From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: UnNews:Man masturbates wildly to internet pornography and cums all over Pat Buchanan
|
Score: 3 individuals serially stricken by Pat Buchanan-related masturbation
|
| Nominated by:
|
 pillow talk 07:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
|
For: 9
|
- I just want to point out that this is my favorite article on all of Uncyclopedia. pillow talk 07:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like it but I feel cumpelled to vote for. ~EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(dtf?) 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- KingKitty was a dear friend of mine, and articles like this were inspirational for such further silly works like his naked Pope saga and my own testicle molester. Don't believe for a moment he isn't missed. -- Kip the Egg
 Talk Works 15:18, Jul. 4, 2015
- Oh man, I did love those Pope articles. Quite good. The Woodburninator
 The vote was legitimate! ™ 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- A bit of a retread from my personal favorite article on all of Uncyclopedia, UnNews:Obama doodles random shit, but a facsimile of the best is still the best. --Argylesocks (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 For. IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 07:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)- Yeah, it's funny. The Woodburninator The vote was legitimate! ™ 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fort Knox. ~[ths] UotM
     06:57, 07/21/2015
- For. User:Matthlock/sig2 23:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- For. Voting is amazing! -- MagicBus Talk to me! 12:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Against: 6
|
 Against. Remember what my old account said earlier about content? MUN MyOwnBadSelf, The BFDI Fan (talk - stalk - block) 01:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)- Against. You've got to be kidding.
 DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Against. Hasn't this lost its relevance (if it ever had any)? Anton (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- You should talk about ponies - A letter to Bill Richardson was featured almost 2 years after he dropped out of the presidential race and was no longer relevant. Not that it was the sole reason for your against, but the theory on that feature was it was funny, relevance be damned. The Woodburninator The vote was legitimate! ™ 19:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Lack of relevance also means that I just learnt today who Pat Buchanan was and I have no idea whether this UnNews is simply affirming that "tasteless = funny" or if I am supposed to know something about his politics to understand it. In any case, thanks for your answer. What is this "theory" that the article is illustrating? And how come you know the reasons behind my vote??? ("Not that it was the sole reason for your against vote") Anton (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, friend. My comment was under the assumption that I didn't know all of your reasons, and was just commenting on one of the reasons you stated. ("Not that it was the sole reason for your against vote" was meant to be a qualifier that I was only talking about this one specific issue, and not the totality of your vote.) As for the "theory" I maybe used the wrong word there. I should have said that it was featured regardless of relevancy based on people finding it funny. As for if you need to know who Pat Buchanon is, I guess that's up to you. I didn't know who Bill Richardson was and I've pretty much forgotten everything about him since reading that. I was fine with it back then, but not being fine with it is okay too. Again, none of this was to question your vote or reasons behind them. They are totally legitimate. I was just giving an example of something that had happened before. The Woodburninator The vote was legitimate! ™ 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded annoyed. I wasn't, I was actually simply curious, because I thought you meant that you knew what the reasons behind my vote were. And about "theory", no, you're right, I just read your message incorrectly (upside down and from left to right, if you really want to know). But I'd be really grateful if you could explain what's so cool about the article, because I have an impression I am missing out on something. Anton (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, first things first, you just can't read like that. Maybe in some stupid country like Not-America it would fly, but here in America with our Pat Buchanans and drunken Kennedys, it just won't do. Also, explaining why you find something funny is hard. It would take a better writer than me to explain this insanity... Maybe one of ^them idiots could. The Woodburninator The vote was legitimate! ™ 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll go think about this in my corner. Anton (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I voted for because even though I've read lots of these sorts of UnNewses, I thought this one was particularly clever in that the reporter made a subtle transition into part of the story, and I liked everything about the source entry, which just links back to the page. ~EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(dtf?) 11:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Against. not to be mean or anything, but what the heck is going on here? --HM (T) 01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Against. lolno ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)
 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Against. 08:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
 Abstain. Because I can't bring myself to click that link. For reasons. Is probably a decent page though. —Sir Socky   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:52, 8 July 2015- Oh my god! You're back, Socky? User:Matthlock/sig2 23:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
For. 
Against. Remember what my old account said earlier about content? 
Abstain. Because I can't bring myself to click that link. For reasons. Is probably a decent page though. 
