Talk:Content-free
I think you people are a tad confused. "Content-free" means "without content".
- ...what? --Chronarion 06:54, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Sigh, I don't know if this is against Uncyclopedia rules, but that's the point.. It's a joke. Uncyclopedia is a humorous parody of Wikipedia. There is no content that is to be taken seriously here.
- Bann'd Unfortunately, forever was not a valid timeframe!!! --Savethemooses 22:02, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- lol --Nerd42 22:20, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
What is wrong with you people? You guys are wicked retarded making this website.66.30.58.20 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I vote for deletion of all text in this article. The way it is now, it has way too much content. Well, maybe you could leave an explanation saying: this is an example of a content free article. Or you could just turn all the text to a color matching the white backround.
- I disagree. It's a great parody. One of the most admirable articles I've seen on this site. And parodies correspond to the Satirical Point of View much better than meaningless absurdist humour. --194.145.161.227 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does the content-free page contain content? --62.252.224.17 09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could you explain what content you find there? because I'm missing it.
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
See Also[edit source]
- Retard and related ailments:
- Oscar Wilde on Content Free and other issues:
Please have mercy for the n00bs[edit source]
If you want to make this page look content-free, then please just redirect it to Nihilism and put the page's old content somewhere under an alternate title (replace the current redirect at Free content perhaps?). I think that the page's current design is not safe for n00bs. Pentium5dot1 07:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Um, is anyone reading this? I said, just redirect the article to Nihilism... Pentium5dot1 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This looks more appropriate for doublespeak than content-free. 
artin ltimatalkcontribs 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"Ich bin Gojiro"
Where I can find good quality films online[edit source]
Where I can find good quality films? Can anyone help me?
This site would be funnier if it didn't use the same license, the same format, the same input traces (ip address / account) in its database, and the same software, developed by the site it is "parodying." Christ I even have to put in the four god damn tildas! lol so effin hilarious!
How can so many idiots people have missed the joke?[edit source]
The comments on this talk page to the effect that there's content on the content-free page so it's not content free must all have been made by people who never had to suffer through the structured, process-based meetings which happen after someone calls in management consultants to "fix" the company's management structure/planning process/time reporting/morale/what-have-you.
None the less there's something that's puzzling me, which is if the page is so great, why isn't it world class? Every product I've ever worked on has been "world class". (At least, every product I've worked on since that term was invented.) Our marketing people said so and they should know.
Yo-One!
(You should laugh now, that last bit with the "Yo" thing was world-class funny. Don't worry if you don't know why, just take my word for it.) Snarglefoop (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree about the "world-class" thing, it's practically a corporate meme. You'd think after ten years the meme would have gotten old, but apparently not. (It has been nine or ten years since I worked someplace that used that term regularly.) -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 20:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ar least 15 years ago for me, but I don't recall it being used recently. It's a Yo-full comment, either way. Nominally Humane! 08:43 08 Jan