HowTo talk:Join ISKCON

If you have come here to complain about Uncyclopedia taking the piss out of your religion, go and read Atheism (religion).

We are proud of the fact that we insult everyone equally...

Pee Review of ITSCON in October, 2009

Comments during edit of 18-Oct

Please find a way around using the word "nonsense" in the intro--That is a conclusion, which you should be drawing the reader to, and not have to state for him. It's the difference between writing a novel that says what Fred was thinking, and describing a mannerism of Fred's that lets the reader figure out for himself what Fred was thinking. Likewise the phrase "It is so funny" in the intro. If you have to spell this out for the reader, then your text has failed. Spıke Ѧ  19:53 19-Oct-09 Crap, you're not reading this, but keep adding new stuff to the intro rather than fixing the old stuff. Keep it small and tight (as I tell Her all the time). The only function of the intro is to lure in the reader. Spıke Ѧ  20:03 19-Oct-09

The only problem in this whole thing was my missing your points in the first place. I went through the entire thing again after reading the above, removing any wise crack, and keeping a serious tone through out. Dropping that truthful, yet useless, list made a huge difference. I didn't even replace it. I think you will see that ALL your advice was taken - after I came to my senses. I told them to take off Pee cue because as far as I was concerned I had the review I needed and fixed everything. So now its ready for a nomination?? if you think it good enough please nominate it. Otherwise, I would like to lose "stub" status and just be a main page article (at least). Thanks a-million.--Funnybony 20:59, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yes! now, dropping the wisecrack voice doesn't mean you think the cult is on the level; you are playing it more deadpan and leading the reader to figure it out for himself. It is surely no longer a stub, and you can take that designation off yourself. I don't think it's done (though I have been away for an hour). I pitched in on three occasions to make grammar and light-edit changes to the intro. Spıke Ѧ  21:05 19-Oct-09

How right you are. I could never do anything worthwhile in my life without help.--Funnybony 21:09, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

OK, I took it out of Intensive Care (by the authority vested in me; that is, none). By Section 1.2 of UN:ICU, you could have done so yourself. (Validating your own comment about needing help.) You didn't take all my advice, though, (there's more to you today on my talk page) and I would offer again that Sections 13 and 15 don't contain information but anti-information, advisories regarding the absence of information, and could be deleted now. Thinking an article just out of ICU is going to go straight to Page 1, though--the word for that is Cheek. Spıke Ѧ  21:12 19-Oct-09

Thanks for your message; I've replied just below it on my talk page. Spıke Ѧ  16:25, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Spike seems confused after initial belligerence

The only thing that baffles me is your cordiality Friday and today versus your tone just after seeing the completed Pee Review. I suggest in User talk:ChiefjusticeDS#On the process that a completed Pee Review form--which they insisted I do, after I wrote the text review that got us talking in the first place--looks too much like a BAD REPORT CARD. I wanted to review your article and three others in text; they agreed, then insisted that I complete a "report card" to close out the formal review process. To be clear, I breezed through the review in table form, meaning only to point you back to the text that I presume you had already read. I suggest to Chief that there should be an alternative way to close a review. Spıke Ѧ  00:44 18-Oct-09

Reply to belligerence

Spike, to be honest I don't know how to write a review. I don't know how to use their form. So if I see an article that seems really good to me then I nom it. As they told me. Otherwise I do nothing.

