Uncyclopedia:VFH/Filial Piety Goes to Camp

Article: Filial Piety	Score: -3 articles with an ambiance of "vague Princess Bride-ism"
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 09:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
For: 4	2010 will be the year, I swear! -- 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 09:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC) For. And don't talk back. *Style* *Guide* 13:26, March 30, 2010 (UTC) For.—Sir ¬_¬ \| Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 17:05, March 30, 2010 (UTC) For MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 7	No it won't! —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:52, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Against. I don't think so. There's some funny parts to this, but overall I wasn't amused. To be fair, sexual abuse has never been funny to me. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 13:18 EST 30 Mar, 2010 Back in the box you go I read it again, to see if anything had changed. Nope. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Tuesday, 20:36, Mar 30 2010 uh pbbt --Roman Dog Bird 21:08, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Against. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC) Against. Nothing ever changes, nothing ever changes, nooothing eveeeer changeeeeees but the shooooes! --UU - natter 08:31, Mar 31 Against. ChiefjusticePS3 10:49, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Comments	Three pees on talk. Or two. I don't remember. -- 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 09:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC) I question the value of those pee reviews. all three are three years old, and were done by the same two guys within a span of about 2 1/2 hours. I would suggest submitting it to pee review sometime in the future for a true in-depth look at it. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 19:31 EST 30 Mar, 2010 I question the value of that judgment based on your cursory observations and your neglect to realize the somewhat-easy-to-inference-fact that the first two were criticisms on a work in progress. And they are three years old because this article is three years old. -- 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 00:32, March 31, 2010 (UTC) No, you're three years old! Pout! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC)