Forum:An Open Letter to Uncyclopedia

Forums: Index > Village Dump > An Open Letter to Uncyclopedia

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6208 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I've written this Open Letter to Uncyclopedia about my disagreements with the direction of the site and why I haven't been and am not going to be (very much of) a contributor anymore. I thought I ought to post about it once in the forum so people will actually see and read it. Thank you - I'll shut up now. (unless somebody asks me a question or something) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We have {{Mature Content}}, {{NSFW}} and several others templates to warn young readers, and you're going on to long with your open letter, I'm not sure anybody would want to read something so long (like myself)--Sir Manforman 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yes I am going on too long. i have a tendency to do that. but those templates do no good, and they aren't a content rating system. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Content that is truly funny is funny to everyone..." Not really. That's like saying ice-cream flavors that truly taste good have to taste good to everyone. It's just not true. Some people like butterscotch and some people don't. To say that butterscotch ice-cream doesn't truly taste good because some people don't like it is silly. The same holds for humor. I don't like Steve Martin's comic acting. It's a matter of taste. On ribaldry: English literature has always included ribald elements. "If that I may, yon wenche will I swive" -- that's Chaucer (The Reeve's Tale), and it means "I am going to fuck that girl if I can." Ribald art is valid. That said, I'm not favoring a bunch of preteen potty-mouth spread like rancid cow spittle all over Uncyc. There's too much of it already. On that note, I tend to agree that content on Uncyc is very uneven. It's gotten better -- the quality of articles on VFD has gone up, and that means the low bar has moved up some. But I agree on the poorly-sorted content issue. ----OEJ 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that bit you're quoting there was rather meant to be more about humor related to controversial issues in context and was less directly to do with ribaldry. The problems with how controversial issues are dealt with around here was a contributing factor but not the main problem I think. What I was saying there was that something that is truly funny should be funny regardless of what the reader's personal views or lifestyle choices are. Perhaps I should reword it. What I really mean to say is that I think content doesn't have to be funny to everyone - just to most fair-minded people. That's what I really mean(t) and I'm thinking about rewording it. Thank you for bringing that up. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I changed the wording. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree about the Content thing you mentioned, but I really don't care as long as I find it funny. I've actually been using that argument as a reason for several large VFD entries as of late. We need to remember that constant contributors are only a small fraction of the people that read Uncyclopedia, and people who vote on VFD are an even smaller sliver of said fraction. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I might mention that I'm not arguing whether ribaldry is somehow "invalid". I just don't want to be involved with it. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice letter, i hope uncyclopedia reads it. Elassint Throw things at me 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:59, Oct 26

thinking lethargically; don't regard. I dislike that abbrev. Also, I think Nerd42 has a point, but that most not-instantly-reverted users tend to be a bit more careful with their word-stylings. Now if we could get more people to stalk Recent Changes... Ж Kalir, Crazy Indie Gamer _{(missile ponies for everyone!)} 04:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?! Elassint Throw things at me 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it means "Too long; didn't read". But, I just read it, so here's my obligatory preachings on the issue. I am neither conservative nor liberal. In fact, I tend to dislike politics in general. I'm a teenager in high school, like the vast majority of editors here. This means that the site is edited by young people. In general young people are liberal, it's a fact of growing up under Bush's presidency and seeing the worst of conservatism. Also, we young people are sex-crazed, ADD-driven maniacs. It's true. This fact in itself explains the massive amounts of shitty IP edits all over the site. But, if you look on the main page and in the featured category, I bet you'll notice that these tend to disperse quite a bit. Granted, there are a few articles that wound up getting FA'd that had some explicit content, but I myself find it funnier to sort of dance around the sexual stuff. Nothing explicit, the sort of stuff that you can put on TV that's just sexual enough so that the grown-ups will have a good chuckle, but the kids in the room will just be scratching their heads, wondering why daddy was laughing at a string of words that he heard every day anyway. That was my goal(I hate to link to my own writing here, but this was the first thing I thought of) when I wrote HowTo:Check for lumps.

As for religious stuff, which I think is where you are going with this, it's not off-limits. Good religious satire is always welcome, and that list you linked me to seemed to have some, even though it did feel a little mean to the atheists(I'm not one myself, so I can't really tell you for sure). Just remember HTBFANJS, there are 2 rules which you have actually referred to here. One about writing satire(outright satire is rarely funny, you have to ease it in with humor) and one about being being crass/tasteless(Being crass or overly explicit doesn't automatically make everything funny). When I write, I'm thinking about that page, plus the prolixipedia one. As OEJ said, funny is like ice cream, not everything is funny to everyone. Personally, I hate every romantic "comedy" ever made, but that's me. Also, I like chocolate ice cream, and coffee and vanilla and cookie-dough and sherbet and mint and rocky-road and marshmallow and... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:34, Oct 26

Here's idea to sortoff help stop young readers from seeing inappropriate images on uncyc. Make the random page button have a filter so articles like boobs don't show up. Or all images marked NSFW could be hidden on pages viewed with random. I think this would stop most of the little kiddies accidentally seeing inappropriate images. If they search for something inappropriate, it's their own damn fault, and they could get much worse stuff on Google. - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 20:14, Oct 26

Golly. I'm not much for sexually-explicit content, but I don't see what the fuss is. If a kid goes to Boobs, Tits or Pussy, then that person knows exactly what he's looking for, the li'l perv. That the last two will disappoint him amuses me. Do we need a ratings system? I don't think so. We've already got appropriate templates for such nonsense. What next, have the gub'ment break in to our internets? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposal to begin with is stupid. There's millions of kids who play video games, and only a few thousand read Uncyclopedia... we don't need official rating, {{NSFW}} is simply enough, and I agree with everything The UnIdiot said.--Sir Manforman 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. --Stuffy Government Prick Oops, was that a no-no word? 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If I remember it rightly, the first time I met Nerd42 he was gay-bashing on IRC. So I shall say simply: Bye. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, anyone who looks at your recent contributions knows your inactive here.--Sir Manforman 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gay-bashing? And to think I was about to read his long ramble about Uncyclopedia. Now I just don't care. That's inexcusable. (Sets mental content filter to block out Nerd42.) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:15 Oct 27, 2007

In Soviet Russia gay people bash Nerd42 on IRC. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as an Uncyclopedia stays superior to some of the trash they put on tv, I'm content. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual with such arguments on here, you fail to point out any examples where this ribaldry cycle has actually happened. If you want people to listen to you, please provide evidence for your claim. Though religious types do have a pretty bad track record when it comes to evidence, eh? (On no! Religious humour hate!)

