Talk:HeadOn

Article TBR[edit source]

I'm thinking of Rewriting the HeadOn Article to match closely to the TV ad, I think repeating Head On, Apply Directly to the Forhead would be better, Any thoughts --NXWave 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, a vandal did that already. It resembled that AAAAAAAAA! article too much that way. Just add in some funny stuff if you want to help out. Rewrite the parts that aren't funny with funny parts. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about?[edit source]

In the USA, on TV, there is an annoying commercial with a woman rubbing a tube of something on her forehead with the announcer saying "HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead" multiple times. No other information is given, we assume it is headache medicine, but it could be anything. This article was an attempt to make fun of the commercial. Appologies to those who don't live in the USA, or that haven't seen the commercial or know what I'm ranting about. HeadOn deserves to be made fun of, if you don't like it, rewrite it, because I don't want to see it deleted. If you have no idea of what HeadOn is, make some stuff up, rather than vote to delete it or something. If you don't live in the USA, or never saw this commercial, consider yourselves blessed and lucky, because I have to suffer it 24 hours a day 7 days a week when I am watching US television. Yeah, even late at night to early in the morning when ESPN only shows white guys boxing, the annoying commercial is on. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This crap is all over CNN and Judge Judy. You think HeadOn is annoying, you should see the ones for FREEdHEM (made by the same company); Freedom from hemhrroids, FREEDhEM hemhrroid cream over and over. You want Millon Dollar?!? ^{(blah • Closed Captioned)} 00:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really want to repeat the same crap over and over again, or would it be funnier to make fun of what HeadOn is used for and made out of like I wrote? --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF is HeadOn anyway?[edit source]

Mostly water and wax, 99.9% of it is anyway, about 0.1% of it has active ingredients and it is a homeopathic medicine not tested by the FDA, which means it might as well be snakeoil. You'll get a much better and cheaper effect to put hot or cold water on a towel and place it over your forehead, because water is the main ingredient in this thing. The commercial is actually more annoying than this article is, believe it or not. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

HeadOn Maximum Strength[edit source]

I added a photoshopped entry from Fark.com, HeadOn and a Pistol to make Maxium Strength HeadOn. Dark humor I know, but I have a history of suicide and friends who used guns to commit suicide, so joking about it helps me to deal with it better. Besides nobody says to pull the trigger. Got a headache that only HeadOn, Maximum Strength can cure? Yeah yeah I know, poor taste, but after watching that commercial 24/7 it almost makes one want to use a HeadOn, Maximum Strength product or force the company execs who approved of the commercial to use it. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAA![edit source]

In the sense that this is repeating the same thing over and over again, isn't this, by definition, an AAAAAAAAA! Clone™? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Originally it wasn't, until it was vandalized into an AAAAAAAAA! Clone™. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Triple article sections[edit source]

Why do we have triple article sections repeating the same thing three times? Don't we repeat enough in the article already before the three duplicate sections shtick was added? Is the goal here to be funny or annoying? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the unintentional result of the commercial itself was annoying, and it isn't wise to read every passage 3 times, just skip it. --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Triple article sections[edit source]

Why do we have triple article sections repeating the same thing three times? Don't we repeat enough in the article already before the three duplicate sections shtick was added? Is the goal here to be funny or annoying? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the unintentional result of the commercial itself was annoying, and it isn't wise to read every passage 3 times, just skip it. --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Triple article sections[edit source]

Why do we have triple article sections repeating the same thing three times? Don't we repeat enough in the article already before the three duplicate sections shtick was added? Is the goal here to be funny or annoying? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the unintentional result of the commercial itself was annoying, and it isn't wise to read every passage 3 times, just skip it. --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Witt,

of

UNion Entertain me* 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

HeadOn[edit source]

Apply directly to the -- oh, who cares. (((remmaH dnuoP neT•Yakka foob mog.•Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.•Chumble spuzz.))) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

HeadOn[edit source]

Apply directly to the -- oh, who cares. (((remmaH dnuoP neT•Yakka foob mog.•Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.•Chumble spuzz.))) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)