From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: John Scherer
|
Score: 6
|
| Nominated by:
|
ShabiDOO 04:47, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
|
For: 11
|
- I cried the first time I read this. I forgot all about it until it was linked in a forum, and I cried the second time. That is rare. --ShabiDOO 04:47, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
- For.
 TKFU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  05:44, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
- For. Perhaps the last time anyone confused Uncyclopedia with Wikipedia. A feature (the uncyclopedia reference is not navelism as the response became part of the story.)
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:24, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
 For. User:Matthlock/sig 21:41, June 29, 2012 (UTC)- For. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)
 22:41, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Yap. ~ BB ~ (T)
 ~ Fri, Jun 29 '12 23:57 (UTC)
- For. From VFD to VFH, a warning shot over the heads of all pitchmen who think they are immune from satire. Hope someone can inform Scherer's attorneys of the day of featuring and remind them of the concept of Fair Use. TRY MY ARTICLE. Spıke ¬ 03:06 30-Jun-12
- Holy shit, we need someone to teach NBC that lesson over their censorship of the Olympics! --
 Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 00:30, July 6, 2012 (UTC)
- For. Because it's crude and offensive. Scofield & Dudes 16:37, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
- TRY MY FUCKING PRODUCT! -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 19:07, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
 Of course He deserves it. Aleister 17:30 July 9 '12- For --Sweet
 Potato 19:46, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
|
Against: 5
|
- Had Scherer not freaked out about this, nobody would care about this article at all. Its humor is based almost entirely around sex jokes, which really wouldn't fly for any other article, and is more or less an in-joke. --
 Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 15:50, June 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Against. Per Xam. I'm all in favor of sticking it to people with satire, but the satire should actually be of quality if any real point is going to be proven. -RAHB 23:26, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- To RAHB and Xam: Satire does not exist in a vacuum; Scherer's ham-fisted attempt to censor the Internet is what makes this funny, and makes it transcend its crudeness. The first time I read this (a few months after I joined), I didn't get it. (I think. I can't remember.) Reading it again with the context that his letter (and Uncyc's reply) provide made me laugh so hard that I ...uh... produced my own product. So I think you two guys are all wet, and it's not just from my ...uh... product. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Jul 11 '12 7:04 (UTC)
- Still doesn't do it for me, but I do see your point. -RAHB 00:38, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Against. Sycamore (Talk) 10:08, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Against. Winstanley1 (talk) 15:40, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Against. Per Xam and RAHB. -- Lost Labyrinth
 • (t) • (c) • (a) 17:49, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
 Abstain. —Sir Socky   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:59, 30 June 2012
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
For. 
Abstain. 