The one article you mention hasn't changed much since you last edited it anyway. I think your mentality here is, "I don't want to see it, so it should be removed", when it should really be "I don't want to see it, so I shouldn't look at it". This being a wiki, if you see something that you don't like, follow the constructive flamewar guidelines you point out and make a funnier version you agree with. If you can't actually make a funnier version, then, this being a humour webite, the problem is solved. And though you say than it's only funnier to the majority on the site, are you trying to suggest we should start ignoring what most people think is funniest, and make articles appeal to minorities instead? Specifically, your minority? Nobody is stopping you making new articles from your point of view, or any point of view really.

The thing with free speech is that you can't make it go away just because you don't like it. You have to be the one who is active in blocking it, not the content creator, and that's why there's free content filters (complaining about objectionable internet material without using a content filter is like complaining about the STDs you got without using protection), and why demanding something removed because it's not to your personal taste will never work here. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:25, 26 Oct 2007

I Hate Uncyclopedia?

I read through it, it was thought out, and although I don't agree with what he is saying, it's cool that he said what he wanted to. Now, not to be a dick, but should we take quotes from this and move it to Uncyclopedia is the worst? Just a thought. -- Sir FS Doovad Read You got somethin to say? 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, he's not the first to make a big long speech about the fact that he's leaving Uncyclopedia and listing every reason he has for doing so. Nintendorulez and Colonel Swordsman beat him to it long ago. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor this the first topic Nerd42 made on the evils of "controversial" humor (ie, mockery of conservativism and/or Christianity). But everyone is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to speak -- or write -- his piece. As for drama, when I go there will be a faint popping sound and a temporary whiff of rotten egg. You have been warned. (PS -- these discussions are always so much fun. It's like swimming in a barrel full of drunken squid.) ----OEJ 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually what I find ironic is when someone mocks liberalism and/or atheism the liberals and atheists act like Nerd42 does, but don't get punished as much as Nerd42 when they mock conservativism and/or Christianity. On Uncyclopedia we need to mock everyone equally but it is quite lopsided and mocks certain groups more than others. In all honesty if you want a lot of reactions you mock left-wingers here, the right-wingers are in a minority here. I base that on that political compass test. Right-wingers being more likely to be Christians and Conservatives, but sometimes Libertarians and religious in some other way. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would guess American-style conservatives and Christians probably use Conservapedia. It's more suited to their creativity ability and wit-quotient. ----OEJ 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But were do British conservatives go? Thatcherpedia? --140.211.14.1 16:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I am operating on the assumption that Brit/Pommie "conservatives" are not the same philosophical ilk as the reactionary hypocrites who call themselves "conservatives" here in the USA. (To be fair, liberals -- "progressives" as they call themselves now -- are for the most part ineffectual squeakers without a speck of realism in their outlook.) But satire, when it delves into the political, tends to attack belief-based-on-authority when such belief conflicts with belief-based-on-reason. Thus satire finds itself attacking the conservative point of view more often than it attacks atheist or rationalist points of view, for populist conservatism is nearly always a follow-the-leader-and-don't-think-for-yourself proposition. (Imagine an article which attacks rationalism and the the evil of independent thought: it would have to take seriously the idea that the reader should not trust his own capacity to reason and should, instead, rely on other people to do his thinking for him. This is an uncomfortable position for satire, a genre of humor which at least pretends to be the thinking-person's comic literature. I can imagine writing such an article, but it would veer uncontrollably into mocking itself -- a reductio ad absurdum on its own thesis.) And of course Christianity is the ultimate belief-from-authority; even the great Thomas Aquinas admitted, after constructing many torturous logical arguments for the existence of God, that in the end it came down to belief-from-authority. Again, satire and parody are more suited to attacking fundamentalist Christianity than freethinking atheism. On the other hand, slapstick, low comedy, and plain mockery are equally at home attacking conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheists, Jews, space aliens, or flaming homosexurals. Anybody can be the target. And Uncyc certainly contains its fair share of low mockery. ----OEJ 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I am painting with a broad brush here. By "American conservative" I mean those who take Bill O'Reilly's word as Gospel and who would never, ever question the right of a Republican president to run the country any old way he chooses. And by "bedrock Christian" I mean someone who in fact and in practice makes the teaching of his church his personal opinion, without question and without exception. This lets out freethinkers who happen to be fiscal conservatives or promoters of constitutional government or whatever; and it excuses Christians who question the church, the Bible, and their God when rationality demands it. Hm. What a load of moldy horseshit I have just written. I must be ramping up to rejoin My Favorite Church Forum. ----OEJ 17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually find that mocking left-wingers and liberals in general is more fun, because liberals and left-wingers are more likely to be hypocrites and do things like flip-flop or do exactly what they accuse the right-wingers of doing. I mean yeah people can be free thinkers and still be morons who think with their emotions rather than be rational beings. Atheists and Secularists also force their beliefs on others when they take away religious freedoms and rights by removing religious peoples' ability to express their religious beliefs in public, thus taking away their freedom of speech, something they accuse right-wingers of doing. They also publicly say that there is No God in public and call religious people as "Dims" and those who don't believe in God as "Brights", in that way pushing Atheist and Secular beliefs on others. I also just love how left-wingers and Atheists Secularists play favoritism by allowing certain groups to get away with things, but not holding other groups to the same standards via the "Hot Stove" rules that fair play and justice should go by. Everyone should equally get burned the same way by violating a rule or law. Some people are free thinkers but make stupid decisions in their lives that come back to haunt them as well as causing unneeded suffering in others because they make selfish and narcissistic decisions, very much like they accuse right-wingers and religious people of doing, which they do as well some times. Not that any of the present company here does those things, you guys and gals are alright in my book, but there are exceptions out there that give me all the materials I need to write jokes that mock left-wingers and Secularists and Atheists, etc. Personally I don't care what a person does or says, it is there right to do or say it, as long as it doesn't harm anyone or come to harm me or others. You can be an Atheist or Secular Human and still be moral and ethical and a good American, I don't care what George H. W. Bush said, he was wrong for saying it. When I took that political compass test I was slightly left of center, a moderate, so right-wingers see me as a left-winger, and left-wingers see me as a right-winger, and that in itself is funny. Though I also made fun of right-wingers and Christians, because I don't discriminate who I mock or make fun of. I don't hold back and I just write what funny thoughts come to my mind via my schizoaffective disorder, and in most cases people find it funny, but in some cases they don't find it funny. Just that right-wingers and Christians haven't complained to me about me mocking them but a lot of left-wingers and Atheists and Secular Humanists complained to me about mocking them, so I tuned it down a bit and tried to be more respectful, and in some cases rewrite the article or had them rewrite the article so that they would think it was funny. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Christ you people are long-winded. Satirize whoever you want, as long as it's funny. Can we just let this forum die now? Please? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:10, Nov 7

Chuck Norris, you people lack a sense of humor. This stuff is funny and I will keep writing it to express my freedom of speech. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Go freedom of speech! Woo! /me waves little freedom of speech flag Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have discovered I am running a fever of 102^o Fahrfetnugen. No wonder I am sounding like a feverish idoit whose grey matter is not engaged in thinking but rather in dribbling from his nose -- no wonder, for that's exactly what I am. Bleagh. Jim Harrison recommended eating a 4-pound steak, raw with salt and pepper, climbing into a scalding hot bath, and drinking a fifth of whiskey (decent brand). He claimed the flu sufferer would awaken refreshed and invigorated. I wonder if it works. ----OEJ 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that anyone can satire whatever the hell they want. No need to debate it in a giant forum topic, just go and do it, and if it's funny people will laugh. The reason satire in America tends to be aimed at conservatives is (I'm guessing) because our current (conservative) president has tunnel-vision and is hated by almost everyone. I'd bet that if our president was an incompetent liberal, we'd have more satire going the other way. Or maybe not. Whatever. – Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLedBalloon (talk • contribs)

Remember the Clinton era? He got a blowjob from a chunky broad, apparently. Dems make for weak comedy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh, blowjob. See? Funny, heh. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:28, Nov 7

Yeah Bush gives comedians too much material, he is very easy to make fun of, the stutter the way he mispronounces words yet has a Harvard and Yale education and should speak better. Clinton gave comedians much material as well, anyone remember "Slick Willy" or "Bubba" jokes that were on par with the "Dubya" and "Bush is Hilter" jokes of today? IIRC back in the 1990's some little old ladies that got their retirement and Medicade benefits cut due to Clinton's Welfare reforms to create a budget surplus made statements like "Clinton is worse than Hitler!" which I found funny at the time, and very Godwin. My brother had bought a "Monica Lewinski Fan Club" T-Shirt that was blue like her dress and had a big white spot on it to simulate the Presidential cum stain on her dress, and it pissed people off, now he has that "Bush is Hitler" wallpaper made in Russia that he uses in Windows XP Pro and it pisses people off. People seem to forgot all of those trade deals Clinton and the Democratic Congress signed with China, that made a lot of US jobs go overseas and caused the Dotcom busts and a Black Friday because China was making IT Jobs, technology, and products cheaper than the USA could, and today they just blame Bush for it anyway. That in itself is a laugh riot, most of these things effecting our US Economy happened in the 1990's and nobody bothered to fix them yet. China now makes 88% of the stuff sold in the USA, what's up with that? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat detailed list of what's wrong and how to fix it

The biggest problems I see here are:

1. We discourage stupidity more than we encourage humor.
2. We often vote for articles on VFH because we were told to vote on them rather than give an honest opinion on how funny they are.
3. We don't get rid of the crap fast enough.
4. Too many anonymous and new users make unfunny articles thinking that they will be featured.
5. Following our standard of what is and is not funny is not mandatory. And,
6. We let people ruin things by making them funny without correcting them.

The best way to fix these problems might be to:

1. Give out more awards to good writers than punishments to bad writers.
2. Encourage voters on VFH not to listen to votewhores, avoid whoring articles, and give an opinion along with their vote.
3. Remove age restrictions for QVFD and ICU and make the stay of execution shorter.
4. Stop anonymous editing and give more positive attention to newbies.
5. Make some sort of quality assessment or rating system to grade how well something follows HTBFANJS and require that articles below a certain score be deleted and require a certain score for VFH. And,
6. Encourage writers to be funny and spend some time on their work rather than just slap it together in 5 minutes.

