Talk:Air America

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

If you goofball Air America blog trolls figure out how to make with the humor, I'll leave your stuff in. Until then, expect your unfunnys to be reverted daily--Dadada 08:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry for screwing up YOUR article....uh, you DID create it, right???

MY article??? MY article??? Now you want me to assume ownership of a wiki entry? I think that's preposterous.
Or perhaps you are claiming ownership. Which I find odd, considering you are an anonymous user.--Dadada 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you wrote it...given you've assumed sole editorial power over it and can determine what IS and IS NOT humorous. Noting that the pre-Feburary "Air America Radio" Uncyclo article ...MOCKED the network and its hosts (you know, satire and parody) while the NEW one is merely silly (with any jabs at AAR countered with counter-"nutty right winger" rants).

So....I assume this new "toned down on the criticism" AAR article is your?

Why capitalize the "m" in Maron? Are you some kind of Marc Maron fan or something?
It's too easy to do the Air America article from a rightwing perspective. Therefore not as funny, or creative, as other kinds of humor are in this case.
Anyone can edit a wiki article, unless the admins prevent it.
Yes, I think I am the decider. I'm an American. I think if you look at the article from an objective perspective, you may catch where I'm coming from better. Take the quote at the top. I think Chomsky calling Air America "irrelevant bourgeois propaganda" is critical, yet in a witty way.
There is a Cindy Sheehan uncyclopedia article, that is so over-the-top, that in my judgement, is funny. I may be offended at the attacks on a mother who lost a son in the war, but for humors sake, -and objectivity's sake- I barely changed anything. I think in relation to that article, this one just didn't cut it from the perspective it was coming from.--Dadada 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's too easy to do the Air America article from a rightwing perspective. Therefore not as funny, or creative, as other kinds of humor are in this case." Of course not....after all there's nothing "funny" about mocking the left-wing politics ...if you're on the Left!

How about Randi Rhodes' paranoia? (Remember, this is a woman who when interviewing Howard Dean about 9/11, Dean said "Well, I'm not THAT much of a conspiracy theorist", referring to Rhodes' LIHOP theories)

And what was the "right-wing perspective" about Sam Seder "writing books all his friends have written" (parodying the fact that Seder's "FUBAR" sold less than a screed from Ann Coulter or some right-wing demogogue?)

"Sargeant Ed Schultz": with the lines from an article on the "Hogan's Heroes" character, isn't even a right-wing criticism, since many of the fans of AAR DON'T LIKE Schultz because he, not Thom Hartmann, is broadcasted on XM Radio and they consider Schultz too "moderate" for their tastes.

"Mark Riley: Affectionately known as "Token" around the AAR studios"...pretty good LEFT-wing criticism of the fact that AAR is nearly 99% "white bread" liberals and that Riley's show is buried in the graveyard shift of air-time.

The "Freaks" movie still of "The Young Turks" was both current (the YT show isn't even mentioned in THIS article) and humorous as it shows Cenk and Ben as the freaks and hot babe Jill Pike as the leggy blonde....a commentary on the "morning zoo" radio paradigm of having two guys and a good looking girl for demographics purposes.

Point is, this article tries for "absurdist humor" and just comes off as silly, not even Pythonesque silliness...and primarily is about blunting the original "right wing criticism" of a network that is both a financial and political failure and putting the "editors" political viewpoint on what is or is not funny in the mix.

So basically, "you don't think I'm funny!? Well, I don't think you're funny!? How do you like them apples!"
I still think that you are not looking at this objectively. The point of view you're writing from is too easy in the context of this article. The ability to see things beyond a narrow perspective makes for real humor in writing. I don't expect you to understand that.
I'll tell you what... I've moved this page to "Air America Radio". You can have "your page" back, my anonymous friend. Though it is a wiki article, which means I will still edit it from time to time. I see that it will be funnier at this point to allow you to put your point of view up, for me to make a mockery of. But don't expect me to revert it. Do what you want. I will put a caption at the top of the page that says "perhaps you were looking for Air America Radio?" with a link to the other article.
The funniest humor, I find, is that which breaks from the confines of the established context. Think of Groucho in the middle of a scene, and then turning to the audience to make a comment.
Have fun with your little attack page!--Dadada 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Have fun with your little ATTACK page!"??? So you admit that your "ocrrection" of this earlier was because it was an "attack page" and NOT about the humor of it?

You are not looking at this objectively. The point of view you're writing from is too easy in the context of this article. The ability to see things beyond a narrow perspective makes for real humor in writing. I don't expect you to understand that.

Good thing you are looking at it objectively and wrote a "puff piece" article on AAR to cushion any criticisms of it.

Sure, you may have a few funny one-liners, some throw away lines worthy of a snicker, but the overall tone of the article is strained and desperate, trying too hard to make a point. Rightwingers don't like Air America. We get it. The inability to get beyond your agenda robs the article of any funny.

Leftwingers LIKE Air America. We get it. The inability to get beyond YOUR agenda and the need to re-write the original article proves that.

If you ever wanted, we could appeal to a higher authority, put this article and the others up for pee review, and you can see what I'm talking about when I say your article lacks the funny. Think about it.--Dadada 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Find somebody objective first...note: it's a Grail Quest these days.

Right... if the uncyclopedia pee review says your article is bad, then they all must be liberals.

Your comments reveal a continued incomprehension of what I'm saying to you. I think it's deliberate. You're not taking your humor seriously enough. This is uncyclopedia. It's about funny, not your agenda. One can find the stuff in this article on any given day at any rightwing site. And from trolls at most leftwing sites as well. It's not creative, it's the same old same old. When you hide behind my words and claim I'm just doing the opposite of you, that's a cop out, your way of avoiding what I'm telling you.--Dadada 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

doesn't the AGENDA seem pretty obvious? It's "tired old humor"...if it MOCKS Air America and its politics. While it's "refreshing absurd humor" if it doesn't say anything TOO critical about the left-wing hosts, but throws in comments about Rush Limbaugh and Larry King!

Hey, I threw you a bone already, my anonymous friend, and admitted you have some mildly funny one liners. It doesn't coalesce into a complete article worthy of uncyclopedia standards, in my opinion.

My comments here are pretty clear. I understand that you don't like what I have to say, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I've made my point. Like I said, if you're so sure your article makes with the funny, then let's submit all three to pee review, get some others to critique them, and see.Dadada 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is "pee" review, whereby we see if something is so funny it makes you wet your pants???

[edit] Don't kid yourself

There's something I heard Harry Shearer say recently, which is relevant to this discussion. "If you‘re using the weapons of satire and ridicule, you‘re supposed to use them against the mighty and the powerful."--Dadada 06:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So Air America is weak and powerless?--Anonymous Coward at who knows when (UTC)

Not to you, from the look of things. --Dadada 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor to those who feel they must continually "fix" the page with the "Stupid Cause" warning, nor those who felt it was necessary to create a new less-antagonistic-to-Air America page and load it with "British absurdist humor"....LOL!--Anonymous Coward at who knows when (UTC)

You have a stupid cause, and you want everyone to know about it. The template fits. I do think Air America is weak and powerless, unlike you, who are threatened by it. I'm not a fan of Air America. I am a fan of funnyness.

Now I would like to refer you to the page How to be funny and not just stupid. Especially section 12, "Bias is not a replacement for humor."

And I'm not British. Try and understand... when someone says "I like humor.. even British humor!" It's a joke. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, but it means British humor is not funny, but I am such a humor connisseur that I can find comedic value in the least likely places. Now, would you please stop being so foolish and leave me alone. Thanks.--Dadada 03:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this over defending a radio network that's one election cycle away from collapse.