Talk:Virginia Tech Massacre

• Archive one

---

nicknames

I think these are funny but given the sensitivity of some I will offer these for discussion before adding them.

• Rainier Von McBeef
• The Stir-Fried Alsatian Appalachian Asian
• The Soul from Seoul
• The My Lai Mate
• In the Blue Ridge Mountains of I'm Killin' Ya
• The Question Mark Kid ref
• U.N. Secretary-General Ban Handguns Ki-moon
• You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Ang Lee
• Shu Ting Yanks
• The Grand Old Gook Of Dork

Huff this page, it's worthless

I am not sure if there is any good humor that can come out of this tragedy at the moment. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong, but I'd suggest that this page be huffed for now. Rickyrab 03:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up you fucking nigger. Kill yourself. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Or in nicer words: The current page is very good. Before complaining further, consider what could be there instead. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 12:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is bullshit

Seriously even ED's article is funnier then this, it needs a re-write. -- CartoonDiablo

That's odd, I thought it was quite good, considering the subject matter. Make a rewrite in your userspace then, and then put it on Pee Review, where we will laugh in disgust for a good five minutes before huffing it consider it in comparison to the current article. Ж Kalir _{yes, I play Pokémon} 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, quit comparing us to ED. You know how the South Park guys get pissed off when they're compared to Family Guy? That's like us, only to the ultra-extreme. – Kip > Talk • Works •• 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ED? What's that? Sounds like some sort of 4chan spawn with Goatse everywhere. --EMC ^[TALK] 13:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

lulz. --THINKER 23:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

From Pee

Virginia Tech Massacre

So. Here it is. The article about the Virginia Tech Massacre. Though I'm the original author, excellent contributions have been made by Ljlego and Mhaille, so I think the credit should be all given to me divided evenly amongst the three of us. Well? --EMC ^[TALK] 02:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	10	Consistently funny and entertaining
Concept:	10	Granted I'm an insensitive bastard and may not be the best person to evaluate this as far as offensiveness is concerned, but this is parody the way that parody should be presented; intelligently, humorously, and damn accurate beneath the surface. It also carries a subtextual cultural criticism that I thoroughly appreciate.
Prose and formatting:	8	Excellent throughout, moves with great fluidity (See End Notes)
Images:	7	The ones that are there: Excellent. Make it a hat trick and I'll make this a 10.
Miscellaneous:	10	EXCELLENT use of citations (which I find to be one of the greatest methods of humorous delivery possible here at Un)
Final Score:	45	3 of my favorite writers come together to make a very awesome article.
Reviewer:	THINKER 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said in the box, I'm definitely not the right person to talk to for a general consensus's view on things like "is this offensive" or "too soon." I'm a firm believer in the concept that tragedy doesn't lose its impact two days, two years or two decades after it occurs, and the idea of social satire coming "too soon" is an offense to past tragedy (ie. Pearl Harbor happening so long ago doesn't make it any less disheartening or solemn that this event, and thus satirizing either at any time is completely acceptable to me; satire is a mirror on society -- if you don't like the reflection, change your fucking face). With that lengthy preamble out of the way, I can say firmly that this article is excellent. It is also a perfect example of a situation where gross stereotyping -- in this case Asians, obviously -- is completely acceptable (the nod to the overtness in cite 4 is very clever).

Okay, my issues: You might want to do a little something with the formatting in the synopsis section. In sequence, it goes from block excerpt quote into paragraph, then into another excerpt with different formatting (not to mention that second excerpt being Miranda's first dialogue, which will surely confuse a number of simpler readers). I don't think the difference in the format is a problem; it might just be a spacing issue. Its just slightly awkward currently; And though it most likely will not take away from the more casual reading experience, I think some minor tweaking will fix it right up.

The other issue on the writing side is the paragraph directly preceding Cho's encounter with the Raven. I could see something a bit funnier going into the (hilarious) dialogue with the bird. I think it's just a wording issue honestly, and its such a minor thing that most wouldn't even make mention, but as I feel all of the involved parties here subscribe to a higher writing standard, I thought that notice is should be paid to this element.

Also, it needs one more image to fill the middle gap. Not a major issue by any stretch, but I think it would further complete the page.

Overall, what more can I say? The piece speaks for itself; great work, all around. --THINKER 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to whine

But this isn't funny in the slightest, it's just tasteless and it glorifies the monster who committed the atrocity. I myself have a great fondness for dark humour but I think this article just takes it too far and it really lowers the bar of Uncyclopedia. --Narcissus Black 15:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Read. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:18, Oct 10

Oh Boy...

I have to say, as a Virginian, this isn't only offensive, it's pretty sick. The opening paragraph is testament to this fact. An article making fun of the killer is suitable, but the massacre itself? That's pretty low. The writers of this should be ashamed of themselves... I just had to put in my two cents when I read this. One of my friends at Tech was deeply disturbed by this when it happened and has been in and out of therapy about it since. I don't think there's much chance of this garbage ever being deleted, but if that day ever comes, you have my strong vote of confidence for doing so. And before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I firmly believe columbine, 9/11, pearl harbor and other such tragedies are rarely worth lampooning, and if so, must be done carefully. This is not the case with this article, I think the authors show brazen disregard for the incident and sensitivities surrounding it. I read the above essay, and it reads very much like a self-rationalization rather than an explanation --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 21:19 EST 13 Feb, 2010

I guess this is where I state the obvious and say that you're entitled to your opinion and what-not. If the self-rationalization I wrote doesn't suffice then I can't really say anything else in regards to your tastes and personal experience with the tragedy in hopes of swaying you one way or another. In retrospect, I've found a few different approaches that could've been taken to this article, but I'm really not interested in pleasing people or writing satire with consideration to anyone else's moral compass. The community consensus was in slight enough favor to this version to not only keep it, but to feature it, though you're welcome to attempt to change it (trust me, you'll have plenty of supporters; this article is HATE HATE HAETed) and any other works you find offensive (take your picking from the site, but try not to be too selective, and please provide an explanation self-rationalization for why you are offended by certain material on this website, but not others). And I should probably say that I am not ashamed of myself (well, at least not for having written most of this article). --EMC ^[TALK] 23:32 Feb 14 2010

I'm from Virginia too, in fact, I live in Virginia right now. I wasn't bothered in the slightest.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 20:52, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Laughter is the great equaliser. --nldr 00:52, March 21, 2010 (UTC)