For. Humorous and grand in its layout and depiction but greatly disappointing in length. However, I have been amused and the article has done surprisingly well. POP!GoesTheWeasel 16:20, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
For. very well written ShabiDOO 19:20, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Abstain. It's an entertaining read, but I consider it mostly lightly amusing. It's a fair mockery also. Trouble is, the article just isn't BRAINY and sophisticated enough. Get what I'm saying? Man you're dumb. :P --Reallybloodymental (talk) 19:40, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
I think that "In the style of the thing it's about"—that is, deliberate obtuseness or overcomplication—would make for a much worse read. SpıkeѦ 20:00 8-Nov-12
It's funny, but there isn't stuff in it that directly stands out. I tend to make idea traps, like viewing things from a skewed angle. That's my style. You article is too pleasant and generally fun for me. I'll read over it again and see if I change my mind, but for now it's just purely entertaining without anything really attention grabbing. Maybe I'm wrong. I did skip 1 or two paragraphs. By the way: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/abstruse-and-obtuse/ Now I like that definition. Actually maybe you could write a few bits that are showing up dumb people or something. I might make a few suggestions later. You can add them if you choose. I'll just sort of put them in a little box. But this is just one person so it's not like I'm teh most important suggestor ever (wrong word and stuff). Good article, maybe I should have abstained but instead I might change my vote later.
Your word is more precise, but surely this entire vote is "in the style of" the abstruse Mensan. SpıkeѦ 11:43 9-Nov-12