For. Perhaps the last time anyone confused Uncyclopedia with Wikipedia. A feature (the uncyclopedia reference is not navelism as the response became part of the story.) RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:24, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
For. From VFD to VFH, a warning shot over the heads of all pitchmen who think they are immune from satire. Hope someone can inform Scherer's attorneys of the day of featuring and remind them of the concept of Fair Use. TRY MY ARTICLE.SpıkeѦ 03:06 30-Jun-12
Had Scherer not freaked out about this, nobody would care about this article at all. Its humor is based almost entirely around sex jokes, which really wouldn't fly for any other article, and is more or less an in-joke. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 15:50, June 30, 2012 (UTC)
Against. Per Xam. I'm all in favor of sticking it to people with satire, but the satire should actually be of quality if any real point is going to be proven. -RAHB 23:26, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
To RAHB and Xam: Satire does not exist in a vacuum; Scherer's ham-fisted attempt to censor the Internet is what makes this funny, and makes it transcend its crudeness. The first time I read this (a few months after I joined), I didn't get it. (I think. I can't remember.) Reading it again with the context that his letter (and Uncyc's reply) provide made me laugh so hard that I ...uh... produced my own product. So I think you two guys are all wet, and it's not just from my ...uh... product. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Jul 11 '12 7:04 (UTC)
Still doesn't do it for me, but I do see your point. -RAHB 00:38, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. rm 22% 6TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 07:53, July 24, 2012 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.