User talk:Beezwax

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 03:28, July 10, 2007 by THE MAN (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

edit Welcome!

Hello, Beezwax, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for nooblets:

If you read anything at all, make it the above two links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, try these:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button (Button sig) above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or add the following: {{help}} to this page along with a message and someone will come along and help you if they can. Again, welcome! ----Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! Beezwax 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

edit Are you a creationist?

I've noticed that you started your own page making fun of evolution which is ok, its a free country but are you actually a creationist or just joking around?

Here I'm just joking around. Beezwax 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Although it sure seems that the Evilution page isn't. Beezwax 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the evilution page is a joke, you still didn't answer my question though, are you a creationist? --Uncle J 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a creationist. But it's a free country. Beezwax 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus, of course, this is a content-free encyclopedia, so that means everything on here is a joke. LOL! Beezwax 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you a creationist, evolution is pretty much a proven fact, you do know that right - Uncle J

Yes I'm aware it is proven but it is mixable with creationsim you know that right
Actually, I'm Pastafarian. Beezwax 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And orange construction barrels are the first things to be created by His Noodliness.

bahahahahahaha. lol. you actually had me going for awhile there. You must know that the loss of pirates are responsible for global warming lol - Uncle J

Indeed. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
But you are aware that you can believe in both creation and evolution ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution theistic evolution)? I don't want to get into a debate here. Beezwax 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

When someone talks about creationism, I automatically assume they mean a literal 6 day creation 6000 to 10000 years ago, not the creation of life that evolved into us - Uncle J

Hmm. Beezwax 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But you are aware of it? Beezwax 03:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And just how did this life come into being, if not by the hand of God? Beezwax 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have heard of Theistic Evolution but propents of theistic evolution generally take the evolution side in evolution vs. creationism debates. Jimmy Carter, Pope John Paul II, and even Billy Graham are open to the possibility of theistic evolution. --Uncle J 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguing on internet

The only true religion is Sophiaism. Infidels who say otherwise will have potatoes thrown at them.

As far as life coming into being on its own, it is possible, through both random chance AND natural selection (creationists always leave out that one), it is possible over hundreds of millions of years for the right amino acids to gradually come together (through both mutation and natural selection), whether God is responsible is irrelevant to science--Uncle J 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And how can you prove that? Just how could natural selection do such a thing? Natural selection only deals with existing life. How can it produce it? Beezwax 03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural Selection could act on molecules as well, molecules that are better at self-replicating such as nucleic acid (RNA, DNA) than other molecules would be naturally selected in favour of. Billions of years of evolution can see the gradual transformation of complex chemical reactions to simple life, to more complex life. A lot can happen in 4 billion years. - Uncle J

Yeah, under perfect, controlled conditions which can't even produce life now! I suppose that could happen! Beezwax 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but scientists have only been trying to create life for 50 years or so, Natural Selection had a billion years to do it (Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago, first life 3.5-3.8). That is a huge amount of time and lots of things can happen during it - Uncle J

Like I said before. Beezwax 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection worked on the first RNA molecules (creatable by natural means I might add, and still the heart of protein synthesizing hardware today, the ribosome and tRNA - explain that by "intelligent design") 3 and a half billion years ago. Oh, and don't you dare ruin my masterwork on the AiG article, lest you be damned to hell. The joke is meant to be on AiG, not Dawkins. It is best to make fun of him there. The quote which had "bullshit" in it is a real quote too, and it spoils it to change it to bullcrap. --Weri long wang 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

edit Hiya

Over 'ere. -- Paw_print.jpg 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

edit FlyingFeline didn't make Evilution she's just protecting it

I made evilution, well most of it anyways lol. FlyingFeline is just protecting it because dickweeds keep blanking the page. It has nothing to do with her being against creationists, although I think creationists are full of shit - Uncle J