If we can do these things, people would be more inclined to be make an effort to be funny instead of just adding stupid things to make themselves laugh. As a result, the average quality and standards for humor would be raised and more people would want to come here. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 01:17, October 27, 2007

Here's my irrelevant opinion on things:

1. A featured article count isn't enough of an award? We don't want people to become competitive to the point where it's no longer fun. But I agree that the stupidity is very distracting. Something stupid happens, everyone flocks to make fun of it.
2. Sometimes the pressure is annoying, and when you're asked to vote, you feel obligated to vote for and awful for voting against. Being whored causes bias, and why do you care when it gets featured so long as it gets featured? But VFH is slow, and it drives people to whoring. Maybe it would be better if writers didn't focus so much on their score of whatever article is on VFH at the moment and just focus on writing another one.
3. No. Changing the stay of execution will change nothing. People don't live their lives on this place, I hope. A week is reasonable. Don't shorten it any further. And for QVFD, the problem is not the present amount of crap, but with the incoming crap. Let the other crap rot, for all I care, it's not doing any harm, and it can be weeded out from time to time.
4. Never stop anons editing. This is a wiki, for god's sake. Some people just want to try editing first before jumping into it and getting a username. We know it's not that big of a step, but to a newcomer, it might seem that way.
5. Rating systems would be nice, but the fact of the matter is, the community is small. Just trying to get feedback in Pee Review, VFH, VFP, and VFD is a struggle.
6. Duh. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:38 Oct 27, 2007

Maybe if an article has some potential instead of a VFD or QVFD we can vote to move it to the "Uncrap:" namespace which we can create for crappy articles or maybe the "UnToilet:" namespace or something like that. We could also create many sorts of awards to give people to help make them feel good. Like the Andy Kaufman Award for an article that is only funny to its writer, but appears to be f-ing annoying to everyone else. The Mel Gibson award for an article that is supposed to be funny but ends up offensive because the writer got drunk and went on a racist or gay-bashing rant. Or the Cosmo Kramer award for an article that was heckled and then the writer made it offensive to the hecklers. Or the Jerry Seinfeld Award for a funny article about nothing, what's up with that? Or the Jeff Foxworthy award because the writer might be a redneck. Or the Larry the Cable Guy award, because the writer was in a hurry to GitRDone, and was sloppy in doing the humor. Or the Don Rickels award because the writer used a lot of profanity. Or the Paris Hilton award because the article had too many sexual references in it. Or the PeeWee Herman award because the article was basically humor masturbation and the writer "meant to do that" in public. Or the Anonymous Slashy award, because the writer basically went in and rewrote the article because he found it offensive to a certain group. I am sure we can think of more of these BS awards to give out for certain categories. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In regards to #2: The whoring problem is not necessarily that VFH is slow, it's that it's uncertain. Not everyone is going to read every page on VFH, so sometimes a page by a less-established author or with a less-interesting name will be ignored and wind up being rm low health'd with 5 strong fors and no againsts after a few days. The voting banner was supposed to fix that, and I think votes have gone up a little. Still, I personally would prefer to see more votes on VFH, especially by users I don't know, because that shows that new users are voting. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:01, Oct 27

That bit about lesser known authors or authors with less-interesting names is, I feel, particularly true. Not to belittle their accomplishments, but I suspect a major reason Ljlego, LedBalloon and other super-talents can regularly get so many votes is that, once they've made a name for themselves, they can rely on reputation to win nominations—users say, "Oh, look, [insert name here] wrote it, so of course it's good. Now I have to read it!" which makes them ten times more likely to vote. The singular reason I whored my article was because I knew it would never get enough votes otherwise; I'm not a "name".

I'll also suggest a way to increase general voter turnout—do what Australia does and slap non-voters with a fifty-dollar fine, or make them write an essay on why they didn't vote. In the very least, we would no longer have to worry about funding. ...Okay, in all seriousness, make the "nommed on VFH" template BIGGER, dammit! That thing's tiny, it's so damn innocuous you can barely even notice it unless you're lookin' for it. --Humble Acolyte of Humor, _CUN RA ^{Talk to me} _ 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

One idea I have is this: we create a Ho Patrol. Any user that tries to whore an article will be reported to it, along with the article in question. People who work for the Ho Patrol will be encouraged to vote against whored articles and to try to get writers to stop whoring. Because VFH whores would get against votes and a bad reputation if they whored, they would be more inclined to stop whoring.

Another idea would be to encourage people to think about the article on VFH, not the writer. Voting based on the writer is a huge reason why a lot of good articles don't get featured, a lot of crap goes on the Main Page, and writers become so self-absorbed. If people would just read the articles and give an honest opinion on the article instead of the writer, the FA quality would go up. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 09:57, October 28, 2007

Wouldn't "Ho Patrol" be considered demeaning to real hoes? --_CUN RA ^{Talk to me} _ 19:19, October 28, 20078

I still like my idea of fining users $50 for not voting. Whatever happened to enforcing our civic duties? --_CUN RA ^{Talk to me} _ 19:19, October 28, 2007

I Get the Message...

Humo(u)r is about pleasing people, unfortunatly it's hard to please every one at once, so that's what HTBFANJS is for, to(supposbly) reach out to the more intelligent people. Comedy is not about what you like, it's about what others like. If your an ice cream man, and you don't like chocolate, the best thing to do is not to stop selling chocolate, but give them what they want. --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 01:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have come back from my vacation to post this.

