From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > BHOP > Pwn4g3
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6266 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I love pwn4g3.Ok.

Okay, gentlemen, behold this wonder. Not only did our anonymous author see it fit to start an entire forum topic on the fact that he loves, or is otherwise infatuated with, ownage ("ownage", no doubt, referring to the concept of ownership of physical or conceptual possessions - a bold declaration of his pro-capitalist beliefs) but then, not only did he fail to remove the following autogenerated instruction code, as the very code itself instructs:

<!-- Put your content here.  Make sure to sign your edits with four tildes. -->

...but immediately afterward he wrote, as if communicating a response to the instructions themselves:


and (and this is the clincher), he didn't even sign his edit with four tildes!

This, my friends, is pure, distilled comedy. It combines a gross misinterpretation of the purpose of this forum, a misunderstanding of the very nature of the autogenerated instructions themselves, and two counts of utter ignorance of the instructions' commands themselves. I salute you, User:IStewie! Well played. --L 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, the code doesn't state that you have to remove it. But still, he didn't sign, and the Ok is gold, and you'd think he'd be smart enough to put his content below the note. --User:Nintendorulez 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is pure, comic genius. I suggest we make this person Grand Cross of the Order immediatly. --Atomsk.gif Kaizer the Bjorn takkun Nya? (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 14:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Donerc (t) 19:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
12:57, 4 June 2006 Rcmurphy set rights for "User:IStewie": ($2 to $3) (+sysop)
[1] I don't see it. Not even a sysop/unsysop. Just nothing. --User:Nintendorulez 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The writing reminds me of the surreal, experimental use of language of Samuel Beckett in Waiting For Godot. Or perhaps James Joyce's lucidity combined with Hemingway's brevity. The user has thrown off convention's shackles, which dictate the use of plot, character, chapters, paragraphs, spelling and proper grammar, and created a masterpiece in the process. The user even employs numbers instead of letters, and in a revolt against classic literature, spells O.K. as Ok. Thus we are left wondering- is the user's intent actually to spell "O.K.", or perhaps to invoke the grassy plains of "Oklahoma" (pining for a lost home? Evocation of that yearning for untamed spaces which drove the westward expansion?). Or perhaps "Ok" is a misspelling of "Auk", presumably referring to the majestic Great Flightless Auk and the tragedy of its extinction. Perhaps this ambiguity is the author's intent: to create a rorschach blot in prose, a blank literary canvas upon which to project our hopes, our dreams... and our fears.

I think it is naive to read the work as a pro-capitalist treatise. The author may be speaking through a character who claims to love capitalism, to emphasize how the tragedy of modern capitalism requires not merely subjugation, but acceptance: shadows of Orwell's "1984", where the victory of the System comes not when Winston Smith is broken down by the state, but when he embraces the state. Perhaps, by reducing society to a single, spare word, almost unrecognizeable- "pwn4g3"- we are instead offered a critique of the 21st century, and how our life boils down to something so spare, so unfulfilling, and ultimately even strips us of our identity?

Orwell leads us to examine another issue: pseudonyms. Now, George Orwell was of course the pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair. I do agree with L that this is a work of genius and I applaud recognizing it as such (it takes little effort to find works of art when they have been labelled as such for a hundred years, but to recognize a genius that others have overlooked- to stand up in a crowd and rouse them, saying, "This is a work of genius."- well, that is also a kind of genius). Yet, I must criticize L on these grounds: why must we assume that our unnamed author is a "he"? What part of artful prose "pwn4g3" belongs exclusively to the male sex- is it because "pwn4g3" is an act of domination and you make the sexist assumption that men are dominant?

Stewie is masculine, but women sometimes assume male pen names (George Eliot, for instance, was the pseudonym of Mary Ann Evans). Since almost all users are pseudonyms, why is it so hard to believe a female user might go one step further and assume a male name? Are we so brainwashed by modern literature's patriarchy that we cannot admit that a woman might be this generation's crowning literary jewel? Perhaps the author defies the conventions of sex and sexuality as well as those of literature and is instead a polyamorous hermaphrodite or albino transsexual? Even a promiscuous, unusually gifted bonobo monkey? This rigid establishment thinking merely plays into the hands of- and perpetuates- the arrogant Harvard school of Humanism which teaches that old, white and thoroughly "Western" heterosexual men made all things of value in human culture.

--InfiniteMonkey 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also a touch of J.D. Salinger in there. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You've summed it up quite nicely. Truly, a masterpiece. --User:Nintendorulez 11:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Fool! "Zork Implementor" is a title, not a name! (Changed "Zork" to "L".) --L 03:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Since when was kleptomania cool? --The Rt. Hon. BarryC Icons-flag-gb.png MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in your base killing your d00dz

ED has an [article] on this, why don't we? Isn't that the same as Pwn4g3? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

VFH Nomination

--Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world.gif CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

whered it go? i was going to vote for it --Nerd42Talk 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too. - Surreal Hamster 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Against. Fisher Price is much better.--Rataube 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For. Fisher Price is hilarious, but this is comic gold. - Surreal Hamster 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Extreme for, deffinatly front page material. --OsirisX 00:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Definite Maybe. Have articles this short been features? If so then for.
Comment: Yes, they have. The article for 'The' was featured with the content simply being the word 'the'. --Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Converse 14:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone gonna actually put this up? - Sir Real Hamster 17:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ∩intendorulez moved it over there, I moved the voting and discussion and made a proper score tally, if you haven't voted yet, go over there and do it. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Definite For It made me LOL all day long. --Insineratehymn 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • EXTREME MAYBE i mean ... for --Nerd42Talk 16:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For OMFG h3 i5 teh n00b, *ahem* sorry about that, this really made me laugh. :D --Parinoid 05:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For Ok.
  • For Let's p\/\/|\|463!1 0|<!!1 But seriously, that is pretty hilarious. --General Insineratehymn 22:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fries.png Quasi-Featured Article (22 April 2024)
This article was nominated to become a featured article; however, due to several votes being devoured by a furry convention, it didn't make the cut ({{{2}}}). Don't let this happen again! For just pennies a day, you can prevent another travesty of this nature, or vote for other articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.

Currently on VFD

The article Pwn4g3 is currently on VFD. There has been so much hostility towards it that even I (its original creator) voted against it. But Jack mort has since pointed out the that people voting there are not the same as the ones who voted here. If you would like to see it remain, please do what you can to counter the votes... time is of the essence! -- Lenoxus 19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the thing is, it's just a copy of this page, without any of the useful explanation or witty replies that characterise a forum page and make sure we all know what the joke is. Unfair as it may be, Fisher Price is the only one of its specific kind that is likely to live on in our memories and the main article space. Now I suggest everybody goes and eats shit, fuckers. --Strange.PNG (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Got it. *slurp*. — Lenoxus 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)