Talk:John Scherer

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2012.
The result of the discussion was Keep.

Wasn't John Scherer a Rock Promoter some years ago in New Jersey?

Who knows? The more important question is, do we feature this page, or just the cease and desist letter? --Mr. Monkey Sockmonkey Pant-hoot here. 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm personally in favor of putting the letter on the main page with a link to here. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:40, Dec 16
As in, Main Page, or this talk page's article? I think either would kinda be too much. I liked it better when it was subtly referencing it, rather than just saying what happened. Spang talk 04:25, 16 Dec 2008
Agreed. Explicitly saying what happened makes the article awfully EDesque - and fuck ED. Fuck them in the ear. Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 06:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

edit Do we really need the pr0n references?

Do really need to make this article about how the subject is a pr0n star and sells his semen? That is stupid and not funny, and, its not something we'd probably want a jury to see.--Mnbvcxz 17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely the worst part. I'd try and rewrite this article, but frankly, I'm not familiar with the subject whatsoever. Someone want to shoulder the rewriting responsibility? --Mr. Monkey Sockmonkey Pant-hoot here. 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
When Scherer's lawyers complained about the article, the pr0n star/semen stuff was the entire article. It was a shitty article. But I almost don't want to remove it now, specifically because it's what they were complaining about. Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 18:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point about not being bullied by legal threats. However, I'm not sure how well random sex jokes will pass the parody test, then again, I'm not a lawyer. Plus, this is a humor wiki, not a piss off fanboys and 10th rate pseudo-celebrities through attackcruft and needless sex references wiki.--Mnbvcxz 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
One possible thing we could do is a Sania Mirza style rewrite, where we assume the POV of indignant lawyers insisting that Scherer does not sell his own semen. Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Mr. Scherer does not sell his own semen, and we request that his Uncyclopedia article be reformatted to reflect this, or else removed. Just because he sold some personal fluids that one time when he really really needed the money to pay his rent...but that is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that Mr. Scherer's past, however shady it may have been, has no business whatsoever following him around, lurking in the shadows, and constantly plotting, ready to jump him when he least expects it. We mean it!" - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:38, Dec 17
I'm still worried about the content level though. I don't think parody can cover any random sexual act attributed to an nth rate "celebrity". Now, if the person was actually a known sexual deviant, I wouldn't have an objection. I really wouldn't be too sure that a jury would accept that as parody, as there isn't really any reality behind the thing parodized.

Also, does the MS paint version of the guy really need to show him with his hands in his pants? Seriously!--Mnbvcxz 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
All this talk about what a jury would see or have a problem with... Is it not clear this is a joke site that thrives on falsehood and blatant untruths? I felt the spirit of the letter from Scherer's lawyer treated the page as though it were attempting to mislead people rather than just a dumb joke poking fun at an annoying television persona. The concept was dumb, I agree, but the "Try my Product!" line just demanded to be made fun of, always sounded like a euphemism to me. Anyway, point being, I think a judge or jury (if this actually went that far), would be able to discern in the way that Scherer's lawyer seems to have not been able to, that the piece was not written to slander/defame the guy or his company, or mislead the public into believing anything false, but rather a bad joke on a site that centers around bad jokes... It's just one of thousands of pages on this site doing that. - Condemned 08:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Supreme Court already decided in 1988 that it was perfectly valid satire for Larry Flynt to say that Jerry Falwell fucked his own mother in an outhouse. If that's legally satire, the idea that the "product" in "try my product" is semen must also be. Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"Try my product" as a euphemism isn't a bad line to take at all, and I find the Tom Cruise "unacceptably salty" bit, and the bit about him suing himself pretty funny, and it wouldn't really work without it. Spang talk 15:32, 18 Dec 2008

What is with the sudden burst of edits on this page? --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 01:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

edit Religious bias in the article

Hindu-milk 1292368i

Scherer's handiwork (literally) is used by Hindus to symbolically purify and enhance their manly potency. Scherer tried to sue one of "them East injuns", as he calls them, but got creamed in court.

A pic taken off the page due to its religiously inflamatory nature Aleister 13:08 9-4-'11

Personal tools