Alright, let me reiterate what others have said: You can please some of the people, some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. What you find unfunny, and I myself, dislike exessive jokes about sex. Thoguh I typically hate jokes on Religeon, I enjoy them when in good taste. This is usually read, but not always. This is what I do:Avoid everything I hate. Read funnier (in my/your eyes) articles. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 01:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What Comedy Is and Isn't

Comedy isn't safe, it isn't clean, it isn't inoffensive. Comedy is, by its very nature, offensive. It's meant to attack social faux paus, essentially. Someone falls on their ass and we laugh, because that's not expected. That's not what is supposed to happen. But is funny, except to maybe the person who fell on their ass. Comedy that is entirely inoffensive is bad comedy. In fact it's probably in inverse proportion to how nice it is. "You know who's really great? Everybody!" vs. "You know what sucks dick? Whores that I give money to." Notice anything? Probably the latter made at least a few of you chuckle. Actually probably not, but the former surely didn't, because it isn't funny, and nothing like it can be. If you're at the website, you're presumably here to read some satire. Well let's see, political and social issues are the very issues that need to be satirized. When we make fun of people who hold ridiculous moral viewpoints because of their religion (See: Fundagelical Christianity ) we do so for a reason: because this is what satire does. It makes absurd things look even more absurd, and sometimes those absurd things have to do with death and murder and depression and all those things that make life fun. There's nothing inherently unfunny about sexual content and rude content. In fact, it's inherently funny BECAUSE it's so unexpected. We joke about those things we can't speak about normally without fear of social stigma: masturbation, sex, fucking, killing, hating, because it's a useful release. Getting puritanical doesn't make these things go away and it sure as hell doesn't make you very funny. I don't give a shit about making stuff "kid friendly" because I'm young enough to remember what I thought was funny was a kid. Guess what it was? Pretty much the same stuff that I think is funny now. Was I fucked up? Possibly. Probably. Anyway, I think the issue here, Nerd42, if you read this, which you might now, is that have unrealistic expectations. When you say you rarely watch R movies, you stratify yourself. This is not a mainstream view, nor should it be. There is a lot of art contained in violence, in sex, and in hatred. Name me a good work of art that doesn't reference any of these things. I defy you. Your Bible? It has all three in abundance. The Christian story is one based on an obscure form of a sex, that devolves into an orgy of hate and violence towards the end. And the entire Christian morality is based on this. If there were no sin, there would be no Christianity. So you do nothing but undermine yourself. We can't censor ourselves for a small minority, or even a large minority. And we shouldn't. Our site has a specific mission and goal, that is the production of satire. I mean, Orwell's books pissed off a lot of Communists. Should have "let the other side have their say?" Would that make any sense? So then why should we? Why should my articles contain opposing viewpoints when they're written from a single coherent one? I don't like to see any valuable contributor leave, and you are a valuable contributor, but if you can't stand the site, then it's just not for you. There's no such thing as "adult" content, short of murder films and hardcore pornography, and I would be pissed to no measure if my articles were to be censored in such a manner. In fact, if any of this sort of censorship occurs, I'll request my articles taken down, because I refuse to have what I've written be marginalized to appeal to one group's narrow moral viewpoint, a viewpoint that I've spent a great deal of my satire criticizing. And that's all I have to say about that, until I start writing while intoxicated again. Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was this close to just dropping another "tl;dr" below here, but something deep inside told me to read this. So, very well said, ENeGMA. I agree with everything you've said. However, with your 2 comparisons at the top, the first one was funnier, but for the exact same reason that you thought the second would be. It's unexpected, and it also satirized the opposing view. But I digress. Anyways, I will always oppose MOST censorship. I draw the line at hardcore porn and shock images, because that's not the kind of site I want uncyclopedia to be, and I think others share in this perspective. But, censoring text would be an outrage, and I might have to leave uncyclopedia for that. There is nothing more wholesome than comedy, whether it is "family friendly" or not. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:29, Oct 27

Oh, and does anyone else find it a just a little ironic that Col.swordman and Nerd42 just left uncyclopedia for almost the exact opposite reasons? Nerd says too much satire, Colonel says not enough. I think that says something about the arguments posted by both of them; they are objective, to say the least. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:31, Oct 27

I agree with you. There is a lot of R-Rated stuff in the Bible, and also a lot of Hollywood movies and TV shows have borrowed from the Bible to write their scripts. Stuff like "The Matrix" has terminology from the Bible more than a Mel Gibson movie does. The Matrix character names Neo was the Christ figure, Trinity was Mary Madeline and the Holy Trinity, Agent Smith was The Devil, Morpheus was John the Baptist who baptized Neo, etc. Anyway my point is that even in things that are not religious there are religious references in them anyway. Yes sometimes funny stuff is offensive to some people. Everyone has a different sense of humor and have different things that they find offensive. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but well put, enegma. Also, I've always believe that hardcore porn and shock images aren't on here because they're never funny. Or at the very least, shock images' supposed humour comes from the reactions of those exposed to it unwittingly, and Uncyclopedia should be read to be amused, not to be made the joke yourself; as ENeGMA said, nobody likes being the butt of the joke. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:57, 27 Oct 2007

How everyone feels about Nerd42 leaving and his reasons for doing so

Nobody cares -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 03:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed--Sir Manforman 13:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:40 Oct 27, 2007

I got as far as "Nob" and then had to stop reading, as it offended my sensibilities too much. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:43, 27 Oct 2007

I saw the word "Nerd" and quit. That is a derogatory term used to put down those who don't share your personal preferences for extracurricular activity. It made me sniffle. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice redshirt, by the way...the Starfleet pocket protector is a nice touch, if not canon.Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seriously ya'll, lay off. I was only joking. Not everyone likes sexual humor. It's probally one of the most personal things, along with religion and toliet habits. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 03:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL PRIESTS WITH BIG DICKS DOING A POOPY – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:55 Oct 27, 2007

Are you insulting my urges to pee in the holy water at church? This offends me greatly. Seriously, it looks just like a urinal! It's not my fault that everybody puts their hand in it before mass! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:11, Oct 27

Some say water isn't truly holy until Led has pissed in it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:14, 27 Oct 2007

Actually, when you pee in holy water, it technically isn't "pissing" anymore, it's the 9th holy sacrament of catholicism. Comes right after having tons of siblings, and right before lying to a holy man about your sins. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:21, Oct 27

