2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Boobpedia

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I don't want to be a spoilsport but I can't quite see the relevance of this.--BobSpring 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. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 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.--BobSpring 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? --BobSpring is sprung! 12:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jokes aside, this is off mission and should be exported to WikiIndex --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 12:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete[edit]

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

In what way is it tasteless? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Just kill it already. --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 13:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Because its just smut! --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 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.--BobSpring 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! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 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. ;-) --BobSpring 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. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)