Nom + For It received a 45 on Pee review. I waited until today, six months after the event, to nominate it so that maybe some can't argue that it's "too soon". A very brief explanation about my feelings regarding the article can be read here. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 08:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
For Get over it! Weasel3689 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
For I thought that emc and I (plus some help from Mhaille) made this article about as respectful as it can possibly be. From reading the Against comments, it appears to me that some of them are rather contradictory. Many of you seem to have something of a conflict of interest. Many seem to simply be morally opposed to the subject matter, which I might add is a rather weak reason to find something not worthy of feature. Excluding all the obvious choices, we've had three or four articles featured very recently that deal with terrorism, another "hot-button" issue that affects many people. The writers there mock not the deaths of the thousands of soldiers currently serving in Iraq, but the people sending them there. We also quite recently featured an article entitled Dead Nigger Storage. If you'll humor me, read the article. You'll note that it mocks (however minorly) bigoted killing of black people. This, again, was in an effort not to mock the plight of the African-American people (which hits very close to home for many people), but in an effort to mock the very people who condone it. Here it's the same idea. I can understand if you don't like the actual article, removing the title and subject. But I implore all of you who have voted against simply because you were offended that this article was made to reexamine your moral compass, and at least find it in your heart to abstain. Realize that you may be led astray by personal feelings and that, at the end of the day, grieving is better done progressively than by dwelling.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Weaker For All feelings about the incident aside, I feel it is good, but not amazing. - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 00:54, Oct 19
DIG review this joker's previous thoughts on the subject. Though I strongly disagree, I'm glad to see that there are some generally intelligent points-of-view on the subject in the against column this go around. Some. --THINKER 06:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Me Likey I especially like how this was nominated on the 6th month anniversary. That takes balls. -- Le Cejak•<-> 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
For, because we all were sad for a while, and now it's time to stop being sad and laugh it off. All you "too soon" people could've at least voted abs... oh, and Lj, kudos on the longest reason for voting on anything I've ever seen written out, on VFH or VFD or anything. - P.M., WotM, & GUN,Sir Led Balloon(Tick Tock)(Contribs) 16:21, Oct 20
Against Great Excellent near perfect article, so it pains me to say this but its still too soon for me. Sorry --Moneke 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Against — If I remove the title, I find nothing of any merit. It simply takes the piss, exploiting other people's horror so as to weave some cheap personal glory thrill for the writers; like many of the references elsewhere on this site to Anne Frank, the holocaust and other tragedies. I simply don't find it amusing. SmackBot 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Against. Well-written and cleverly observed, and I don't share SmackBot's reservations - I don't see tragedies as being out of bounds, as long as the article isn't a cheap shot (which I don't think this is - it doesn't exploit people's horror, it has a serious footnote of respect...). My only objection is that I don't find it that funny. --SirUnder User(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Against It's clever but I still don't find this funny. It really struggles to make no kind of point at all. The Oblong Lobster 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Against -It's very well written too abd it's not a topic I can vote yes on. I have family in Virginia an family that went to Virginia Tech they aren't goign there anymore they are alumni but still I just think it's too soon for an article on this topic.--Dr. Fenwick 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Against - I just don't want to go there... --AAA! (AAAA) 23:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Against - I know this is a hotbutton subject, what with plenty of people in mourning, but, seriously, that doesn't make it funny. Pushing buttons doesn't make something funny. Hell, it didn't really push my buttons all that much. But the entire time that I was reading it, I felt like it was trying to. Which made me recoil from the whole article. And that, dear and faithful votereader, is why I wrote this vote. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Against. Not because it's VTech, just because it's not all that funny. Is this clever? Yes. Is it good? Yes. You've managed to make a touchy subject not suck. But it's just not VFH. –SirSkullthumper,MD(criticize•writings• SU&W) 16:05 Oct 20, 2007
Against. Moral issues aside (I don't have any morals, anyway). It's got some very funny lines, but overall I don't think it's a feature. RabbiTechno 18:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Against It honestly isn't that funny. Some good bits, but in humor it neither measures up to Featured standard nor, more significantly, to Electrified mocha chinchilla's other works. EMC is one of our best writers and satirists here, so perhaps it says something that even he couldn't really make it fly. And another thing: comedy is tragedy plus time. What time? Not even a year has passed. I'll tell you when enough time has passed: when the video game comes out. Do I see any ads for James Bond Saves Virginia Tech? No. So it ain't ready yet. --CUNRATalk to me_ 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Once i got 47 on Pee but it was some joker so meh --Moneke 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I removed the writers' names from my nomination so they won't get any glory. Now it doesn't look like I'm just using a tragedy to sing their praises. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 12:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently. I thought we didn't have any? *waits for him to do something worthy of an infiniban* EugeneKaywuzhere(whinethank)23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, if you disregard the title, there's nothing of any merit. The article is the title, which it exploits. SmackBot 03:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So go write something better, or offer constructive criticism by making a Pee Review. But bitching about it, and every other "morally objectionable" article will likely get you banned for being a troll. Don't make waves, my friend. EugeneKaywuzhere(whinethank)05:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll choose my friends for myself, thank you. SmackBot 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. No need to get snippy, guys. Btw, smackbot, have you ever actually read a page you've liked? Oh, and if this is voted down, I'm renomming it again, somewhere down the line. For reasons stated by my vote. - P.M., WotM, & GUN,Sir Led Balloon(Tick Tock)(Contribs) 16:21, Oct 20
Yes, I've found a great deal here that I like. There's a lot of talent on this site, and I dare say there'd be a lot more if voters were less easily led by shock value and cheap gibes. There's talent in this article, but it's been sold down the river by the mob. SmackBot 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
In case it's my attention you want, I shall post here an explanation I'd previously posted elsewhere.
