Forum:Jewish Media
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Jewish Media
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4207 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.
There is a jewish conspiracy to take over the world (heres proof Jewish Media)
Any thoughts. (Don't forget the Snow ninja either) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardeehar (talk • contribs) never mindHardeehar 07:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Get off Uncyclopedia you nazi!!!! -- 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why are most users so bad at whoring their own articles? Uncycloversity should start a course, or something.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we could get a class room and everything. Whoring 101 with Professor Hindleyite. Special guest speakers include Savethemooses and Mhaille. Required books include: "IRC Chatrooms-The Modern Corner" and "Using Links to Trick Patsies," along with "Famous Uncyclopedian Whores Throughout History." I like it. --Anyone 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to whore pages before, but without adequate training the closest I can get without spraining something is this. It's a start, granted, but I have a long way to go before I can do it without throwing up in my mouth just a bit.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we could get a class room and everything. Whoring 101 with Professor Hindleyite. Special guest speakers include Savethemooses and Mhaille. Required books include: "IRC Chatrooms-The Modern Corner" and "Using Links to Trick Patsies," along with "Famous Uncyclopedian Whores Throughout History." I like it. --Anyone 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hitler. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 07:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Powershot. --User:Nintendorulez 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, good one. -- 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I really ought to whore my articles more often. They are quite underappreciated. --User:Nintendorulez 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Forest Fire Week f'ing sucks Mr. Briggs Inc. 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?
- If anything gets FFW'd that you liked, I'll restore it to a user subpage if you want. Then you can rewrite it, or wait till nobody's looking and put it back. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:22, 17 Nov 2006
- Speaking entirely for myself, the only thing deleted recently (prior to FFW, btw) that I'd like to see restored is Uncyclopedia's Article on Its Article on Its Article on it's Article on Itself. I'll expand it somewhat, if that's what's required... But to me, it's funny more because it exists than because of its content. c • > • cunwapquc? 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done. But it's not very good. If you liked that, you may like Duck, Duck (wikipedia article), Duck (wikipedia article) (uncyclopedia article), and Duck (wikipedia article) (uncyclopedia article) (uncyclopedia article). On their own they're not great, but as a series, they're awesome. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:45, 17 Nov 2006
- Ha! You're right, those are pretty funny! What's more, I have to apologize, because I actually got confused there in thinking that "Uncyclopedia's Article on Its Article on Its Article on it's Article on Itself" was actually Uncyclopedia's Article on Its Article on Its Article on Itself, which still exists and really should be the last in the series. I'd apologize to Sikon/Guest too for my having asked him to undelete it, but he's been a bit of a prick towards me lately, I'm sorry to say. I knew there was a reason why us Americans don't trust Russians... c • > • cunwapquc? 18:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's inevitable that good articles sometimes get FFW'd because an admin or two hates them. It's hard work trying to get FFW to work as smoothly as it can but still maintaining it's disorderly character. I say for the future we have a quota of articles to reach on FFW but not exceed a certain number. This makes sure that a large amount of crap goes but the collateral damage is kept to a minimum. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done. But it's not very good. If you liked that, you may like Duck, Duck (wikipedia article), Duck (wikipedia article) (uncyclopedia article), and Duck (wikipedia article) (uncyclopedia article) (uncyclopedia article). On their own they're not great, but as a series, they're awesome. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:45, 17 Nov 2006
- Speaking entirely for myself, the only thing deleted recently (prior to FFW, btw) that I'd like to see restored is Uncyclopedia's Article on Its Article on Its Article on it's Article on Itself. I'll expand it somewhat, if that's what's required... But to me, it's funny more because it exists than because of its content. c • > • cunwapquc? 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- If anything gets FFW'd that you liked, I'll restore it to a user subpage if you want. Then you can rewrite it, or wait till nobody's looking and put it back. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:22, 17 Nov 2006
- Forest Fire Week f'ing sucks Mr. Briggs Inc. 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?
- I really ought to whore my articles more often. They are quite underappreciated. --User:Nintendorulez 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, good one. -- 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Article whoring is for people with good articles. --Sir Zombiebaron 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...and people with good articles don't need to whore them...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Except for me. --
00:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- <Uncyclopedia> - "Oh, Mooses!" <Cue laugh track, freeze frame, roll credits> Uncyclopedia is filmed before a live studio audience, for tickets send an S.A.S.E. to Uncyclopedia, C.O. STM Studios, Burbank, CA. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Stay tuned for Everybody Hates Uncyc! -- 19:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- On whoring your articles: Maybe that should be a new Howto: ??? --KWild 11:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mindHardeehar 07:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- 1. I'm all for freedom of speech, so I do not feel the particular need to teach you how to shut up and 2. Whats not hilarious about this forum topic ?, whats eating you ? -- Vosnul 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
- To be serious for a moment, if the "witches" from the Salem Witch trials were really witches, a bunch of dorky pilgrims wouldn't have been able to easily catch, torture and kill them.
- Likewise, if Jews were really trying to take over the world and had the actual power and organization to do so, a bunch of Germans wouldn't have been able to kill a few million of them.
- Nazis are a classic projection case. They accused their victims of behavior that they themselves perpetuated against their victims.
- All that being said, in the spirit of Uncyclopedia, we make fun of issues like this just because sometimes shock value can be a source of humor, or humor itself can be a way of dealing with the ugly parts of our world. But I think it's important to know that some things definitely deserve to be skewered as a matter of course, and the idiocy and hypocricy of Nazism is definitely one of them. --Hrodulf 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I took a look at the article, and I don't see anything satirical or absurd about it. It has to parody itself or something else to be comedic, and I don't see any target except the Jews themselves. Which is fine, only it isn't funny, because that's the sort of thing this material usually would say, making this not humorous.
- Compare my treatment of the same subject at UnNews:Jews_take_over and UnNews:United Nations vote: all religions are entitled to their own state in the middle east. These articles were patently ridiculous and parodied the absurdity of anti-semitism itself (although the second one was more about making fun of the whole idea of someone getting a state just because of their religious beliefs). That's more of the direction your article should go in.
- If I think of anything that would work, I'll try it, but I don't really see how anything less than a total rewrite and new concept can save Jewish Media, and as you can see from my unnews articles I've cited in here, this is not hypocricy or sensitivity to making fun of Jews. The article is simply not parodic and therefore not funny. --Hrodulf 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- This forum topic isn't about that article . It's a whoring fest, The atricle is moot -- Vosnul 07:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
SHHHHH144.134.65.148 07:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, because the article is a significant topic of discussion in that it is not parodic and should be discussed, and this seems to be as good a place as any to do it since people are paying attention right now. If we don't fix it I think it probably should be huffed. This isn't the White Nationalism Wiki, and perhaps this user would be better off playing over there. Unless they can actually grok the idea this place is about satire and fix their article accordingly. --Hrodulf 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Talk here about http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Jewish_Media#.5B.5BJewish_Media.5D.5D it. Hardeehar 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, because the article is a significant topic of discussion in that it is not parodic and should be discussed, and this seems to be as good a place as any to do it since people are paying attention right now. If we don't fix it I think it probably should be huffed. This isn't the White Nationalism Wiki, and perhaps this user would be better off playing over there. Unless they can actually grok the idea this place is about satire and fix their article accordingly. --Hrodulf 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I found the forum topic that has not been updated for the longest time and bumped it... for no reason! And there's nothing you can do about it! BWAHAHA! -- 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you lose - this isn't the oldest one. This is. Loser! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:37, 13 May 2007