Uncyclopedia:VFH/Captain's log (one mo' time)

Article: Captain's log	Score: 6.5 articles on way to destruction
Nominated by:	TKFU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CK 20:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
For: 18.5	Nom + For as per my renom of that other quasi feature -- TKFU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CK 20:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC) For. ~ 22:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) For. Short and sweet. Like me. But sweet. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) For. 71.224.132.100 05:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC) For. I like. --UU - natter 09:45, Jul 20 For a successful mission, after many test flights on VFH. T. (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC) For. Normally, I am against this kind of thing, but it just seems to work for me. N4thanl 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC) This isn't featured?! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 00:29, Jul 22 for. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC) For. I like the idea. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC) For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:59, 23 Jul For. 100% Nameable • mumble? • (UnScr:PWotM) 17:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC) For. Good stuff.-- Sir Claudius CUN VFH (carpe diem) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC) For. - Per last time--Sycamore (Talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC) For. YES! -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 03:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC) For. ^Dame 11:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC) For. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:07, 30 Jul 2009 For. per above Mn-z 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Against: 12	Against. sorry. Well written, just didn't see it as feature. Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Against. meh. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 12:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Against. Starts off with promise and then proceeds to boldly go nowhere which is a shame. It's life but not as VFH would know it. --*RomArtusImperator ® (Orate). 17:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Against A good enough concept, but per above. --THINKER 08:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Against. Very well-written, but not very funny. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Against. In-joke as concept, in-jokes throughout. Good in-jokes though! Pup t 04:25, 27/07/2009 Against per my comments last time, except less douche-y. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Against. I'm sure that this could potentially be funnier. While the concept would certainly be interesting, the execution could have been carried out much more effectively. Sir Starnestommy** (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 05:41, Jul. 31, 2009 Against. Not funny. InMooseWeTrust 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Against. -- lazy Ape (prove) (Riot Porn) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Nah -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Against. It is very well written, but the efforts would be better channelled elsewhere. ChiefjusticeDS 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments	Abstain The beginning was fun and interesting, but for me the end completely lost it. Too abrupt, and didn't supply any laughs. Staircase CUN^t 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)