Weak for. I was erring towards an abstain, but some really nice lines, such as the "none of the above/all of the above" ontological paradox, pushed me in the direction of a for. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee16:40, Mar 4
Wow. Brilliant execution on a somewhat shaky premise. I groaned at the predictable opening, but loved the whole rest of it (particularly Newton's shot at Leibniz and the bit about Roger Moore of Ottawa). — SirWehp! (t!) (c!) — 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the above, that being a yes. It was hard to keep reading with all them a's and d's in it, but it's still a good article.--Garionepsilon 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes It actually made me laugh! Like, from the diaphragm. --Raxvulpine 02:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This Article Is:a) clever b) worthy of feature c) the subject of a weak joke at the moment or d) all of the above. Must go with d). --Vana 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For. Thought this would be repetitive and uncreative, but I was impressed with the variation with which the joke is told. I look forward to this being at the top of the list of options for articles of the month. That'll be confuse 'em! --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Featured. Featured +13 SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 10 March 2008. This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article. Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.