Uncyclopedia:VFH/Logic

Article: Logic	Score: 4.5
Nominated by:	74.63.75.130 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
For: 14	For. I laughed! Sorry, lolled. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:02, 24 Sep 2008 Iffy For. proofs are funny, but there might be too many of them, KoRoBeNiKI 14:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC) For. I laughed throughout the whole article. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:47, Sep 24 For. 202.78.165.3 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC) For. 209.7.150.163 14:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) For. Acm321 14:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) For. Hear Hear! Booksworm 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC) For. 213.41.184.40 18:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC) For. I laughed, I cried, i maed a yuky doody 24.20.250.85 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) For. 199.189.10.9 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC) For. Being that I'm learning this in Philosophy right now, very funny.User:Marty660 I like this one. -RA HB 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) For. riiga 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Perfectly imperfect. Thus 2+2=5. QED. Dark Ermac 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC) For. 146.102.113.53 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC) QED. 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 15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) For. 70.137.140.29 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Against: 9.5	against. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Against. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Against. Too muuuuch Amy Rose 16:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Against. Parsat (talk / contribs) 22:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Against. *Sir Severian* (Sprich mit mir!) 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Against. Especially due to the suspicious army of IPs voting here. This is like COD4 all over again. As for me, it's just too long on the proof-section, and big portions aren't very funny. --Mr. Monkey Pant-hoot here. 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Against Yeah... I'm not feeling it. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Against. For now. This needs a tidy up, with some of the less decent prose stripping out, and some of the more pointless proofs. A slimmed-down and streamlined version of this, with all of the best bits intact, would change my vote. --UU - natter 12:27, Oct 6 Against. Has its moments, but needs more of them (or less filler material). 72.1.195.8 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Against. In need of a serious cleaning up. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:04 Oct 09, 2008