Just to be Different

I care. Not. But its funny that everbody cares about not caring so much.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   05:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)  

I care as well. Even though I didn't know him very well, every time we lose a veteran user, we lose something of Uncyclopedia. It really doesn't matter what are the reasons or ramblings at the moment. In case no one have noticed, quite a few people vanished in the last few months and perhaps we need to ask ourselves, why? Where is FlyingFeline? Where is Braydie? Why has Ceridwyn dropped of the radar? Hardwick? Procopious? Is that because they just finished that specific phase in their lives or perhaps just felt that Uncync isn't as much of a humor centric wiki anymore? I find this question quite disturbing and that goes along with some other trends that I view here lately. It seems that people don't write for the sake of writing anymore. They write for the sake of featuring. And votes are cast with no relations to quality of writing or humor but according to mutual deals the "vote for me and I'll vote for you" kind. I care very much for the place, and I have a tingling sensation that it has changed lately, and not for the best. ~ 13:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

HAY GUYS, FLYINGFELINE IS BACK! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:57 Oct 29, 2007

That's a pretty odd place to add a comment. You might have disrupted the whole comment-space continuum with antics like that. Also, shhh! You might scare her away again! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:02, 29 Oct 2007

Well, I could have added it way down at the bottom, but then people would have been like "wha is he responding to again?" and it would break the arc besides. The arc, Spang! You can't break the arc! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:09 Oct 29, 2007

Isn't that what Noah said? "You can't break the ark"? --Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You never care about somebody until they are gone... Sigh.... I remeber when everyone edited in a way everyone liked.... when the wiki didn't exist... --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"It seems that people don't write for the sake of writing anymore. They write for the sake of featuring." Maybe. I dunno. I suspect some newer users want to make their mark by getting on the front page once or twice. It's a catch-22 isn't it? We want to reward good writing by giving nifty recognition and status perks to VFH winners, but maybe that encourages the write-for-the-feature culture. Oh poop. Why is nothing perfect? I just want one perfect thing... ----OEJ 16:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree. While I don't care about the ramblings, as I've gone through the history logs of Uncyclopedia, I've seen a lot of signatures belonging to users I've never even seen. The whole place seems to be geared towards features, and killing off everything that's not feature-quality. Where is the funny?

I really like this place. Really really. It's helped me find my dry sense of humor again, and I feel like I owe it a lot. This website is one of the two main factors that helped my writing not go down the tubes over the summer. At first it all seemed nice and shiny and new — I wrote an article and everyone seemed to like it. But now I feel like my stuff's not even getting read. The other day or week or some other period of time a joke nom for VFH popped up, and I voted For because the article didn't exist (it was, in fact, a Rick Roll link), as I knew the thing was bound to get huffed shortly anyhow. But people actually voted on that nomination without even clicking the link, just because X and Y voted for it. I feel like I'm writing into a massive black hole here.

Seriously, where is the funny? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:41 Oct 27, 2007

One thing about writing into a black hole: don't. Not even funny can escape from a black hole. My tip: just sit back, write when the muse strikes, read when she doesn't. Uncyc is much more fun when you are unconcerned with what other people think (granted, that's mostly theorical. I'm just as ego-centric and paranoid as you. More, probably. Plus, I have bunny slippers and a big cup of cocoa. But that's off-topic). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking too hard again. Also, I want cocoa. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:51 Oct 27, 2007

At least you can pretend to write for writing's sake. (And always, always fart for fart's sake.) It's a lot of fun to explore oddities -- article as short-short story, article as metafiction, article as idiocy, article as prose-poem, whatever. Somebody famous once counseled writers to "read widely" and you best read widely beyond Uncyc! And when you read a perfect nugget of Tim Cahill travel humor, maybe it will inspire you to chronicle the Uncyc Expedition to the Tibesti Mountains or something. StrangeButUntrue and SaveTheMooses traverse a desolate desert plateau with only their own blood to drink. Oh, it sounds like so much fun. Somebody write it. And forget about VFH. ----OEJ 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

VFH drives me nuts on a regular basis. The only reason why I like getting any of my articles on there is because then I think people will read them, and the only reason I like getting anything featured is not because of how many "Featured Articles" I have, but because I think more (read: maybe five more) people will read them. Clearly, I was dead wrong. But that's not what bothers me, I love to write for writing's sake. 90% of my writing I'll probably not end up showing to more than one or two people. But I also love to make people laugh, and that's the part that bothers me — I want to make people chuckle a little. Nothing lifts my spirits more than alcohol when someone tells me that something I did was funny, and when they're one of my friends they'll usually say it improved their day just a little bit. But don't get me wrong — I love to write for writing's sake, and experiment with writing, and read books by people both dead and alive. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:07 Oct 27, 2007

Dead people are writing books? O_O Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you never heard the term "ghost writer"? Geez. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:15 Oct 27, 2007

Robert Ludlum is an excellent example. ~ 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just write because it's fun. I like to write. All the time I get an essay to do for school and I go "wow, this topic is boring, and I have nothing to write about that's any different from what everybody else in the class will be writing". That's where uncyc comes in. More than anything else, I like to do creative things, although granted I'm not particularly experimental, I almost enjoy it more to see if I can do things that have been done before, and not look utterly pathetic next to them. As for VFH, I love to see my pages featured, but only if I think my page will make others laugh. Granted, when I first started here and got a couple features, I wanted to be featured just so I could be on the front page, and get the template and put CUN in front of my name. I think that urge has worn off some, although I do still think it's great to be featured. It's great to see your page chosen, out of 30,000 others, and called the best, if just for one day. As for whoring, well, I guess that's just an urge to show people what you've done. To say "hey, check out what I did! And while you're at it, wanna vote for it?" Everyone loves to be told that their work is good, and sometimes featuredom on the front page seems like the best way. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:30, Oct 27

