UnNews talk:Virginia Tech gunman was "Probably Muslim" say authorities

WARNING! This page contains profuse whining. Proceed with caution.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Virginia Tech gunman was "Probably Muslim" say authorities.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying

Comments

You know, it's really hard to do an article on such a hard subject, and I have to say that the user did a pretty damn good job handling it. There were a thousand ways a V-Tech article could go, and mostly wrong: This is the most right.--Undergroundbob 02:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said that one person's life was worth more than other. I said that such an occurrence is more shocking in the US because the US is not embroiled in civil war as other countries are. Learn to read, it'll help you a lot. Optimus Kirby

So therefore, dead Americans demand more respect than say, dead Somalians? A dead person is dead, regardless of the 'circumstances'. -- Arvind

Events in other countries are irrelevant because there are different circumstances there. Those countries are subject to virtual civil war and famine, while in the US, there is no civil war and less starvation. Thus, such a violent event is a shock in the relatively peaceful US. In any case, this article is pretty humorless and should be deleted. Optimus Kirby

LOL, this would have been completely OK if the massacre had happened somewhere in say, Palestine. Hundreds die in Africa on a daily basis as a result of Civil War. why are these (unfortunate) Students so different? If we can laugh at those starving millions, why can't we joke around with the VTech shootings? - Arvind

• Think this is in pretty bad taste, If it stays then you guys obviously have no respect for what happend. And to reply to the "If we are not allowed to make controversial statements" you are allowed too, but if you wish to pay even a little respect to those that died and maybe show a little empathy for the families and the comunity involved then why would you want this to stay up? Someone who appears to care more than others

You are as entitled to your opinion as we are to ours. As it happens a regular contributor here is a student at Virginia Tech so many of us have a very personal connection to this. Having said that I am a firm believer that humour is a great healer, and although I know it will take a lot longer than a few days for many people even outside of the local community to get over this event we have to start somewhere. The only thing this article attacks in anyway is the inherent Islamophobia that the Bush Government represents. If that offends you don't read it. Just click that little X in the top right corner and it will all go away. -- Someone who cares more than you think

Uhm... why is the page locked? I can't edit the grammar on here if the page is locked. The caption for the guy's face has two incorrect grammar usages. :( Mightywayne 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

that was not exactly funny. i must say, the whole "and one old guy" is disrespect. no. no no no. i dont agree.

• Blame Mhaille. I actually tried to delete it on grounds of "not funny." —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... This may be a little too soon. I know that it satirizes American Islamophobia and not the actual massacre, but even so, this is highly potentially offensive. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, blame me. There is a line in the sand, but I don't think this article crosses it, and I'd much sooner see something like this than some of the alternatives. Something as well written as this might just put some of the morons off writing their own take on it too. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

its funny, keep it.

Sorry anonymous ip, nobody cares what you say. (THIS IS ONX) ONX

This is pretty dumb. -71.193.200.17 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are not allowed to make controversial statements, we have surrendered to the "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Please, for the sake of liberal Western democracy, keep this up. -Sir Àrd-Easbaig Gearcemeanaigh Mac Ádhaimh, UmP (Talk - Articles) - KUN SEXY WH

It ain't bad, I say it stays.--Count of Monkey Crisco 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So you'll only make fun of tragedies that don't affect you? I say we vote about this article and the V-Tech and Cho article or change the site description from "the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to something that actually reflects how this site is working these days. Just my to cents. --jmrepetto 18:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you seem to be saying that Americans control the site, and are a bunch of hypocrites. A major problem with that theory is that there is a precedent for pulling distasteful humor of the site immediately following a tragedy, and that was over ONE man, who wasn't American. So before you get all "the Americans are abusing their power" on us, recall that taste knows no nation, and what's bad taste is bad taste no matter what nation it offends.--<<>> 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, and forgive me if saying this makes me sound elitist, it's rather irritating to the Uncyclopedia community at large to have people who never contributed to the site before the tragedy coming in here and scolding us about how the site has gone downhill with how it is run "these days" because they can't write whatever they want here. There is rule #2 to consider, after all.--<<>> 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is WAY too soon for this.