"Let's clear this up. What I am against is hanging a story on a shock headline when the story doesn't follow up. The notion of portraying a deplorable sequence of events as a choreographed play may be a good idea, but this example doesn't do justice to either the idea or the subject matter. What people will go there for is the headline and that's all they'll find. The result will be negative conclusions, outrage, and some hurt feelings.
"The same applies to many other references to other shocking subjects, and the passage of time doesn't make it better. If the work uses controversial subject matter to no apparent advantage, then it's damaging; to the reader, the writer and the Uncyclopedia concept."
I am not against bringing humour into unpleasant situations. Humour is in my experience usually the best way to deal with unpleasant situations. What I don't buy in this and other articles is sensational tricks.
From Kip the Dip's userpage (for no apparent reason other than relevance): "Several months ago Uncyclopedia placed a memorial link on the Main Page. It had a ribbon and it proclaimed "Today, even the idiots at Uncyclopedia are Hokies". At the bottom it linked to a memorial fund. Seeing that made me feel all warm and fuzzy. It was at that moment I gained a whole new respect for Uncyclopedia."
Time passed and it was unlocked and made into a tasteful article. It barely focuses on the killing itself, but merely makes fun of the loser that was Cho Seung Hui. (If you read up about him, he really was a pathetic twat.) I believe part of it it satires the view that violent video games and other things influence school shootings, whereas the article states that Cho was actually influenced by literature. It may also reference the overly heavy media attention the tragedy received."
To me, this page isn't very offensive. Of course, I wasn't directly affected by it. The argument against featuring it as being offensive is ridiculous, because we have featured various pages involving the holocaust, terrorism, racism, etc. To not feature on those grounds alone would be total hypocrisy. Of course, it's all debatable." --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 23:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kip the Dip lots. The only reason why I voted against was purely because it wasn't all that funny. Forget the whole offensive issue thing already and vote on it like it's any other article. –SirSkullthumper,MD(criticize•writings• SU&W) 00:05 Oct 21, 2007
On those grounds alone no, I agree with Elmic, and it hadn't escaped my attention that the article sends up the perpetrator, not the victims. The shame in my view is that style of the article is out of context with the title. I can easily imagine a real play being written about the event and it would doubtless attract the same sort of controversy if it had the same title. If this article is nominated again then it would be far stronger as a work if the title were different or if the article were more openly critical of the contributing factors. Otherwise, I'm saying the same as Skullthumper. SmackBot 00:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the reason so many more people are against this than they are any of the other "offensive" pages that have been featured is that it seems more real to them. For those of us in America, this recieved great media attention and caused everybody to be horrified at what happened. We were planted with a great deal of respect for the victims and their families, and anything that doesn't completely show the event as a horrific trajedy just seems wrong. Also, it's more powerful to us because we weren't part of the Holocaust, almost all of us are white, and all the terrorist articles were making fun of the terrorists in general, not any specific events that could have directly affected us. I'm not really sure if an article has been featured for 9/11, but this site was founded around 4 years after it occured. This just seems too soon for some people. Abstain Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. rm +3 (Low Health 23%)SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 22:46, October 23, 2007 This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.