Goodness gracious I'm being long-winded lately. I need to stop being such a preachy asshole. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:32, Oct 27

OMIGOSH I like too right to! You long winded preachy asshole! Actually I quite liked that comment, mostly because I agree with it. Hence why I'll never truly understand all these blasted quality control arguments! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:33 Oct 27, 2007

Well I've seen so many changes to this topic on RC i've decided to stick my worthless opinion here and see what happens. I read parts out Nerd42's speech and decided I didn't care, and y'know what I still don't. All you idealistic bastards can whine and grumble about banning Ips from creating pages, stopping whoring, changing this that or the other, writing for awards sake and not just for the funny until the end of time. Y'know the reason I don't care? because things will never change and I recognize that. People will always whore, people will always write just for the awards, people will always find something to get pissed about. My attitude is if you're not happy the door is over there. Just for the love of God don't whine about it. I don't write here because I discovered I'm not really funny enough to do so, I only read articles when they're about three lines long, laced with profanity and IP created or if someone whores it on IRC. All I do here is clean up Why? I like this place, and yes some things do annoy me and there are things I'd like to change but meh...I acknowledge it'll never happen, refresh RC and get on with life... (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 27, 17:46

The good writers never have written for the sake of features, and they never will. Me on the other hand, I'm all about the features. Got nomming kids! Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think everybody cared about the features at one point, if only so you can feel like you're really part of the uncyc community. When you're featured you feel like a big man. A BIG MAN. Wanna make me feel like a big man? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:35, Oct 27

That's it. From now I I'm not responding to whores. At all (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 27, 18:38

I think the biggest problem facing Uncyc is uptight people who can't figure out when other people are joking. I am, by far, the most humble and selfless person on this website and it's right time you all realized the fact and acknowledged it, ideally with a parade or a statue. Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 18:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am almost sort of proud to say I have not even half a featured article to my name, thus proving I'm the best, eh Enegma? I write when something strikes me, and I try to write without regard for how many people will like it, as long as I think someone will. For example... Also, I write not much at the minute...  :-( -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of old Spangs' very, very, very strange talk page..... that weird colored arc de triomph thing he and Ceridwyn did. Anyways, while everyone says Nobody Cares, we really do. Don't run away, be happy. You see, sexjokes aren't funny to many, and are really funny to othe- WHY AM I REITERATING WHAT EVERYONE SAYS? --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 20:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "did"? The arc is still alive and kicking baby! Also if you say my name on a random page enough times I mysteriously re-appear. Like the Candyman or Beetlejuice only less scary and with bewbs. Also I concur with what Mord said at the top here. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 10:21, 04 November 2007

You know why I whore, it's so people will actually READ my page. But even that doesn't happen half the time. I also like my articles on VFH, because then they might get to the front page, where somebody might actually read it. The fact is, unless your article is either A. Whored B. On the front page or C. has some sort of recognition, its unlikely any more than 10 people will ever read the whole thing, or any of it at all. - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 20:43, Oct 28

You can strike point C, I made an article on The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (There, no link, no whore) and it hasn't even gotten a single n00b edit in over a day! (Unless you count me, but I'm only a n00b in intelligence). Mr. Briggs Inc. 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Eh?

Personally, I can see how some people would write articles here just for the ego-boost that comes from their being featured. It affected me too, for a while... However, I should really point out that initially, my entire reason for writing articles here was to try and convince Nerd42 that he should leave the website, not that I believe he actually will of course. I just wish we'd thought of the whole "sex on every page" idea much sooner!  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wading right into the middle of this big long thing to give my opinion

I haven't read the whole thread so excuse me if I repeat stuff:

1. Sex is funny. Usually, dirty jokes are the best ones. Sex-related humour, as long as it is well done, is funny.
2. Not everything here is about sex. See the featured articles for the last 2 days for reference (Short story,Time Travel)
3. This is supposed to be a humour site. Lighten up.
4. If you want to go somewhere where you can't post anything anti-conservative and your every thought is controlled there are plenty of places you can do that. I suggest Conservapedia
5. A Junior Uncyclopedia would probably be dirtier than this one.

That is all (for now) -- expensive Ape (deceive) (Riot Porn) 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with point one. Sex-related humor is often unoriginal and not at all clever. Other than that, I agree with the other stuff. (Not that anybody cares.) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:39 Oct 27, 2007

Sex humor is retarded and should be taken off this site entirely. Elassint Throw things at me 22:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What if it's satire? Does having a point redeem it? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to make generalizations about any type of humor, sexual or otherwise. There are plenty of ways to completely ruin any type of humor, or to make any type brilliant and hilarious. It all starts with the comedian/writer/whatever. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:58, Oct 27

Good point. I do think, though, that people use sex jokes in place of humor just as they use other offensive content in place of humor, which is what bugs me. It has its place, but it's infamous for its use in place of actual funny. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:30 Oct 28, 2007

Right, and that explains why the "what not to do" section on HTBFANJS is just as long or longer than the one on "what to do". Also, wow this thread has moved off topic. From cussing to religion to sex, where will we wind up next? Anyone catch the Sox game? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:22, Oct 28

Damn. College essays suck man. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYIN'? Yeah. Damn. -- Sir FS Doovad Read You got somethin to say? 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps sex is funny, but don't you think we get too much of it in every "Laugh-Out-Loud Comedy of the Year"? --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Something we can all agree on

I'm awesome. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Score: +1

1. Agreed ~ 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If by *I* you mean *me* I concur. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Score: +3

