User talk:The Woodburninator/RulesVsFunny

Don't think I'd call any of those VFH examples "rules," really. "Annoying" and "stupid," yes, but "rules"? -RAHB 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be my point. Those aren't rules, but they seem to be "rules" for some people. I see too often that some people will vote against just based on their self-imposed "rules" of article length/in-jokes/etc. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, indeed. Also, don't you hate it when some British guy always has to say "I'm not a fan of football, I hate it, but this article is good, or something of that sort? I mean, does he really have to point out to everyone in the world that he hates football, as many times as he possibly can? God, that gets on my nerves. It has nothing to do with this. I think I'll actually write an article about that just to vent about it some more. But yes. I agree, etc., etc.-RAHB 08:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I'm a fan of your argument, in fact I hate it, but you idea for an article is good. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately it would be "too American." We don't want that now, do we? OMG! HIDE FROM TEH EVIL AMERICANS! -RAHB 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I made my thoughts on the argument well-known a long time ago. Suck it Faldo. Suck it. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 08:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant words for an idiotic world. -RAHB 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, it really sucks that too few people got the joke that I was making fun of the writer of that article much more than Europe. Maybe others don't find rampant ignorance as hilarious as I do. Then again, maybe they couldn't get past the fact that I called Europe a retard omelet. Either way, I think we should just continue to Teabag everything that moves. No bias there. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -RAHB 13:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, I pretty much made that comment on that VFH, and I'm British, is that a reference to me, perchance? I was saying it to try and point out to the other Brits that you didn't have to like the sport in order to get the article, and perhaps encourage them to read it properly. Just thought I'd clear that up. --UU - natter 18:04, May 12

I know, UU. I'm just giving you shit for the sake of it. Although I do find it interesting that a lot of Brits, not necessarily just yourself, feel the need to point out how much they hate the sport when the discussion arises. Then again, I know too many Americans who do the same with footie, so whatever. -RAHB 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, footie.... thank god that isn't what it's called. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 04:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean - in that case though, I was merely saying I'm not a fan to show you don't need in-depth knowledge to get the joke. There's a difference between "not a fan" and "don't like" - I'm not a fan of rugby, I don't like crown green bowling. I actually don't mind "Football". (As an aside, I think the only problem most Brits have with the sport is the fact that you invented it much later than Football, and had the temerity to give it the same name! If it was called something different, I'm sure none of the antipathy would exist. Which is also sad: Names < Enjoyment, but there you go). The transatlantic thing always works both ways - I remember Cajek voting against an article with a reason of "England Englandy Englandshire" or something similar. That was the only time I felt compelled to actually challenge someone about their voting reason. I find it fun most of the time trying to find out what the more US-centric articles are about, I learn something that way! Like Sys's article on Andy Rooney, or the one about Jerry Falwell. Anyway, fuck all of this, I'm going to start voting against articles with a reason of "too Azerbaijani" - that should throw 'em. --UU - natter 08:31, May 13

Indeed, I see what you say, and say what you see. I'm actually not a big fan of football myself, or any professional sport for that matter, though I do tend to like baseball. What you said was what I was trying to get at. Lots of Brits hate football, because its name is "football." When really I don't imagine most of the people who do so know any more about the sport than I know about cricket. Any-fucking-ways, I'm gonna go ban you for a really long time now with some sort of witty comment. -RAHB 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do I feel that I am one of the few hardcore sports fans around here? Maybe because most hardcore sports fans are douche bags? (The previous comment also takes for granted the fact that I am not a douche bag, which I believe is any person's right to believe.) Also, I just bagged all of your moms last night. Fucking right! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I'm gonna go ban you for a really long time with a witty comment. -RAHB 21:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a counterpoint!

But I didn't read this talk page, so I hope it's not important User:Cajek/FunnyVsRules   Le Cejak • <18:43 May 27, 2009>

you forgot two rules at the top

You're missing 5. ??? and 6. Profit! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs)

My bad. Thanks Led! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Also, without rules we don't become ED; from what I understand, they have rules. Without rules, we actually become /b/. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:08, Jun 2

Remember that one UnNews you wrote?

And how I wrote a response to it. Well, it stands. Douche. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey now. I have your response on my userpage. I'm giving a high five to your article. You are so Mint Jelly. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

... Yummy. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

counterpoint

User:Cajek/NoRulesNoFunny   Le Cejak • <19:52 Jun 02, 2009>

Feel free to add on to it. Arg was... not in his right mind at the time.   Le Cejak • <19:54 Jun 02, 2009>

Can I feel free to add another 30 million character counter-counterpoint? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, God, yes! Oh, Oh, I love your 30 million character counter-points! A little too much, probably. (yeah, write it like a guy from the 19th century who uses a quill pen. I'll let you fill in the details)   Le Cejak • <20:05 Jun 02, 2009>

Completely serious question, no really

Shouldn't it be "what the problem with in-jokes is" instead of "what the problem with in-jokes are"? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:57, 17 February 2011