UnSignpost:Article/An interview with the editors
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
After much call for an interview with the editors of UnSignpost this month from Uncyclopedians such as Nobody, the journalists at UnSignpost have complied and compiled together an interview of each other. It follows thus:
- You did. And then I had to keep on driving going, because the car was already going fast and I could not just let it go all by itself (and there was a tree in front of it). I thought about just stopping it but home was far away and I did not feel like walking. Anton (talk) 12:21, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot stand on my head only, but I can manage a position where my head will be the only part of my body that touches the floor (or the ground). While I am in that position, some very interesting thoughts can come to me. And if at that moment, there is a problem or a question which need to be solved, it will be a bit for me easier to solve them in that position. So you can say that I am doing something useful. Anton (talk) 19:57, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I will be as discreet about the July Coup as possible for personal reasons. The only thing I can say is that people very seldomly learn from their history or learn their history. That's why old methods are often still effective.
- What concerns being a journalist, it is a hard job, even on Uncyclopedia. An UnSignpost journalist should be serious enough to admit that what he is writing is actual news and at the same time not serious at all to be able to deny what he has previously admitted; he should carry his duty with dignity and ignore a not very honourable name of his establishment; he should make people trust him and lead them to false conclusions but in such a way that they will know that these conclusions are false... The entire mission of the UnSignpost is to be as funny as possible while objectively delivering controversy.
- However, your opinion may be different from mine, so you don't have to agree with everything here. Anton (talk) 19:59, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- It is relevant. The amount of chickens that often cross the road is infinite. However, not many people noticed that the road was infinite as well, as chicken jokes end by chicken arriving somewhere but not entering the place. So I think this implies that they do not stop moving towards some goal which seems very far away and which they never reach. But their real goal is movement, which they can achieve by progressing towards it. So I would say that it would take three chickens to do it. Anton (talk) 20:57, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Are you therefore going against the well-established Ainslie Theory that states that "just because a road is infinite in length doesn't mean that it is infinite in width" and therefore that a chicken would cross a road width ways to reach a goal, a finite distance away? Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 21:10, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- We were talking about different roads there. But it's three chickens anyway. Anton (talk) 17:09, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's three chickens. Anton (talk) 17:52, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Almost. Anton (talk) 18:18, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
- If a chicken crosses half of the road and returns to the place where he has started, then you can consider that he actually crossed it. Anton (talk) 19:25, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
- It depends on what point of view you (as a judge) take: if you are flying several hundred meters above the road (so the angle between the line of the road and the line which passes through the point to which the chicken will get and which as far away from the right side of the road as it is from the left one and the point in which you are situated is almost ninety degrees) then it will be as you say. However, returning to one of the precedent questions, if you decide to stand on your head on the road, then I don't think it will matter much to you whether the chicken is crossing the road physically or technically. Anton (talk) 11:14, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
“The philosophy is like a tree, whose roots are the metaphysics, its trunk the physics, and the branches the rest of sciences...”Anton (talk) 14:59, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I thought that philosophy was dead and that we didn't have to listen self-declared 2000 year old "scientists" anymore and that we could listen to modern scientists for once. On that note who is the most inspirational historical chicken according to you? Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 15:49, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Philosophy is not dead. I think that the most inspirational historical chicken is "Le Coq Gaulois". Anton (talk) 15:55, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Because it's not my favourite. Anton (talk) 19:52, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- It is the film and not the chicken that mocks these terrible conditions. Anton (talk) 08:00, January 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Is it a question? Anton (talk) 17:48, January 27, 2014 (UTC)
- I may sound cruel, but it is rather hot for the first half-an-hour, after you take it out from the oven, but then it gradually cools down. Anton (talk) 17:58, January 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Anton thanks to your previous comment and the fact that I hacked your phone (and don't give me any of that suing shit. Thanks to our hacks we exposed child abuse in th 1970s) I can safely publish this interview and the fact that you are in league with Mrs. Tweedy's Chicken Pie company. Good day! Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:02, January 27, 2014 (UTC)
Every week (or so) we will publish a interview with anyone whom we find. So be prepared!