From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Pointless articles are those things that... y'know... those articles... with the words... and the... the... headings... and er...What's the point in explaining?
Pointless articles have a lot in common with other pointless things, like working, praying, praying at work, and working on your praying.
Editors of this article have tried, and will try to make this article itself, less pointless than it should be, but there's no real point. Nevertheless, pointless articles are not always written by pointless people, just as pointless people can sometimes have a point, even if they don't mean to, and being pointless people, they would argue that having a point to anything is pointless. For more on this, see Albert Camus. The inventor of the pointless article is Al Gore, who is as pointless as his eponymous invention.
Is there any reason in trying to define a pointless article? We shall see:
You know, this probably should have gone before "History"...
edit Actual Definition
edit Actual Definition
Hey look! I made a third heading!
edit Dickshunary Definition
"An article that serves no purpose whatsoever and usually causes more boredom to the people who came to it looking for entertainment because of its lack of content and "boringness." They have been outlawed in 17 countries as of January 2008, including North Korea, South Korea, Swaziland, and Disneyland."
But not at Uncyclopedia! Oh no. The pointless article must not be confused with the indefinite article - the indefinite article has a point, it just doesn't know what point its going to make, hence the 'indefinite' side of it. A pointless article never has a point to make. A grammatical example will suffice:
- The cat sat on "an" old mat
Here, 'an' functions as the indefinite article.
- The cat sat on "yo face" mat
There is no such thing as a pointless article mat, and the pointless article performs no grammatical function. Hence it is completely pointless.
Another real-like example which the above definitions failed to give, was that, if you are a nudist, or an atrractive lady, pointless articles of clothing are not needed. Anything, from the bowler hat to the boob tube is a pointless article of clothing if you happen to fall into the two aforementioned categories. Some theorists have argued that the category of pointless articles extends to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and general other Common Sense, and others have written angry articles in response to this. Proponents of free articles (see below), argue that constrictions on pointless articles should be lifted, leading to a free trade of futile factsheets, purportless pamphlets and so on. Postmodernists, and other PC types argue that to accuse certain articles of being pointless is the crime of pointism, and that it would be best to refer to such articles as 'point-challenged', or 'point-deprived', as associating an article with a point is a concept associated with a 'phallgocentric, unstable, gendered world'.
edit Further divisions
Members of the democratic movements across the world reckon that it should be down to the people to vote which articles have a point and which ones don't. But there are divides even within the democratic movement. Representative democrats think you should pick somebody to tell you what articles have points and which ones don't, whereas proponents of a more European style of democracy argue that the government should regulate which articles have points and which ones don't, and it would pay writers of both types of articles.
Then there's the communists. In a communist utopia, your fellow farmers (now there's a pointless thing to do!) would help you nurture articles without a point, and you would share out all the pointlessness equally. Under a harsher form of communism, the government would abolish any pointless articles you wrote, deny they existed, and sentence you to death in a show trial. Surrealists think that people should eat methylated yogurts. They may, or may not have a point.
After these definitions, I hope you see the point!
edit Wikipedia and the Pointless article
Our friends (let's be polite for a change) over at Wikipedia specialise in the fine art of writing pointless article that only they, and the cabal will read. Of course, there is no cabal, so its readership is pretty miniscule, contrary to what some publicity seekers will tell you.
Every year Wikipedia ask for donations under the pretense that they need to buy new servers to keep up with the range of articles being written. This is a lie - what they really want money for is to write yet more and more pointless articles about anything and everything. The main aim of Wikipedia is to make everything that is meaningful, meaningless.
Pointless articles are said by many (see also Uncyclopedia) to be lacking in taste and humor. Others say exactly the same thing. There is also a small margin of people who think the same way. Below is a non-existant pie-chart showing the approval of pointless articles. Its non-existance is due to the fact that pointless articles have no true followers and therefore have no real income. Their income comes mainly selling random peoples' things on eBay. As taking these things from these people is of questionable-legality, pointless articles have so far received no income. Thus, most of their income also comes from Bill Gates, Rafi, bets on the Redskins, and Russian Roulette.
Pointless articles are not known for their repetition. They don't repeat things an awful lot, and by doing this, they avoid repetition, which is, just to reiterate, something they aren't usually known for. For more on this, see Albert Camus.
Pointless articles are known to be written by old men who have already thrown their life away and are hated by billions
Pointless articles are known to make fun of political figures.
6 times 9 does in fact equal 42.
99.99% of all humanoids who read this article will be utterly stricken by a sharp point after reading this article. Their animal counterparts, being significantly cleverer, discovered that they could have avoided this unfortunate mishap by simply not doing something so pointless...
edit Point for Point
The point of this article was to be be pointless, and it couldn't even do that. Doesn't that make you want to convert to Existentialism, right now? To conclude, please read the page on Albert Camus.