Okay, I understand the part about flyingfeline not being anticreationist. However, I think evolutionists are made of the stuff. Beezwax 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Look. There are a lot of things worth having flamewars over on this site, but this isn't one of them. People's beliefs aren't something you can change through argument, whether you agree with them or not, and there's really nothing to be accomplished by having a flamewar over it. I mean, what do you think you're going to do, convert them? Uncyclopedia, like most other sites out there, has a policy of tolerance. That means if you don't like what someone believes, you keep it to yourself. And that applies to anyone and everyone on here.
Honestly, the only way out of this is for you two to agree to disagree, like the rest of the world already has. Do you think if every country in the world suddenly decided they didn't like what the people in the next country believed and decided to invade them to change their minds, they'd accomplish anything? We've got historical proof a million times over that this doesn't work.
No matter what you think about other people's beliefs, on Uncyclopedia you tolerate them or you get banned. End of story. -- Paw_print.jpg 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about flamewars, people can insult me all they like, just don't vandalize my pages - --Uncle J 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think creationists are full of shit though lol, just like flat earthers, people who believe in magic, and people who think the sun revolves around the earth, but hey it's a free country, you are entitled to your beliefs, no one will shoot you over them --Uncle J 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


edit "Tolerance"

(moved from my talkpage)

I'm not trying to start a flamewar. Heck, what do you think I am, a Muslim? I don't think any more of slamming planes into buildings than you do, but I do think that it's ridiculous that you guys write so many articles parodying creationism and Christianity rather than popular culture or things that are actually funny. This is supposed to be an uncyclopedia, so stop imitating Wikipedia with all these "Series on Christianity" things which makes it sound professional which it's not. And where is the "Series on Islam" or "Series on Atheism" and "Series on Hinduism"? And if I'm supposed to tolerate your views (Creationists are full of shit) then you also must tolerate mine (atheists are made of it). Otherwise tolerance gets relative (You must tolerate my views but I don't have to tolerate yours) Beezwax 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I did say everyone. That means me, you, Uncle J, everyone. It really wasn't directed solely at you. Honestly, all I am trying to do here is keep the peace. I just wish everyone could get along. Really. I'm not biased one way or the other - I consider evolution to be the truth, but I'm not going ramming it in people's faces and I accept that neither were you until you were baited. All I'm asking you to do is to be the bigger person and leave it - agree to disagree, and forget about it. I know you're not trying to start a flamewar but nonetheless, that's what's happening. I don't want to stop you writing articles parodying evolution and other religions, I agree that there's a lack. I just don't want flamewars.
Also: 1. Gerroff Muslims, and 2. It's called an Uncyclopedia because it's a parody of Wikipedia, hence it's the same style but everything's a joke. -- Paw_print.jpg 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I will not geroff Muslims. You and I both know about those September 11 attacks. They deserve what I said. Beezwax 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

edit Enough with the damn vandalism

Specifically on Allah: The Annotated Version.

This is a free-content (content-free?) website. Its users are permitted to make whatever social, political, or religious statements they want, even controversial ones. If you see something on this site that offends you, you have no right to censor it. You just have to accept it. That's the nature of free speech. If you can't handle a bit of criticism of your beliefs, then either leave this site or grow a fucking backbone.

If you continue to maliciously edit the above article, I will report you to the admins for vandalism. May I suggest that, instead of deleting whatever viewpoints you find offensive, that you instead offer your own viewpoint in the form of new, well-written articles? That will help the site grow more than vandalism, and will help stop the perception that Christians are insecure about their beliefs and intolerant of other faiths. --Jordanus 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism! People on here are so blatantly anti-Christian and pro-muslim and anyone who makes any comment that could be anti-muslim is viciously attacked and labeled as a vandal. Of course, this extends to evolution as well, but that's another story. Beezwax 17:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
*ahem*. This sure looks like vandalism to me. Sorry for the driveby, but a bunch of us are neither pro-x but anti-y or pro-y but anti-x. Some of us are anti-"all of the above". A few even enjoy candy from time to time. Most of the religion-based pages here don't reflect well on the religions they parody. The more satirical ones reflect all to well the warts, bumps and rashes that inevitably come with people thinking that God is on their side. God is probably the least offensive page I've edited; but it still gets blanked or mangled regularly by people who think God is petty enough to give a shit about things like this. This is Uncyc; no sacred cows.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that it gets "mangled". Christians rightfully find such things extremely offensive (and blasphemous), especially that junk about Original Jesus and Black Jesus and Evil Jesus and so on. Jesus was neither Black nor Evil, and I have no clue as to why they have all these dumb articles about that. In all the religion articles I've read, it seems Christianity is the only one that gets satirized and the rest go free. Beezwax 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to realize that most of Uncyc is by "western" contributors. "West" is Jesus, mostly. So, most of the religion-based pages will be coming from authours with varying degrees of Christian background. It's not that we don't want to know about the other religions, it's that Protestantism/Catholicism are effectively the zero-point from which we start, which colours the writing here. For example I only found out that the stone building inside the mosque in Mecca is called the Ka'bah a little while ago, and that was only because I was doing research for a page (in fact, most of what I've learned about Islam/Muslim culture is a side-effect of research for Uncyc pages. I suspect, but admittedly can't prove, that I'm not the only one). Christianity will simply get satirized more often here because more writers here already know the quirks of its many sects, having grown up in or around them.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

