Talk:Illiteracy
Just need a little help wikifying the article by adding links eh. --Whimsickal 04:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - so what is so funny about your version? Some links scattered around the place and some irrelevent titles? I think you are having a bit of a humour disfunction. I'm happy to discuss how my version may or may not be the funniest, but I think it is a damn sit better than yours. Weird and confusing != funny. Drphobeus 10:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol obviously you missed the entire article. Here's the point; you cant READ IT! But highlight it! go ahead. Theres a whole article in there. For REALS! I think it has more potential this way and maybe you could help me out without making it "random" article #214,323... kna'mean? --Whimsickal
Alright, I see that now, but I still don't think that it is overly funny - the mispelling, while being ironic, is too over done, making it too awkward to read, so most people wouldn't bother. I think having the bad spelling in the quotes is enough to make that joke, without making the whole think difficult to read. Also, I think a lot of the points are just offensive - offensive can be funny, but being offensive does not automatically make it funny. For example adding 'and nobody cares about black people', its not really relevent and I don't think it adds much humour, the same for 'The ones that has the stuped rags on they're head.' - I get what you are trying to do, in writing in the style of an illiterate bigot, but again I don't think it is clever or relevent enough to justify its inclusion. It all reads more like a bad impression of a illiterate red neck, which while it is ironic, I believe a more satirical piece completly missing the point of the meaning, but doing it in a quasi serious manner is more fitting to the style of the uncyclopedia. Drphobeus 10:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but neither does randomness automatically equal funny. It may not be featured article material yet exactly, but Im sure this is in a funnier direction. And yep, I am lampooning an illiterate and ignorantly prejudiced person. In that part of the article I am doing the opposite of actually discussing how the Bible was historically crucial in spreading literacy; and extending this parody to the Quran.
That still leaves the the fact that it is too awkward to read, so most people won't bother, and that it gives the impression of it actually having been written by an illerate bigot - One who has been laughed at for being an illerate bigot, and is therefore playing up the fact that they are an illerate bigot for laught, without truly understanding what is funny about it. (I'm not suggesting that you are, it is just the impression it gives). Drphobeus 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
hrm... idk about that. Some ppl have told me its funny. But Im sure we can improve it, adding some stuff that makes it clearer to people that get the impression ur describing.
From Pee Review[edit source]
Alright, I wrote this new version of the article; the concept is pretty simple; YOU CANT READ IT! (lol?) Even if you highlight it, it's pretty hard to read because it was apparently written by someone borderline illiterate.
I think its a little better than what was previously there, a short article by Drphobeus that was just your typical random nonsense. He reverted the article to that state but I brought it back. --Whimsickal 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nice. I think you could try and work in some kind of punchline regarding why the author is apparently so awful at speeling (to my mind, it could either be the crappiness of state schooling (or "public schooling" if your American) or the effect of internet slang upon language usage; probably the latter is more practical because of the multitudinous acronyms already in the text) since it feels a little directionless otherwise, but it made me smile nonetheless. --Sir Jam 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
