Uncyclopedia:VFH/Being and Nothingness (forever and ever amen)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:VFH(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (←Voted against)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|nom={{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 19:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 
|nom={{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 19:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 
|scoretext=votes and not even for fun
 
|scoretext=votes and not even for fun
|fornumber=2
+
|fornumber=5
 
|for=
 
|for=
 
#This is still, in my opinion, the best unfeatured article on the site. And if you feature it then I'm going to give you all a delicious, chocolatey surprise (it might be chocolate) --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 19:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 
#This is still, in my opinion, the best unfeatured article on the site. And if you feature it then I'm going to give you all a delicious, chocolatey surprise (it might be chocolate) --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 19:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
#'''For'''. {{User:Zheliel/sisg}} <small>''08:19 October 4''</small>
+
#'''For'''. {{User:Zheliel/sisg}} <small>''08:19 October 4''</small>
|againstnumber=1
+
#By far the best unfeatured article in the history of unfairness! {{User:Shabidoo/sig}} 14:55, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
  +
#{{For}} Frankly, I laughed. And I find the article pretty funny. It's neat. --{{User:PopGoesTheWeasel/sig3}} 06:11, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
  +
#'''For''' I like this. Genuinely clever. {{User:Matt lobster/sig}} 15:55, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
  +
|againstnumber=3
 
|against=
 
|against=
#'''Against'''. [[Filial Piety]] {{User:Romartus/sig}} 18:47, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
+
#'''Against'''. [[Filial Piety]] {{User:Romartus/sig}} 18:47, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  +
#I simply don't find this all that funny. Is their some mysterious secret that will make me find it a whole lot funnier? If so, please share it with me. {{User:Sockpuppet of an unregistered user/sig4}}<small>''01:07, 10 October 2012''</small>
  +
#{{Against}} Delivers no humor at all, only a very brief illustration of the concept of a low-brow review of a high-brow book. The amusement of pranking the Main Page with something short and vulgar is not worth the possibility that this be someone's first impression of us. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>10:42 16-Oct-12</small>
  +
#:Nasty. You're reviews are normally so constructive and helpful SPIKE. --{{User:Shabidoo/sig}} 15:27, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
{{Abstain}} Socky, I actually do find this concept very funny, if not necessarily this execution of it. Unless we are both missing something, I do think the humor is in the concept of the juxtaposition of levels of discourse, wherein the "low" level is not actually wrong about - unfamiliar with or misinterpreting - the subject, but in fact IS smart enough to grasp it on its level, but presents it on his own level. If that's it, I don't think it is done as well here as it could be, and while I am normally not one to whine a lot about shortness for the featured article, it is an issue for some subjects. And I think this is one of them. Now, I could actually be missing something more specific, in which case more fool me. If so, someone could either enlighten me or just roll their eyes at me - and you - and leave us both unenlightened. --{{User:GlobalTourniquet/sig}} 21:08, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
  +
:Its an article, I believe, is a love or hate article. You get it or you don't. You laugh or you don't. I doubt it could be explained properly as per praising it or hating it. --{{User:Shabidoo/sig}} 16:19, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
  +
}}
  +
  +
<!--Just press save to close nomination. Comment is optional.-->
  +
{{vfh failed|
  +
|sig={{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}}
  +
|stamp=08:18, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
  +
|comment=rm >20% low health
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 08:18, October 17, 2012


Being and Nothingness (history, logs)

Article: Being and Nothingness

Score: 2 votes and not even for fun

Nominated by: Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 19:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
For: 5
  1. This is still, in my opinion, the best unfeatured article on the site. And if you feature it then I'm going to give you all a delicious, chocolatey surprise (it might be chocolate) --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 19:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
  2. For. ZhelielCow.jpg » Zheliel Talk Contribs Cow » 08:19 October 4
  3. By far the best unfeatured article in the history of unfairness! ShabiDOO 14:55, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Symbol for vote For. Frankly, I laughed. And I find the article pretty funny. It's neat. --POP!GoesTheWeasel Evil-clown 06:11, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
  5. For I like this. Genuinely clever. mAttlobster. (hello) 15:55, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
Against: 3
  1. Against. Filial Piety LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:47, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  2. I simply don't find this all that funny. Is their some mysterious secret that will make me find it a whole lot funnier? If so, please share it with me. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:07, 10 October 2012
  3. Symbol against vote Against. Delivers no humor at all, only a very brief illustration of the concept of a low-brow review of a high-brow book. The amusement of pranking the Main Page with something short and vulgar is not worth the possibility that this be someone's first impression of us. Spıke ¬ 10:42 16-Oct-12
    Nasty. You're reviews are normally so constructive and helpful SPIKE. --ShabiDOO 15:27, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
Comments

Symbol neutral vote Abstain. Socky, I actually do find this concept very funny, if not necessarily this execution of it. Unless we are both missing something, I do think the humor is in the concept of the juxtaposition of levels of discourse, wherein the "low" level is not actually wrong about - unfamiliar with or misinterpreting - the subject, but in fact IS smart enough to grasp it on its level, but presents it on his own level. If that's it, I don't think it is done as well here as it could be, and while I am normally not one to whine a lot about shortness for the featured article, it is an issue for some subjects. And I think this is one of them. Now, I could actually be missing something more specific, in which case more fool me. If so, someone could either enlighten me or just roll their eyes at me - and you - and leave us both unenlightened. --Globaltourniquet GlobalTourniquetUnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 21:08, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Its an article, I believe, is a love or hate article. You get it or you don't. You laugh or you don't. I doubt it could be explained properly as per praising it or hating it. --ShabiDOO 16:19, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Personal tools
projects