edit Welcome to UnNews

I've ICU tagged UnNews:Creationism proven false! because it's pretty dreadful, although it has potential. Do not despair, however... read on, become enlightened, and fix it... and win a prize! No, not really. Cheers! Zimbuddha Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Che Ape

Reverend Zim_ulator says: "There are coffee cup stains on this copy, damnit! Now that's good UnJournalism."

Welcome to UnNews, Beezwax, and thank you for contributing some crap, or otherwise attracting my attention. For a quick introduction about how you can write a decent or better UnNews article, please take a minute read our spiffy new Style Guide.

I am your humble servant (in your dreams), and if I may be of help to you, please leave me a note on my talk page.

Good things that can happen to you

You can win awards and prizes! You can become a better writer by subjecting your articles to the scrutiny of UnNews critique machine or UnCanninator shit article detection system. You can become a thorn in the side of Journalism as a whole. You can get promotions, ribbons, and free crockery! You can write stuff your mom would be ashamed to show her friends.

What happened to my article?

If you've submitted an article, and it's disappeared, I may have mercy-moved it to your user space. This means I've probably left a message on your talk page, likely in close proximity to this very message, explaining why.

Your article may have been tagged for ICU if it has significant problems meeting our criteria, or I may have deleted it because you did not register as a user.

Finally, maybe you just pissed me off. I mean, I know I'm a Roshi, and I'm supposed to be all "Zen" about everything, but I have bad days too, you know?

UnNews Audio

If you are interested in doing an UnNews audio, check this out.

UnNews UnFunnies

At present, I create UnCartoons for UnNews all by my onesies, for better or worse. Now, I will never claim that I am a good cartoonist. Fortunately, the internet provides us a way to do all sorts of things simply and easily. I found Stripgenerator.com, a great site to create cartoons with a minimum of talent.

This document is an ongoing effort by me to enhance the obfuscation coefficient of Uncyclopedia; productive changes, and criticism are welcome. Cheers! The Right and Left Reverend Major Sir Zimbuddha Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 17:38, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

edit UnNews:Creationism proven false!

FYI I've deleted UnNews:Creationism proven false! because, beyond the title, it's not funny at all. You're welcome to try again with humor this time. Cheers! Zimbuddha Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How about something like: Abominable Beachman Strikes Terror in Hawaii! Beezwax 01:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

edit Ghostface

Ok. Ghostface can be found here. —Braydie 07:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

edit WIP move notice of Deinonychus

Hey, your article that was called Deinonychus has been moved to User:Beezwax/Deinonychus for further development. Feel free to move it back when you have done. Oh, and if you want to reply to this, please reply on my talk page (I do so many of these, I don't get to check them all). Thanks. —Braydie 11:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

edit Oh, Beezwax...

It's too bad that you snapped and got yourself banned. I was hoping to see a good satirical page from you that laid bare some deeply held belief of "the left". Pity. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

edit mmm...shame you were banned...

I would have enjoyed arguing with you. --THE 17:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

edit Whats up with it vanilla face?

Why don't you read this, I bet it'll make you cry and be so mad you want to just crawl into a hole and die >) (Read the comments on the article) http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ THE MAN 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects