Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why?:I'm In court, Mum

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Why?:I'm In court, Mum (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Why?:I'm In court, Mum	Score: 8 users who haven't been arrested (yet).
Nominated by:	—WHO GIVES A FUCKING SHIT?! WHORE Mr. Antonio Yettie (talk) [23:40 13 August 2010]
For: 15	Self-Nom and For. Yeh. I know... self-nom. But I was looking over my old articles and noticed this had been featured on the Why? page. And I was like it has?. So I thought I'd just see how it does on here. Never know how VFH will turn out... —WHO GIVES A FUCKING SHIT?! WHORE Mr. Antonio Yettie (talk) [23:40 13 August 2010]  Ah, delicious dissonance. Sir MacMania GUN—[00:05 14 Aug 2010]  Jolly good. Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 02:11 Saturday, August 14, 2010  For. I've read this recently and laughed. The Don made us an article we can't refuse. Aleister 2:14 14 8 Oh, I see what you did thar! —WHO GIVES A FUCKING SHIT?! WHORE Mr. Antonio Yettie (talk) [11:34 14 August 2010]  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:50, 14 August 2010  Forty-Two is the answer to the Life, the Universe and Everything, but that's irrelevant, so For. Methamphetamine Was Here (19:51 08-14-2010)  For. this article deeply disturbs me... policewomen!!! what will they think of next.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 22:13 (UTC)  For. Wilytank 12:37, August 17, 2010 (UTC)  For. I was going to vote against coz its kinda sick, but actually it made me smile. Vot For. Yeah. --UU - natter 13:30, Aug 17 For. I absolutely love the 19th century tone to this piece! Moreso, I love the different euphemisms for his "bishop." Bravo! S3ahawk 23:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC) For I wish I spotted the 19th century tone but I'm just a Pole who can't speak English. Anyway, "funny" story. Funny in the way that can be found only in various Uncyclopedia's articles... Sir Ptok-BentonicznyPisz tutaj • KUN 14:11, August 19, 2010 (UTC) For - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 17:27, Friday 20 August 2010 - for just to counteract phrage -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 07:57, Aug 22 Nah. Revenge votes are bad and you should feel bad. -- 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 08:30, August 22, 2010 (UTC) I actually really did enjoy the article, just i was too lazy to vote previously and it was already kicking ass without my for vote, further reinforcing my laziness. phrage's vandalism earlier of the vote page and such just got me motivated finally -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 08:47, Aug 22  For. It made me do a sex wee. Which is also why I'm in court -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:10, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 7	Against. Don't see it as a feature. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 21:58, August 14, 2010 (UTC) Eh. I didn't find anything here that was particularly hilarious or clever, despite some small laughs here and there and the fact that it's well written, so I'm going to have to give it a weak no.--HM (T) 21:49, August 15, 2010 (UTC) Against. ⦿⨦⨀ phrage 07:56, August 22, 2010 (UTC) re-read it but still see it more as kiddie porn than humour. i did not know one could vote 'strong against' Elassint -the vote lozenge does not offer it -clever old you -imagine if one could vote "strong against" in national elections. Against. I'm gonna have to go with HM on this one. The writing's good and the tone's consistent enough to be tasteless without being pornographic, but I just didn't find it very funny. Still, policemen and women is unheard of. 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 08:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Strong Against. Creepy. What I mean is, despite the excellent writing style, I simply don't find this article funny because of the subject matter. Elassint 15:09, August 23, 2010 (UTC) While you're entitled to your own opinion and fair enough if you don't think the article is funny, if you're voting from a simple emotional reaction then I'm not sure that's a valid reason to vote against, possibly a reason to abstain. I don't think you can vote against simply because it creeped you out. If you didn't find it funny then that's a different matter. —WHO GIVES A FUCKING SHIT?! WHORE Mr. Antonio Yettie (talk) [16:00 23 August 2010] I'm creeped out by your answer to the comment.  Strongly Creeped Out Creepy. Crawlers. Aleister 18:02 23 8 Against. Good article, but ruined by the rape stuff, which just creeps me out. -- 08:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Against. Sycamore (Talk) 10:19, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Comments	Pee Reviews -- 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 23:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC) Comment. If i removed your vote I do not know how I did it. Unintentional Vandals of the World Unite -you have nothing to lose but your names ! i have written a slightly longer piece in the discussion section about the amusing side of pedophilia. I hope that by writing this i have not torn out your chad again or something.⦿⨦⨀ phrage 16:40, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

VFH

---

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH