Forum:Good, clean fun

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Good, clean fun

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6013 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hey there, fellow Uncyclopedians.

I've been severely disappointed with the quality of a majority of jokes here. Turns out that some people are too lazy to come up with something funny or interesting in this comedy club. They rely on blatant randomness, slander, scatalogical humor and adultery to get by. What? Are the backlogs of stories exhausted?

Everyone here is a bright, thinking inDUHvidual. Therefore, someone has to cough up something neat and funny without injecting swear words, political scandals, and adult themes. I know I've come up with quite a few.

Well, I for am usually just sitting in the dark doing improvements to articles that need maintanance, but I'm ready to get to work on this overwhelming 'stnank now.

Dennis Dunjinman 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I take offense to your implication that "good fun" and "clean fun" are one and the same. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:51, 09 May 2007

I'd take your diatribe more seriously if you didn't say things like "...doing improvements to articles that need maintanance", which is obviously a euphemism for masturbation. For shame! Children could be reading this. Adults too! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Shut up, ye! It's just that unoriginal humor shouldn't be overused and I believe it's uncalled for. Besides, I just add links to articles or re-write them, or fix typos. Sometimes when I stumble on something I come up with a good idea. My current project is the article on "Brawndo", which I added some info about the FDA and a picture of a river make of the sports drink. Dennis Dunjinman 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You come in here ranting about originality all the while ripping off Scott Adams with your inDUHvidual bit. Dear me. Anyway, a majority of pages are written by random losers, but I think you'll find that in general crap doesn't stick around for long, and it certainly doesn't get featured. P.S. Fuck fuck fuck. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Brawndo" isn't original either. Watch this funny clip and you'll see it has been done and that it is part of a movie called Idiocracy. I mean you ought to just say that law degrees are bought from Costco in 2505 or something. You want funnier articles, here is some good advice for you "Do it yourself!" it is the Wiki motto. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A good movie, IMO. It's no Office Space, however. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A funny movie if it turns out not to be true, if the future really ends up like that then it is more of a horror movie. I liked the ending though and the time machine part. I rented it for $2.50 and it was worth it, but not a $11 movie ticket.--Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you fast-forward past the ending credits? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit! I just read Brawndo. You complain about unoriginality, then you tell me to shut up for original humour at your expense...and the article that you hold up as a paragon of goodness is mostly ripped off from a movie! I am outraged! Mike Judge is rolling over in his grave! I'm using multiple exclamation points and everything!! I know where this page is going...

Seriously, though. Don't accuse others of doing what you do yourself. It makes you look like an ass. That's my job. And Stm's. And Oblastar. Etc. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, good old hypocrisy. I haven't seen an example this good for a long time. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"They rely on blatant randomness, slander, scatalogical humor and adultery to get by." That's not true! I haven't relied on adultery to get by since the time I slept with my lectu... but I've said too much. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)