Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why?:So Serious?

Article: Why?:So Serious?	Score: 0 reasons to be cheerful
Nominated by:	UU - natter
For: 7	Nom & for. Blah blah VFH low. Blah blah Led and TKF. Blah blah disturbingly funny article. Blah blah my glass is empty, I need more drink. --UU - natter 21:23, Oct 29 Partial self for, the partial of course describing the nature of the self, rather than that of the for, which would be silly, as partial fors are widely considered rather ungainly. Also, thanks very much for the reviewnom, UU. :D - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:44, Oct 29 Weak for • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:55, Oct 29 Salf-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 02:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Yes it's good. IronLung 06:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC) For. 220.233.64.132 07:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC) For. wwhy not 198.202.151.249 12:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC) For. Hasn't this been nominated already? Well, it's as good as it was then, if that indeed happened. BlueYonder - CONTACT
Against: 7	Nah I'll jump the other way and say that it tried too hard and made me wince more than laugh. I dunno, abusive narrators in articles have never done it for me. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 06:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Against per Irreverent. Abusive husband and stepfather, huh. Hmm. pillow talk 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Nahhh, kinda formulaic. I liked the cancer ice cream joke, though. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 03:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Not quite there PaddyAtkinson 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Against. Weird. Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Against. It felt extremely contrived, which made it boring for me —talk 13:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Against. Not quite ready Simon Brown (Talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments	Abstain. - I was going to review this, I stopped however as I was fairly mixed about it, on one hand like UU I liked it on another it did not move me.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)