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

Score: 2 votes and not even for fun

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) -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
2. For. » 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. For. Frankly, I laughed. And I find the article pretty funny. It's neat. --POP!GoesTheWeasel 06:11, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
5. For I like this. Genuinely clever. mAttlobster. (hello) 15:55, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

1. Against. Filial Piety RomArtus*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 Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:07, 10 October 2012
3. 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)

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: UnAstrologer, 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)