Uncyclopedia:VFH/Lobster

Article: Lobster	Score: 6 out of an alarming number of legs
Nominated by:	UU - natter
For: 14.5	1/3 SNF. Queue's looking a little light again, isn't it? Well, unleashing a lobster on it will solve all your problems, my friends! Made possible by a vandalism spree courtesy of Gerry, Cajek and myself, and refined a little after a handy review from Chief, this will educate you in ways you'd never thought possible. --UU - natter 11:19, Oct 16 For. A superb name for an article. Also it's funny - but that's a minor aspect. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:23, October 16, 2009 (UTC) For. Indeed ChiefjusticeDS 16:53, October 16, 2009 (UTC) For. IronLung 21:11, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Gratuitously self-referential and quite hilarious at that. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:48, 16 October 2009 For It's a keeper. Mr N 02:25, Oct 17 Strong For. Genius collaboration of genius. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Saturday, 02:54, Oct 17 For. Hells yeah! Le Cejak • <5:09 Oct 17, 2009> 05:09, October 17, 2009 (UTC) For. Amazing amount of satire. Look out for those North Korean Lobsters, they first explode in the atmosphere and short-circuit all sea life. Funnybony 16:51, October 17, 2009 (UTC) 1/3 self-for. anyone who votes against is a communist, or whatever the corresponding anti-uncycliopedian might be. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 07:33, October 18, 2009 (UTC) For. ~ 14:34, October 20, 2009 (UTC) For I usually write for Wikipedia. It's interesting to see an article written for Uncyclopedia. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 18:28, October 20, 2009 (UTC) For. ^Dame 09:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC) For. 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 10:10, October 25, 2009 (UTC) For. 86.30.178.201 01:06, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Against: 8.5	Against. Its too hard to read, and a bit in-jokey. Mn-z 16:46, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Against. It's a bit of scruffy for a VFH nom. This lobster needs to be properly boiled and then dressed for dinner . *RomArtusImperator ® (Orate). 20:46, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Against. It's a bit gratuitously self-referential, don't you think? pillow talk 21:52, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Against. --Docile hippopotamus 08:46, October 17, 2009 (UTC) against -- Soldat** Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 18:02, Oct 17 Against. Sorry, but as a noob here I don't get the jokes. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 05:19, October 19, 2009 (UTC) Against. –Flashfreez 22:47, October 19, 2009 (UTC) Well... It appears this is the official Uncyclopedia crusty wank sock. Everyone had their fun, dumped their load on it and now continue to laugh whenever someone unwittingly picks up the sock and stares at it. Sure a lot of good people contributed to make it the grand wank sock that it is. However, that is all that it is. Some large stains of funny on a socky canvas, mixed with other stains of "what?" and maybe even some uncomfortable ones from homoerotic episodes that Cajek later categorically denies. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 04:15, October 27, 2009 (UTC) 32/64 against...needs more work, kinda there, but maybe needs more salt. — H. Peebles - D - HS 01:19, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Comments	I can't have a feeling about this. I am writing something here to keep my sig fresh in people's minds. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:08, 17 Oct Comment. Hmmm... can't quite put my finger on it, but something about this just doesn't zing. Sorry guys, I can't vote for, but don't dislike enough to vote against. Maybe it's just too much the same as previous work? Pup t 12:04, 18/10/2009