My tone is always cordial, as was my first note to you. But your constant belligerence was boring. Now this message is perfectly friendly, so I reply in kind. My only preferred method is cordial. And I hope we always stay that way.--Funnybony 11:06, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Section organization

Even thirteen sections is too many. The body of the article contains the following stuff:

1. History
2. "Itscon lineage in numbers"--I don't like this, at least this early; maybe later, under Itscon culture
3. Formal governance--Includes Sections 3, 5, 7, 9
4. Consequences of Itscon membership--Includes Sections 4, 6
5. Itscon culture, song, dance, etc, etc ("culture")--Includes 10, 11, 12, and maybe 2

The list above is not necessarily how I would name the section headings. Spıke Ѧ  21:20 19-Oct-09

Look at UN:HTBFANJS#Avoid Clichés (most of the time), paragraph 2/3 of the way down that excessively large numbers are a cliché and snap the reader out of his trance of believing you. The article has a few of these. Use believable numbers--they aren't the joke--the words you use to set them up is. Spıke Ѧ  21:23 19-Oct-09

I'm on-it!!! It's 4 am here in Bangkok, and I'll take care of your latest about absurd numbers, and and organization tomorrow. Tell what ever I missed or just fix it is often easier than explaning to me. Anyway, how right you are. I could never do anything worthwhile in my life without help. Back in the 60s I had my first brush with fame in London with the Band, The Misunderstood, I was lead singer, but there was no way I would get on stage without my band mates. I've never been a solo act. And thanks even more for your personal edits--Funnybony 21:09, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

You'd better get some sleep! It was 2 am when I "pissed on" your article, and the clock time may have contributed to my impatience. If you didn't read it on my talk page, I am on the US East Coast. Last night, a n00b edited Pie with a lot of free-association stuff that had a little to do with pie but wasn't even funny. I was about to revert him, but after a good sleep, I was able to work his material into the intro. Spıke Ѧ  22:01 19-Oct-09

I couldn't sleep on a roll, right? So I rearranged and deleted the sections to be connected and in order. Its looking really 100% better now. Man, I'm really glad you got into it. Great!!!--Funnybony 22:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Well, you changed the heading of the section I brushed up--and it is closer to your style. But I have a problem with your style, namely: How many times does the word ITSCON have to appear in section headings of an article that, for Chrissakes, is "ITSCON"? Spıke Ѧ  00:01 20-Oct-09

Dude! Right on. DONE THROUGH OUT. If I accidentally changed any of your edits, please re add, because I don't want to mess with anything you've done. Now I really am off to nap.--Funnybony 00:32, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Wrong! I don't outrank you; moreover, you outrank me in ITSCON--It's your turf, and your exclusive area of expertise (compared to me); that's why I've been doing only localized edits. (This is not Uncyclopedia dogma, and I'm sure MrN would say I'm being too formal.) You did mess with something I did in changing a section heading; and the solution is to talk about what our respective purposes were, as we did. Spıke Ѧ  00:44 20-Oct-09

Section organization bis

• Sections 3 and 5 belong together: 3 Membership; 3.1 How to join; 3.2 Member activities
• ALL CAPITALS in 6 and 6.4 is DAMNED PECULIAR
• Don't need "GBC" in "GBC Theocracy" as I presume there is no other theocracy
• On Wikipedia, it's no extra capital letters in headings, though someone just told me it's author option here--in any case, be consistent.

Section 3.1 has two problems:

• Big numbers that can't be true--again, refer to UN:HTBFANJS on Clichés
• The conclusion, "Pretty neat, eh?" Again, the tone changes from informing to chatting. If you have to say this to tie the joke together for the reader (that cult members will either succeed, or contrive to say they did), then your prose will have failed. Likewise "moronic" in 5.1.
• In 3.2, the items toward the end of the intro speculate on the mindset of cult members. Again, better to report what they do and lead the reader to the conclusion about whom they hate. The list is part daily activities and part cosmic goals; organize.

I had this notion to append two sentences to the caption of the intro paragraph, but it's more than editorial so I'll leave it to you: "The All-attractive before being murdered. The multiple gunshot wounds to the head left him much less so. Shown here accompanied by the God-head." Leaves it ambiguous as to which head that would be. Spıke Ѧ  11:05 20-Oct-09

Hi! Spike, I appreciate your confusion. It's in insiders look at this "ISKCON" Movement (where guru is God, and vise versa). It's pretty insider accurate. Thanks--Funnybony 16:13, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that! Then you should discount the part of my review that regarded your article as totally random. (I was gently chided for this review--see directly above; it was the harshest of 4 that I wrote last night.) Now, even if it is insider-accurate, it may be useful as a typical reaction from the many non-insiders who will look at your article. Please have the intro throw us something to grab onto. My comment about the shifting narrative voice (deadpan versus chatty) is relevant no matter who your audience is. Sometimes, when I want to break out of character and yuk it up with the reader, I do it in footnotes. Spıke Ѧ  16:23, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spike, I appreciate your help in any tone. Help is help. This is about the "Harry Harrys".

[Large volume of detail on the inner workings of the cult Funnybony was spoofing, deleted]

One question I have is about your out-of-character reference? Can you please give one example so I can adjust them all accordingly. Much appreciated--Funnybony 17:05, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I am not an ISKCON insider, I am not about to become one, not even enough to re-read the above and judge whether your assertions are correct. I gave you my opinion, which is necessarily that of an outsider, and that will be its only value to you. Regarding "insider-offensive" and "out-of-character reference," [does it] mean the article's tendency to change tones of voice? Spıke Ѧ  17:25, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spike! Chill, dude, somehow you come across as an angry person, but I bet you aren't. YES, the question was about the "the shifting narrative voice (deadpan versus chatty)" I would like an example to compare so I can even them out. Oh, no, I don't suggest you become an ITSCON insider, but just to know there IS an inside (just like every cult). Thanks again.--Funnybony 18:25, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Spike is a Wikipedian me thinks :P He's just being formal like they are. Which we are not cos dat sux balls. Kinda. MrN  Fork you! 18:34, Oct 16

Yes indeed, I started there. Spıke Ѧ  18:38, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I projected anger! Intended only to convey that I don't have the background to do this article justice. (I completed the PEE Review form just now to comply with a request to get it off the backlog, but maybe I should have left it on the backlog.) Your explanation above is full of earnest hope that I discover how quirky this convention of yours is and--forgive me if this again sounds hostile--I'm not going to care.

Hi Spike, that's cool! Lots of Uncyclopedia articles don't interest me in the least, or I have no background to understand the satire. But if you "don't have the background to do this article justice" and are "not going to care" then there's no need to shit on it!--Funnybony 18:41, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the change in tone: We are in the intro. I am looking for information on ITSCON, I am slowly getting a little, and then you go, "Man, like, pretty COOL GOD!!! Yeah!?" This is the change of tone I'm talking about. You are jerking me around between informing and chatting and joking, having never told me why I'm here. This might not be a problem. Someone who knows ISKCON may get into this. I as an outsider have not bought into this article, nor into you as my guide, and the shifting tone is an obstacle. Spıke Ѧ  18:37, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Dude! Now this is constructive. If anyone else feels the same way, then I'll fix it for sure. Thinks for this advice. Now I understand your issue!--Funnybony 18:41, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

So nothing about monkeys then? I do hope there will be monkeys. Anyway, why am I here on this talk page? It must have been the monkeys. I sirs am out of here. Assuming the monkeys don't catch me... MrN  Fork you! 18:41, Oct 16

Nice tits Spıke Ѧ  18:47, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Funnybony and SPIKE set to editin'

Spike, to be honest I don't know how to write a proper review. I don't know how to use their form. And I don't enjoy fault-finding nor bitching. So if I see an article that seems really good to me then I nom it. As they told me. Otherwise I do nothing.

In a way you seemed to have a knee jerk religious hangup, same as ITSCON. Like the issue of God was disturbing to you, out of your own understanding. That's no reason to write a review.

My tone is always cordial, as was my first note to you. But your constant belligerence was boring. Now your message and advice is perfectly friendly, so I reply in kind. My only preferred method is cordial. And I hope we always stay that way. Only friends have value, otherwise worthless.--Funnybony 11:11, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Recall my reference to reading an early draft of Costa Rica. Fred (not meaning You) sets out to edit X, he doesn't know the first thing about X, he takes a flight-of-fancy, and he writes, "X is a manifestation of the struggle between God and Satan." Kinda clever, but it bugs me, not because I have one of them Personal Relationships with God, but because to me it's a cliche--it could be applied to any subject. That is what hit me reading about God in the intro of ITSCON. Maybe a snap judgement--and maybe useful information for you. Spıke Ѧ  15:45 18-Oct-09

Dude, I just spent 2 hours going through the entire article following your advice. You're right, it is a lot better now. And no more devil (screw him). I also gave an intro to the subject on the Pee page so anyone can know what we are actually talking about. Kind of like spoofing the Moonies as the "Mounies". The "Harry Harrys" are every bit as spoof-prone due to their antics of dancing in the streets chanting with drums and symbols, with full intention at World Domination, in spite of their tiny number. Anyway, I hope somebody familiar with the subject does the review, but not so familiar that they get offended by the facts coming out. It's quite a big subject, therefore a long article. In Wikipedia, the real ISKCON article is much longer than ours - and it's all fluff. If I had to read an article on the Moonies or TM I'd have little to no idea what was so funny. I guess with no knowledge on the subject it's hard to review anything. But your 'snap judgment' was right on. Thanks.--Funnybony 17:34, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Much better! The intro's one big lapse out of character of imparter of knowledge ("Like, HUGE!") is right at the end and at that point it's refreshing.

But you know what I (the ignorant outsider) want? Section 1. Business becomes your intro. It quickly explains what the racket is. (It is the guidance I needed originally, and I never got that far.) Your present intro becomes Section 1. History, below the table of contents. After the quick intro gives the outsider enough grounding about what the article is about (a cloister-plus-airport-scam) and he's hooked, the first thing he wants to know next is, How did this con come to be? PS--Regarding taking what you can from any unpleasant brush with a contributor, see the last paragraph of my user page. Spıke Ѧ  19:46 18-Oct-09

PPS. Now I am all the way through it (once briefly). Have you ever heard Our Masters here use the term "list-cruft"? No, not about what you wrote, about what you are going to attract, from (1) people who know what they are writing about and (2) people who know how to contribute to an article provided it's mostly lists, each one line long. I got so fed up about this that I added the following to the comparable section in Global warming. Spıke Ѧ  19:56 18-Oct-09

An Uncyclopedia democratization section This section exists as a creative outlet for the anonymous passers-by who can't write anything longer than one sentence, and can't be bothered to make even that relate to nearby material or check whether it restates a point made earlier. Have at it!

HAAA!! Cool, Dude!!! Do you think I should make the Business Para as the intro, and make all the rest under history?. How about I dump the entire list at the end completely? Now we're really making progress. Much thanks--Funnybony 08:58, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

(1) That is exactly what I'm saying. (2) Don't know which "entire list" you mean, but an 89-entry, unorganized list is something any n00b will think he can add to with impunity, and repairing it is how you will spend the rest of your life. Spıke Ѧ  09:37 19-Oct-09

Later

Whoa Broa!!! Thanks to your astute vision I have completely revampted the entire article. Please take a look. I mentioned on the Pee Review Page that this was already informally reviewed by SPIKE, and as a result, it is completely revamped. As far as I'm concerned this is Pee number 2. Thanks for the great advice. Now you just have to reconsider your packaging. But as you say, "It is YOU!" and as constructive as you are that's a good thing. Please tell me what you think?--Funnybony 12:14, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

---

Now that is an article I would have reviewed. And I shall. First, I lightly grammar-edited the intro. I left blasted--This word and the use of italics, is one of those changes of voice--from informative to exasperated--and I'm not convinced it makes the sentence any funnier. In that paragraph, I removed several quotation marks. Strunk and White pans quotation marks for terms--they say it's like telling your audience you're in the know and they aren't--like saying something "cool." (Something to watch out for throughout such an article as this.) Oops, use italics, not quotes at all for the name of the movie Airplane.

