From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Everybody Loves Raymond
|
Score: 2.5 pussywhipped momma's boys
|
| Nominated by:
|
MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:52, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
|
For: 10.5
|
- Nom and for Look, it's an article that is actually satirical. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:52, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 For. This article is genius. --EMC [TALK] 02:54 May 10 2011- It's good. Not quite Being and Nothingness good, but definitely up there.
 TKFU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  03:20, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- funnier than that other article that i voted for --Roman Dog Bird 03:43, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- For. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:18, 10 May 2011
- For. its the end that makes it beautiufl ShabiDOO 03:19, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- For -- The Zombiebaron 08:19, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, shit, I recognize this. This is basically ED's HTBFANJS - the "Do not write this or we'll fucking ban you" page. Yeah, sure, feature it here, why not, it'll crack the EDites up.
 pillow talk 20:45, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
- For. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 03:12, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- For. ...This is completely out of character for me. I was going to vote against, but Hyperbole is spot-on. Since we're getting an influx of ED refugees, we should probably have something of a cross-cultural exchange going on. This fits the bill nicely. --
 Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. Rap sheet. [[::File:Sexy_twilight.jpeg|His shameless obsession.]] 08:58 May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- For. 128.109.58.90 17:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
|
Against: 8
|
- Against. Funnybony
   02:59, May 10 02:59, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- We have so much better. 1234 ~
 03:07, 10 May 2011
- Against. More of a statement than an article.
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:05, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 Against. Per, like, everything I said in the comments section. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 07:41 May 13, 2011- Against Too short. My humble opinion. Great idea though.
 Mattsnow 15:59, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Against. Na. MrN
 15:44, May 18
- Against. Sorry. EpicAwesomeness (talk) 15:52, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Fuck Dexter111344 --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 16:32, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
- Comment. This is an article? Funnybony 03:01, May 10 03:01, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Loosely speaking. 1234 ~ 03:07, 10 May 2011
 Comment. I don't understand how this is a satirical article, but I don't want to vote against just cuz I don't understand it. Could someone explain what the satire is here? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:28 May 10, 2011
- "Satire - a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn." This does just that. It exposes the show for it's false moral lessons and the lack of originality. There's no way you can say it doesn't unless you're an unfunny asshole who tries to make more statements than jokes. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 18:17, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- "human vices," not "a TV show". According to that definition, something is satire if and only if it mocks human nature, which this doesn't. Even if you wanted to expand that definition to include a television show, it still has to hold them up to "ridicule or scorn," which implies a certain subtlety - it isn't openly ridiculing or scorning said
vices TV show, but rather pointing out the flaws in such a way that they become obvious to the reader via clever rhetoric. That's what I interpret "holding up" to mean, at least.
- You might say I'm not being true to the definition by arguing this; however, the only way said definition applies to this article is if you are already interpreting it loosely (i.e. the realm of satire expands beyond the subject of human nature to include specific creative works).
- And outside of the argument as to whether this is satire or not, it's just not funny. Now that you've explained the article I'm certain I haven't missed anything, so I change my vote to against. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 07:41 May 13, 2011
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
For. This article is genius. --
Against. Per, like, everything I said in the comments section. 
Comment. I don't understand how this is a satirical article, but I don't want to vote against just cuz I don't understand it. Could someone explain what the satire is here? 
