Uncyclopedia:VFH/Yellow Fever

Article: Yellow fever	Score: 3 Debilitating naked asian women
Nominated by:	Spillin dylan 20:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
For: 8	Spillin Dylan - Nominate and For – Preceding unsigned comment added by Spillin dylan (talk • contribs) For. The article is actually pretty funny, once you get past the porn. We could stick a not-so-risque image up there so as to avoid lawsuits or whatever those lunatics threaten us with, but still enough to warn people "oh yeah, and this article has nudity". Ж WHEEEEE! 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC) For. Come on, people! Quit judging articles without reading them! If you actually take the time to read the whole thing you'll find it's hysterical! — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Creative need more tissues Weasel 3689 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC) For. The degeneration into near-complete randomness is a necessary part of the overall satire on how much attention the average male is paying to the text. It is funny, and a clever idea. "Refreshed, but sticky" - like it! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC) For --The Acceptable Cainad (Fnord) 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Very funny. This really isn't pornography, but uncyc could benefit from a few semi-naked jap-chicks tastefully applied to the front page. ;) Red, with maroon trim. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:58, Oct 16 For. Excellent concept. I could have sworn this was already featured. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Against: 5	Against - this pornography can't be featured--*Sir* Manforman 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Against I got past the junior high school "porn" and it wasn't all that funny Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 22:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Against I don't see much at all in this article. And then, just to be sure I wasn't biased, I removed all the images using Firefox. Then I read it again, and I found it to be even more ridiculously random. It could use with a little bit of funnying up, that's for sure. It seems to be a bit incoherent, and all around just subpar. Sorry.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Against Needs better concept. EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank) 00:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Nope. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Against. I've red the article before. It's decent, but it's not front page worthy outside of the "recent articles" section. ~ Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p. 16/10/2007 @ 21:24
Comments	Nomination and FOR I remembered a good comment from a forum page I happened upon by One-Eyed Jack, who apparently found the humor in this article. Here it is, copied and pasted: "Goodness, this satirizes the male fascination with porn! And there are no visible nibbles or public places -- with vigilance you could see as much flesh at a public swimming pool on a hot summer day. You can see more female detail by looking at Greek sculpture." Thanks for looking past the surface, OEJ. --So So 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Normally this type of article isn't my favorite, but if you will GET OVER YOUR SQUEAMISHNESS and examine the article as it's meant to be read, you'll probably get the joke a wee bit more clearly. And fer chrissakes, that's not even close to being porn. Not one picture on that page shows a single nipple, and it's hardly any worse than what you'll see on a drugstore magazine rack. --The Acceptable Cainad (Fnord) 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Ljlego, the article relies on you to see the pictures. Otherwise, you won't get the references to "red lace" or whatever, because the joke is you're focusing on the porn. ~ Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p. 16/10/2007 @ 21:24 To be clear, I first read it with the pictures. Then I read it without. I didn't find it highlight-worthy either time.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Sigh. The whole point is that the pictures make it nearly impossible for a guy to focus on and read the article (which, appropriately, is about the effects of Asian chicks on guys). It's a gag; therefore the random, weird content is there because the author knows the reader is not paying attention anyway. Not that it matters; a joke explained is a joke ruined. --The Acceptable Cainad (Fnord) 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC) If that's the gag, then it's my opinion that it's a very weak gag indeed. Plus, it's completely male-centric (more than we're usually known for). Though not an ED level of misogyny, surely there is a way to work the gag differently so that it's less lopsided. Anyway, that's my piece. As a final note, one of the reasons I found it so hard to concentrate was just that the sheer volume of the pictures was messing up the text. Plus, I kept looking to them for an actual joke.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)