Uncyclopedia:VFH/Discordianism

Article: Discordianism	Score: 3 or 23... or was it 5?
Nominated by:	Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 09:41, Apr 28 2010 UTC
For: 13	For. Completed as April's colonisation, and reviewed by the best. I loved it, and really wish I had actually done something to work on it. Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 09:41, Apr 28 2010 UTC For. Goddess on the front page. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 15:02, April 28, 2010 (UTC) For. 23PinealFnordKallistiGrayFaceWilsonMalOmar Striker2117 15:22, April 28, 2010 (UTC) WHAT? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:11, 28 April 2010 'FnORd''''' Miley has carried the ball all the way on this one. Some good information and links within the funny. (I was the fifth yes vote. It must mean something?!?) Aleister in Chains 21:52 28 4 Bless. I still really don't understand any of this even after reading up on it AND working on the article, but I think it's bloody brilliant and thusly support it! ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* (talk) (stalk) Π ~ ~ 29 Apr 2010 ~ 00:30 (UTC) FNORD!. Megaman126512 05:29, April 29, 2010 (UTC) 4 EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank) 07:21, Thursday 29 April 2010 For. Also I'm not here I'm on vacation. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 20:58, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Fore. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 22:57, April 29, 2010 (UTC) For. Well, I don't see the need for a first person style too, but I found some parts funny. ~ 02:53, Apr 30, 2010 For. Unpschyelopedia 01:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC) SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 02:04, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 10	Against. I can see a lot of work has gone into this but the first person approach doesn't work for me. Sorry. *RomArtusImperator ® (Orate) 09:22, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Well written but I didn't find it funny. ~ 20:14, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Against*. Really doesn't work for me. --UU - natter 20:43, Apr 29* Against. The first person style is inauthentic and tired. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:56, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Against. First person articles are getting kind of old to be honest. And yes I am a hypocrite since One of my three features is not only 1st person, it is narrated by three different narrators. -- Sir SF13 (Talk) GUN WotM RotM FBotM VFH SK Maj. ΥΣΣ 01:53 EST 2 May, 2010 Against. This article thoroughly confused me. —Pelozurian (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Some Discordians would say that by confusing you, their mission was accomplished.--Striker2117 06:48, May 2, 2010 (UTC) You have to remember that a cat running around in circles confuses Paizuri. But a wise statement by Striker nonetheless. Al des chain 22:07 2 5 MMX Hey... —Pelozurian (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Against. I frankly think voting against an article because it's first-person is dumb. However, I just don't think this is to featured status. Could be funnier, could have better grammar in some places (I tried to fix that, but I got edit conflicted and my browser crashed so I just gave up) --Sir ~HE LP ME~ ^{Count! Awards! Pee! Help!} 22:11, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Against. Like a golden parachute this has all the ingredients for something really special and cool, but when you jump out of a plane with it it doesn't do what it is meant to do; this has excellent writers and ticks plenty of boxes but I just don't see it as a feature. It deserves its review score but I'm not seeing it as FA material. Sorry guys. ChiefjusticeDS 22:16, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Against. 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 20:58, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Against. –Flashfreez 21:40, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comments	Just for information, one real explanation behind the numbers 5 and 23 is thusly: 5 was just picked by Discordians, Wilson, etc., because it was handy. But the point was that in any random series of events you can find a connection to five (or three, or nine) and explain everything with it. Conspiracies, etc. Wilson says if you can't find the image of the Virgin Mary within 10 feet of you then you're not using you brain right. 23, ah, the magic number. It "means" that any two people make up a third, a relationship that only the two people know, sense, communicate, nuance, or exist within. Nobody outside of those two people knows what that "third person" is that they create together. 23, every 2 people create a 3rd. Aleister des chain 19:25 28 4 mmx Really you're right in some sense but there's more to it than that. I'll post something about it on the Discordianism talk page so this doesn't get too long. :) DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 21:34, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Comment You have a bunch of random question marks in the beginning of the article that were not consistent with the writing style in the middle and the end? Please do something about that? ~ 15:43, Apr 29, 2010 I like fixed it? :) DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 16:33, April 29, 2010 (UTC) CommentHey look, it's the rule of 5's being played out in the score!--Striker2117 22:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC) 23 votes in total now... spooky. Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 21:47, May 4 2010 UTC