1. Agreed on that as well ~ 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. I also agree that User:I is awesome. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:49, Oct 28
3. Somebody finally loves me! I 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And betray my membership to the "Kill All Large Herbivores Club"? My ancestors wiped out the giant sloth and slew woolly mammoths. How can I betray that memory, and admit that you, One Who Supports Saving Mooses, are awesome? --Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to make something clear to anyone who is confused

Nowhere in the suggestions I make do I advocate categorically deleting all sexually explicit content. I'm just saying I don't want to read it or be involved with it, so I won't write for Uncyclopedia anymore unless it is seperated somehow so I don't have to run into it. Uncyclopedia has become way too gross and offensive for me and I think there are lots of other people who feel the same way as me but probably don't have the same ideas about the cause or the solution and obviously don't care about the issue enough to write a long letter about it. Also, I don't think that "uncyclopedia is the worst" or anything like that. I'd still be writing and stuff if it wasn't for the problems I bring up. This is not a personal emotional issue - it's a personal choice issue. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Illogicopedia is the best --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So...why did you bother to post this forum? As long as the wiki remains editable, people will add sexual content. Seems to me like you're just stirring up trouble. I don't know about everyone else, but I like my trouble shaken...not stirred. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:53, Oct 29

You still haven't given any examples or proof of your claim, so yes I'm still confused. And you can separate it out yourself with a free content filter (there are many more too). Boom, no explicit content. As I said above, when you're dealing with free speech, you have to be the one that blocks or separates out what you don't like, you can't make someone else do it for you, because nobody ever will. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:08, 29 Oct 2007

Can I just point out how sad and weird it sounds that you are making such a big deal over a few wank jokes? If you don't like it kindly fuck off. -- expensive Ape (deceive) (Riot Porn) 20:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what he's trying to do. Except more politely. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:23 Oct 29, 2007

Yeah, but why is he taking so long and making such a big deal? -- expensive Ape (deceive) (Riot Porn) 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not, we are. Also, your sig's too long. Thought I'd mention. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:51 Oct 29, 2007

It's deliberate. -- expensive Ape (deceive) (Riot Porn) 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that while I am a Christian like Nerd42, I can find stuff that is offensive to Christians as funny. Everyone is a sinner in some way. I am just being honest that I am a sinner. I mean Jesus died for our sins, I think he can take a joke as well. If Christians are supposed to become like Jesus then we can take a joke as well even if it is offensive, just turn the other cheek. People have a right to their opinions and sense of humor, and if I don't like it I usually hit the back button on my web browser and look at something else. On other parts of the Internet people don't get my sense of humor and call me awful names and hate me, but I never forced them to read my jokes, and all they need do is see the name "Orion Blastar" in the message or article history and just refuse to read it if they hate my humor that much. On Uncyclopedia I wrote some funny stuff or contributed to funny articles and I won a few awards, thanks to those who gave me awards or voted for me. If I don't like something I just won't read it anymore. The only way if I VFD something is if it violates the rules here at Uncyclopedia, I don't just VFD stuff I don't like, because some other people may find it funny. Everyone has a different sense of humor and can find one thing funny that someone else might not find funny. Like Andy Kaufman only him and a few other people found his humor funny and everyone else hated him for wrestling with women or being Tony Clifton, which where his jokes and his humor. I guess I am saying that in a system such as Uncyclopedia people are going to disagree as to what is funny and what is not funny. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM!

haHA! I have vandalized your userpage... NERD!!!11! --  Le Cejak • <-> 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

REASONS FOR DE VANDALIZM IN A LONG, DRAWN OUT ESSAY

Because he's a whiny little bitch who, apparently, gay bashed on IRC! Fuck him, man! --  Le Cejak • <-> 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So...you're a jackass. Congrats. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the page where you nominate people to be banned from the internet? -- expensive Ape (deceive) (Riot Porn) 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is (r)tarted

You peeple r stuupid! Uncyclopedia kills all you noobs. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy1029384756 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that insight, Jeremy. ----OEJ 12:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless. I hereby take back whatever opinion I had before, and replace it with what Jeremy just said. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No one here has managed to clarify this arguement better than Jeremy's brilliant statement. I have decided to alter my life to base it upon your words, and there is a movie called 'tarted' coming out in March. Nerd, before I was distracted by Jeremy's poetic phrase, I was going to say that I agree with you on several points, and especially on your 'wikiword.' I'm fine with decent sex jokes, or well done satire on it. But, to many people, sex is unfortunately the funniest content possible. So, to please everyone, including those whose senses of humor have been bashed, PENIS!!! (That is all) Fresh Stain Serq Fet of Pokemon (At your service) 06:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(r)tarted? Doesn't he mean (r)tarded? Potato tato tater tots? I like dem french fried potatoes! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I have no idea what anybody here is talking about, so here's a cat saying "Invisible Sandwich" --  Le Cejak • <-> 16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of Slingblade, eh? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CHRIST THAT CAT IS HILARIOUS --  Le Cejak • <-> 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CAN WE JUST TALK ABOUT THIS CAT, NOW?? --  Le Cejak • <-> 03:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the pornographic smut

I think that Uncyclopedia has lost the idea of writing actual encyclopedia-styled articles and has gone to writing narratives and articles on topics that have no remote basis in reality. -- The fatgoat Talk (to me, obviously) The Crap I've Done 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I AM LEAVING UNCYCLOPEDIA IF 1 OUT OF EVERY 3 ARTICLES ARE NOT CONVERTED TO ABSOLUTE PORNO SMUT! I'm talkin' any kind. Hard core, soft core, man on woman, man on man, man on goat... anything, or I'm leaving... FOREVAH! --  Le Cejak • <-> 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice too.-- The fatgoat Talk (to me, obviously) The Crap I've Done 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In a way that has already happened, because that is what Nerd42 was accusing us all of doing. He has such standards that practically anything we post he considers porn or smut. It all depends on how you define it. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)