From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Mensa
|
Score: 9.5 simply brilliant individuals
|
| Nominated by:
|
Spıke ¬ 23:35 6-Nov-12 23:35, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
|
For: 9.5
|
 Self-nom and For. They shouldn't mind. Much. Spıke ¬ 23:35 6-Nov-12- For. General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 23:38, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
- For. An article for s-m-r-t people. Prätt Körp (talk) 08:35, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
- For. Snippy 10:07, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
- For. Humorous and grand in its layout and depiction but greatly disappointing in length. However, I have been amused and the article has done surprisingly well. POP!GoesTheWeasel
 16:20, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- For. very well written ShabiDOO 19:20, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- For.
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:01, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
- For. As a member of CFM (Central Florida Mensa) myself, I can verify this article's legitimacy. ←HGA→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)
 21:30 11 November 2012
- For. I was the founder of the defunct La Salle-Peru (Illinois) Mensa and I think this article is hilarious. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.222.60 (talk • contribs)
- For.
 Mattsnow 13:08, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
|
Against: 0
|
No against votes
|
| Comments
|
More at User talk:Reallybloodymental#Mensa
 Abstain. It's an entertaining read, but I consider it mostly lightly amusing. It's a fair mockery also. Trouble is, the article just isn't BRAINY and sophisticated enough. Get what I'm saying? Man you're dumb. :P --Reallybloodymental (talk) 19:40, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I think that "In the style of the thing it's about"—that is, deliberate obtuseness or overcomplication—would make for a much worse read. Spıke ¬ 20:00 8-Nov-12
- It's funny, but there isn't stuff in it that directly stands out. I tend to make idea traps, like viewing things from a skewed angle. That's my style. You article is too pleasant and generally fun for me. I'll read over it again and see if I change my mind, but for now it's just purely entertaining without anything really attention grabbing. Maybe I'm wrong. I did skip 1 or two paragraphs. By the way: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/abstruse-and-obtuse/ Now I like that definition. Actually maybe you could write a few bits that are showing up dumb people or something. I might make a few suggestions later. You can add them if you choose. I'll just sort of put them in a little box. But this is just one person so it's not like I'm teh most important suggestor ever (wrong word and stuff). Good article, maybe I should have abstained but instead I might change my vote later.
- Your word is more precise, but surely this entire vote is "in the style of" the abstruse Mensan. Spıke ¬ 11:43 9-Nov-12
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
Always check the feature queue first.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article.Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.
Self-nom and For. They shouldn't mind. Much. 
Abstain. It's an entertaining read, but I consider it mostly lightly amusing. It's a fair mockery also. Trouble is, the article just isn't BRAINY and sophisticated enough. Get what I'm saying? Man you're dumb. :P --