Uncyclopedia:VFH/Pious Christians Against Shellfish

Cabal Decree #125/aaa! "No VFH Dramas" is now in effect. Any further discussion on this page other than votes For, Against or Pie will result in wide spread bans and public flogging at dawn.

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Pious Christians Against Shellfish (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Pious Christians Against Shellfish	Score: 2 things expressly forbidden in an obscure book of the Bible
Nominated by:	—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For: 8	Self-Nom & For. A political satire of mine. It got a very positive Pee review, which I used to fix it up ever-so-slightly before submitting it here. Vote away. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC) For.Haven't even read it yet, but I'm a sucker for a good political satire. ~~Sir Fightstar Rocks! CUN 04:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Spoiler: This article isn't "good", and can barely be classified as "satire." -- T​K​F​​U​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 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Un-Spoiler: It is an excellent satire, and I have no idea why you're being so cunty about it. ~~Sir Fightstar Rocks! CUN 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm wondering the same thing. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC) For. Maybe too subtle for some. Satire it is --Asahatter (annoy) 07:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Asahatter (annoy) 07:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)  For. Dame 13:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC) strong for. excellent witty satire. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I like this very much. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC) For Staircase CUNt 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC) For. I would simply LOVE to join the debate on who is the best writer but on a free humour site it would look, shall we say, redundant. Style  Guide 12:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Against: 6	Against. T​K​F​​U​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 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Against. --Docile hippopotamus 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)  Against. ERRR... Shellfish??? Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 06:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Against. I'm a fan of Guildy, but I'm not feeling it here. I'm on the "too obvious, not subtle enough" side of the fence on this one. I get the point, but I don't get chuckles. Sorry dude. --UU - natter 11:12, Jul 7  Against. I get the point, I appreciate the point, but it was just one point, a point that has been made lots of times before, stretched over a whole article made the point kind of boring, if you see my point?    Orian57    Talk   12:40 7 July 2009 Nope. I want to love this, I truly do. I think the commentary is valid and it casts a significant light on the meta-issue. The problem is the lack of funny, even though I really wanted it to be. Maybe adding in some commentary in there from the Shellfish Pride Organisations... Pup 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments	i know you've got the whole 'abrasive personality' thing going on, froggy, but christ. sometimes i really do believe that you're TK from conservapedia. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I guess I picked up a few mannerisms from my brief stint there >_> -- T​K​F​​U​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 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Author's Comment. TKF, if it makes you feel any better, I voted for McCain last election (I'm not an Obama fan, if you couldn't tell). —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Good for you! -- T​K​F​​U​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 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) @Asahatter: The primary issue with the article is actually its complete lack of subtlety. Substituting "shellfish" for "gay" is not humor. -- T​K​F​​U​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 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) And I suppose you could do better? I wanted to point out how absurd the whole "anti-gay" stance and the Biblical support thereof is. As I'm sure you know, a lot of the Biblical admonishments of homosexuality come from the Book of Leviticus. The Book of Leviticus also bans the consumption of shellfish (among other things). By merely "substituting 'shellfish' for 'gay'," I point out how fucking stupid this sort of logic is. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, lines like "It isn’t often that you find people stupider than we [PETA] are" and "went on to continue being a sanctimonious fuckface for the remainder of his life" are on the cutting edge of political satire. Gerry Wellfall? Who saw that coming! Also, you use dashes in the beginning then mysteriously switch to separating clauses with commas halfway through the article. Also also, nice job with the ad hominem argument there. I'll let you know when I write a better religious paro- oh, wait, I did. -- T​K​F​​U​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 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, you're right. Why would I write things like "It isn't often that you find people stupider than we [PETA] are" when I can write more witty, subtle things like "HowTo:Say Ridiculously Politically Incorrect Things and Still Get Elected/Respected by Millions." Oddly enough, this one phrase contains A) Zero subtly, B) a link to Jerry Falwell, and C) an ad hominem argument of sorts, all three of which you cite as grievous faults in my own article. Hmmm.... —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I never claimed that my article was subtle, merely that it was better? Why? Well, I didn't aim for subtle satire, instead I opted for direct jokes (and you don't know what ad hominem means if you think that my sentence exemplifies it) on the subject. The only similarities between my article and yours is that they both deal with parodying religious subjects. In your article, it's clear that you are avoiding the "jocular/crazy" and trying to do one of those "deadpan/satirical," things, which, when well executed, can actually be quite good. Your writing, however, destroys this attempt. At your best, you are simply replacing "shellfish" with "gay" (as I said before), and at your worst worst, completely abandoning the charade to call a guy a "sanctimonious fuckface." The article is inconsistent, see-through, and devoid of humor. I give you credit for the states rights line, but that's about it. -- T​K​F​​U​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 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I left a message on your talkpage, if you care to look. And, yes, I do know what ad hominem means. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Everyone go to the home page... Fight! Fight! Fight! Pup 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Please let this be an end to the drama. Some people find this funny, and others don't. Let them vote accordingly --Asahatter (annoy) 09:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Abstain.I need a rest from Divine..you think you're a man but you're only a boy...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Comment. Wouldn't be the worst article ever to get featured, obvious or not. Style  Guide 12:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Because I've voted already I won't do so again, but I was just random surfing and came across this article which may or may not relate. Pup 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Author's Request. Seeing as this will inevitably fail anyway, could I ask those with the power to just take this off the queue? I plan on fixing this up Friday and over the weekend, so yeah. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH