Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why u should be christian

Article: Why u should be christian	Score: 0.5 niggers
Nominated by:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:03, 27 March 2010
For: 12	Nom+LOL This page is made of roflcopter funny. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:03, 27 March 2010 heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh Balck Pepl bladck peopl blasck peple blax people --Roman Dog Bird 15:09, March 27, 2010 (UTC) this is like listening to a drunken Jehova's Witness on crack.. Peanut-Face 15:52, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Sure I had done some edits before this was nommed, and was going to do some more, in the "voice" of the page, and so will go in and work on it a little more. If this is a serious nom, I'll vote 'sure', if it is a joke nom, will vote 'Sure' too. Thus is life. Al in Change 16:13 27 3 mmx If only to counterract buzzkill. This article exposes evangelism at its weakest (whether the original author was serious or not). --nldr 16:42, March 27, 2010 (UTC) For. M'su Carencro - Talk - Contributions - Blag 17:37, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Bahaha It's like my Anti-Atheism page, only funnier. —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) ☃ Snowman!—Sir ¬_¬ \| Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 18:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Damn. Megaman126512 00:44, March 28, 2010 (UTC) I like it Could use pics though... »» Back ² Tha Hood»» 01:27,28March,2010 For. Some pictures would be nice too. These days I'd vote for anything. ~ 05:11, Mar 28, 2010 05:11, March 28, 2010 (UTC) For. Very Biblical, very much to the point. Vote FOR, quit making God sd or angery. *Style* *Guide* 05:56, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 11.5	Against. per the ICU tag and lack of images Mn-z 16:37, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Against. Ok, so it's ok, but not front page ok. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:22, 27 Mar 2010 Against Didn't float the boat. Puppy Sunday, 00:25, Mar 28 2010 UTC Against. IronLung 08:04, March 28, 2010 (UTC) Against. ChiefjusticeGameBoy 08:37, March 28, 2010 (UTC) Strong against. OKAY, we get it. For fuck's sake already. Goddamn. Shit. Piss. --EMC^[TALK]11:05 Mar 28 2010 Against. A possible entry for Very Junior Uncyclopedia but I don't think it's even that good as it stands. *RomArtusImperator ® (Orate) 14:14, March 28, 2010 (UTC) No.** • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Sunday, 16:40, Mar 28 2010 Against. boring Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 22:30, March 28, 2010 (UTC) Against. this is just stupid, plees ues moah intehligeble engrish, and picture, definitely needing it 124.13.62.98 03:22, March 29, 2010 (UTC) Against. Hahahano. --UU - natter 16:15, Mar 29 Against. RaNdOM-CApitAliSatION 16:23, March 29, 2010 (UTC) RaNdOM-CApitAliSatION 16:23, March 29, 2010 (UTC) Vote stricken. --UU - natter 16:49, Mar 29 Vote Not Stricken --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 15:39 EST 29 Mar, 2010
Comments	Comment. The lack of images is imperitive here; the ease of reading the text makes it easier to survey. I'll vote later once I've beaten terminal illness. nldr 15:07, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Saw this while the guys was writing it... I still can't tell if it's a joke or not. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:15, 27 Mar 2010 I think it has to be if the headings were put in at the same time, they are coded in and use the King's English. Yet that makes it better in a way because he or she knew what they were creating and why, a piece of satire which captures exactly what the writer was going for. Aleister in Change 23:18 27 3 mmx Comment Maybe this would be better as an in-joke than a feature? —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Because in-jokes are never featured.....—Sir ¬_¬ \| Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 03:24, March 29, 2010 (UTC) Comment. ISAID VOTE FOR AND QUIT MAKNG GOD ANGER!!! *Style* *Guide* 05:57, March 29, 2010 (UTC) Comment. What are you, Anticrisp? *Style* *Guide* 13:28, March 30, 2010 (UTC)