Delete it, userfy it, and recreate it in a year or so when we've gotten over this. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this to VFD. —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 17:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

that's right, take it to VFD, rather than start going one-man-army on it Mr. Dictator --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now... to respond; I aimed to make a politic statement... this was intended in no way to disrespect any of those killed, which is precisely why it pokes fun at the government and social attitudes rather than ED's tasteless fun making of the fact the guy gunned people down. Also, "post it back in a year" doesn't in a year doesn't work because in 1 year nobody will care (IN THE SENSE THAT IT WON'T BE NEWS). personally, I think a final addendum to the article encouraging people to donate to the tragedy fund would be a good idea too --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And you know what's really funny; how articles like this are perfectly acceptable... directly discounting the deaths of people in the Middle Ea-... oh that's right, that's acceptable because they don't come from a Western Country where it doesn't happen all the time. --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Olipro. Compare this to when Steve Irwin died, many tasteless articles about the event were deleted, and rightly so in my view. But others, which had taste, such as this fine article, were different in that they did not make fun of the victims but instead sought to find humor in the event by making fun of sting rays, or whatever else. Thats what this one does, as well. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also this, and this little gem. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

On a completely unrelated note, we should have someone wait a year and then make an article about this topic, something like UnNews:33 dead at Virginia Tech one year ago --Ж Cake-eating Cave Monkey _{or was it a giant monster or a robot?} 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, now that we have this new tragedy, I bet I could make a Steve Irwin article in absolute HORRIBLE taste, and nobody would say the least little thing about it. "Special Report: Steve Irwin rises from the Dead and Goes on Stingray Killing Spree." Whoops. I said killing spree. Sorry.User:Mrthejazz/sig 08:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel bad about what happened like everyone else but what's the problem? I think anything can be a legitimate topic for humour, and this is obviously no exception. And I bet Cho Seung-Hui would have loved the idea of all of you getting riled about this article. It wasn't even about the murders, anyway. It seemed to me to be a satire about the attitudes of the US government and the western public in general towards Islam. It referenced the murder but that's all. I guess some people are too sensitive.

It should stay. Uncyclopedia has made fun of greater tragedies (9/11) and other outside of the US. Why is this different?

Um, why single out this one article on the massacre? If you're going to say this is too early, then why isn't This too soon and offensive? How many dominoes should really be toppled here? User:Mrthejazz/sig 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm late to this lovely little flamewar, so I'll keep this short. 1) If a bomb explodes in London or in Baghdad, we have an equal right to satirize both, and a responsibility to be respectful to the dead. 2) Mhaille is right, humor is a healer, when tastefully done, which I believe this was. 3) I'd rather not give the actual gunman any press at all (as far the picture issue goes). If the little bastard wants to be famous, he can be famous on NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, and all the other crappy news networks, but not here. I'd much rather this piece leave it up in the air who killed these people. Why? Because that'd make the little emo who did this cry, and that makes ME happy.--<<>> 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That would only work if it was like Oklahoma, where we knew what happened a while before we knew who did it. That particular tragedy, if memory serves, was initially blamed on... --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, what have people got against emos? *Ahem* —Braydie 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I dislike your poetry. It's poorly structured and rarely rhymes. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still would like it if this little shit didn't get his picture and video everywhere, as was his goal. It'd be nice if there was a way we could keep his image off every paper in the world and site on the web, if that's what we know he wanted. I'm glad to know he finally succeeded in killing himself, though.--<<>> 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You dumbasses

We make fun of numerous touchy subjecs and just because this article makes fun of something that happened recently it has to be deleted. I think people should work on deleting more articles that suck total balls rather than worrying about this one that is midly funny. So stop worrying about this and worry about deleting this. I am depply saddened by the deaths of the sudents and believe that that motherfucking pussy should eat shit. I cant wait to see him at the courtroom when they tell him his ass is gunna rot in jail (whose Jesus now fag). Regardless, deleting an article because it pokes fun at a tragic event shames the great order of shame that Sophia and the original pimp Oscar Wilde himself started. And anyway, just wait until another tragic event happens and this will all be a distant memory. By the way, we are already donating to the VT fund so score one for Uncyclopedia's charity organization.  Weasel 3689 04:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what disgusts me? vTech happens and everyone weeps their eyes out. Little more than a day later, a car bomb goes off somewhere in Iraq and kills over 100 people. Yet nobody gives a shit about the people hurt and killed. So yes, keep this. It's funny enough to warrent a keep, compared to most shit on Uncyc. --BaCaRuDa 21:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (Lulz, no sig.)

I figure this warrants a look, even though it's rather old. History repeats itself, it would seem. --Ж Cake-eating Cave Monkey _{or was it a giant monster or a robot?} 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a bad reason. It's like "Only we matter".

The Purpose of Uncylopedia

While I think the article is both funny AND in bad taste, its called the freedom of speech. The underlying point of this website is to poke fun at everything, including tragedies, deaths, leaders, everything. If you dont like what you're reading, then leave the website. The internet is covered in people that outright hate and slander other people. This website at the very least takes that and pulls some form of humor out of it.

You've done this before when other tragedies occurred, You did it now, and in the furture it will be done again. You dont like it, leave.

Im just a random IP with little say in Uncyclopedia, but I say keep it.

I'm just too lazy to log in, but you're right. It's hypocritical that they're not making fun of this.

Who is "they", and what is "this"? Are you talking about this article, which exists, or something random which doesn't exist and has nothing to do with the discussion at all? Also, sign your posts, even if you're too lazy to log in, it makes it easier to tell you aren't the exact same person who you're agreeing with.--<<>> 04:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Better idea for article

How about "Cho Seung-Hui Complains of Bullying in Hell"? Will O. Ufgood 02:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While that did make me laugh, I still think that gives the little puke more attention than he deserves. I like that article as is, sans picture.--<<>> 13:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, I say go for it. -- [[User:jmrepetto|jmrepetto] 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Epilogue

We voted and it was kept. That Uncyclopedians disagree on things is a good thing. Homogeny would be terrible on a site like this; comedy/satire is from outsiders looking in (and occasionally insiders looking out). If we agreed on everything it would be like the bright colours here had all turned beige. That would be bad, and the death of Uncyclopedia. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"If I don't survive, tell my wife, 'hello'." - Leader of the Villainous Planet Neutral. In all seriousness, though, Modus is right. Diversity brings drama at times, it's true. But if we can talk about these things civilly, it makes for a MUCH better site.--<<>> 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but more so, people need to simply stop whining and shut up. Death isn't funny to most people, yes of course, its just the stuff surrounding it that is funny. Me and friend for example, are quite normal. We were walking down the high street one day and there was a circle of people that had formed around a woman lying on the floor, apparently dead. Now a dead woman in the street isn't funny, but we laughed. Why? Cos people made it funny. Why? Because they were all just standing around her, doing fuck all, like "urgh, she just collapsed, urgh i dunno if shes ok or not and havent bothered checking". THAT was funny. And its YOUR FAULT (stupid people who dont know what to do with death). So others laugh at it to try and ignore the fact that it actually really pisses us off that people are so dumb and gay. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.52.52 (talk • contribs)

/me scratches 82.43.52.52 off birthday invitee list... --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Dumb and gay? You mean like Andy Dick? That is the sort of thing I'd imagine Andy Dick would do if he found a dead woman on the floor. Also the apostrophe is your friend and you should use it more often, like in your contractions. Like haven't instead of havent, and don't instead of dont. I guess somehow someone is trying to make fun of this serial killer with the VTech article. I myself was going to make a joke like people asking God why he didn't stop the shootings, and then God replying

“I am not able to stop shootings in schools, because I am no longer allowed in schools anymore.”

~ God on school shootings and the separation of church and state

joking that when God was allowed in schools like over 50 or 60 years ago, we didn't have these shooting rampages. Yet I guess it could be read as in poor taste or something. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)