Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why u should be christian (2nd nomnatun)

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Why u should be christian (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Why u should be christian	Score: -1 bd usurs mking god angry
Nominated by:	Saberwolf116 04:26, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
For: 12	Nom and for. I know it was written by an IP and it's fairly basic, but that doesn't change the fact that it's one of the funniest articles I've read on Uncyclopedia. It's been improved on by users over the past few months, and I think it deserves a second chance. Saberwolf116 04:26, August 7, 2010 (UTC)  Obvious For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:51, 7 August 2010 4 Four! --Icanthelpyouhere 20:53, August 7, 2010 (UTC) For. Very funny. Its style perfectly fits. mAttlobster. (hello) 15:47, August 7, 2010 (UTC) For Was funnier when I read it on its first nom, but probably funny on first read, and that's what a feature aims for. I had put in the final image, and also used it on Evil Jesus, so will find a new one for Evil J. (done) Aleister 15:50 7 8 Do it. --Andorin Kato 20:04, August 7, 2010 (UTC) although I refrain from voting most of the time as a noob I must admit this is hilarious Evil-Santa 20:06, August 7, 2010 (UTC) For. Gad! An article SO bloody bad that it is good. It is not easy to do that bad. Cheers! Funnybony    20:50, Aug 7 20:50, August 7, 2010 (UTC) For. Its funny cause its true. Megaman126512 09:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC) For. We shud all be cristians. Only a DEVIL WORJHIPPER WOULD VOTE AGAST!!!!!! Style  Guide 10:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC) For. But needs some more pictures. --Some Idiot 05:07, August 9, 2010 (UTC) For. --Roman Dog Bird 06:37, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 13	Against. Feels like its trying too hard to do that "so retarded its funny" thing. -- lazy Ape (balkanise) (Riot Porn) 16:26, August 7, 2010 (UTC) Against. Nothing special. Sorry RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)  Stop beating up these poor horses. They're dead already. You've done enough.--HM (T) 20:12, August 7, 2010 (UTC) Against. Ugh. -- monika 20:32, August 7, 2010 (UTC) Against. Per monika ChiefjusticeXBox 20:32, August 7, 2010 (UTC) Against. Per the Ape 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 20:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC)  Against. per my vote last time, nothing has changed. -- Sf13 17:00 EST 7 Aug, 2010 Against. Per Monika and Ape. Dame 10:02, August 8, 2010 (UTC)  Against. Grossly substandard. Wilytank 19:45, August 8, 2010 (UTC) Against. What they said. Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:00, August 9, 2010 (UTC) Against. Though it clearly humiliated Christians everywhere with its biting satire, I believe that the animated gif at the bottom would need several more pixels before I would vote for this. pillow talk 06:48, August 9, 2010 (UTC) Against. Hi-lar--ious. --UU - natter 10:05, Aug 9  Zero's a nice number but negative one is even better, since it'd be the score I'd give this abomination. Sir MacMania GUN—[12:41 10 Aug 2010]
Comments	Comment. Seriously though, I think those voting against think too little of the impression it would create on front page. But that's always to be expected. Just wanted to let you know. Style  Guide 10:19, August 8, 2010 (UTC) Honestly, I'm worried about the impression it creates on the site. --monika 17:38, August 8, 2010 (UTC) When Junior Uncyclopedia (Remedial Class D) is up and running, I will recommend this article for that site. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC) You guy's horses shouldn't be so tall. It's hard to see the ants from up there. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 06:31, August 9, 2010 (UTC) I can see the ants; I don't dislike this article just because it's derivative and tired and attacks low-hanging fruit and so on and so forth. It's badly written. The gibberish in it is inconsistent - it can't decide it if's the result of typos, the texting culture, ignorance, or baby-talk. It's sloppy. It's not well-written fake badly-written stuff, it's badly-written fake badly-written stuff. The kinds of people who type "blax people" are not the same people to type "u r" or "taht" and definitely not the same people who type "miswed". And no one types "bladk". --monika 16:19, August 9, 2010 (UTC) You just did. -- Style  Guide 19:25, August 9, 2010 (UTC) No I didn't. I typed "ctrl-v". --monika 19:44, August 9, 2010 (UTC) Prove it. -- Style  Guide 19:46, August 9, 2010 (UTC) Also, try reading the article aloud. It has a nice biblical tempo to it, almost makes me want to convert. -- Style  Guide 19:51, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH