't quite see the relevance of this.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm... well, it is a wiki thingy, and we have articles on wikis and... oh, let me investigate further... give me oh... 2 or 3 days to report back. /commence heavy breathing. PS I'm a small boobs man myself, so this research is really taking one for the team. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a quality site for investigating the disbelief men like fake tits. --85.76.85.210 (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly it seems that I too shall have to force myself to investigate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't find anything on pseudoscience, fundamentalism, ASK or CP. Perhaps the poster here wishes us to create articles on the topics? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jokes aside, this is off mission and should be exported to WikiIndex --Onion <talk> 12:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm twelve years old and what is this? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete

Off mission and tasteless. I mean, really. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it tasteless? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just kill it already. --Onion <talk> 13:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Because its just smut! --Onion <talk> 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the we have any rulz against tastelessness or smut in general. But it was certainly off-mission.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Big (natural) boobs are about the tastiest things there are... I think it is thee who is tasteless Bobby-boy! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. My only objection is that it was off mission. I was responding to other comments about tastelessness and smut. A wiki with an article "cunt" can hardly complain about big boobies. ;-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who mentioned taste. Whilst I agree that above average endowment can be a plus factor in pulchritude - it's two of my wife's finer points - the site in question seems to consider women as a pair of tits plus other bits. It's a bit fifties in it's sexism. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst we're at it why not link to this wonderful pageant? Jack Hughes (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bob, my comment regarding taste (or lack thereof) should have been direct at Jack. As for "consider[s] women as a pair of tits plus other bits" - that seems entirely factually correct (if not complete) to me. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)