Section 1. Hmm, did you spell out ITSCON before? This really tells me what's going on. Thought occurred to me: This section is long, and is all about the All-attractive; isn't there a bleepin' photo of Him, just to break up the text? Important: I still don't have a Personal Relationship with God, but there is nothing wrong with being a Jew (there are some notorious and powerful ones at this site)--so explain to me what is funny about "Jew York City" or remove it now. You can't get readers if you piss 'em off.

Section 3. Less importantly, the word "fucking" is gratuitous, especially for an alleged encyclopedia. If you must swear, choose your shots. You don't have to here. Section 3.5 is problematic. I and the vast majority of your readers do not know if the capitalized terms are straight-up or garbled. (No, I don't want to know.) Anyway, make sure you are giving us some humor as you and the other insiders belly-laugh.

Section 4. As you know, I'm starting to hate lists--they are inherently unorganized, potentially infinite, and are forever added to by pundits and anonIPs. This section could be recast as "A day in the life of a typical ITSCON adherent."

Section 7. 7.1 is exactly 3.1. Get creative.

Section 10. In 10.1, the change of voice into Valley Girl is appropriate, although I hate reading anything in this voice. That's just me. In 10.3, on the other hand, who are we, Dude? The encyclopedia writer or the kid on the dirt bike?In 10.2, I was hoping to see real foreign mumbo-jumbo (in italics) and the translation (in Roman, but drop the quotes). Like Harvard Lampoon's "A day at the language lesson." It's hard to make up foreign mumbo-jumbo, but could be worth it. It may be my lack of inside information, but 10.2 goes on way past the point at which it adds anything.

Section 12 is another damned list, but it's short, and there's nothing in it, and that's the joke, and it works. But Section 13, I hate it. Infamous is not the opposite of famous, this is another damned Uncyclopedia section about non-facts, and now the author is apologizing to me for not being able to tell me anything. That's not funny. Section 14 is just long enough to have stuff that actually relates to ISKCON; any longer and it would be tedious word-association. Section 15, I hate it too. Again, it is a list (only one item), it has a title that says it is a list of non-facts, and it is a long, long link, ugly. And--hoping to avoid another of your armchair psychoanalyses--it's the God/Devil thing again, spare me!

Hope this helps. The article finally came part way to me (the non-insider) and was fun reading it, though I still haven't read the middle carefully. Spıke Ѧ  14:52 19-Oct-09

Still later, after the headache

I stayed up too late and was rewarded with a headache that put me outta commission until now. Man, it is really hard to sleep with a headache. OK, great! I did all the latest and deleted stuff, and took out or changed other stuff that fits the uncool description. Please let me know of anything else. Thanks, it is really WAAAAY better!!! Even I can see "better" when it shows up.--Funnybony 17:56, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me! some days I get dressed and leave the house. Yes, a lot of incremental changes, overwhelmingly to the good. (When someone from New England, USA compliments your wisdom or common sense, it merely means you are working for something they happen to agree with!) But you have neither implemented nor rejected a few comments that are important to me: one remaining big number that is too obviously false ("27,648 times daily"), gratuitous, and potentially immediately offensive "fucking" and "Jew York City," and my proposed lengthening of the caption on the initial photo. Spıke Ѧ  01:40 21-Oct-09 post-edited

You leave your house and break your connection with Uncyclopedia? Heathen scum! Now you must chant the Name of The All-attractive 27,648 times daily. Or instead of chanting you could worship the All-attractive one and masturbate 27,648 times daily. Your choice. (And yes, I also think the number's a bit high. For chanting, I mean.) WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 02:57, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Could it even be done? (I don't know, as I don't know His name. Chanting, I mean.) Spıke Ѧ  03:20 21-Oct-09

I just figured it out. At 27,648 times per day, you'd be masturbating chanting 19.2 times per minute. Gosh, do I need a life. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:26, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Actually that number is exact. They must chant the 16 names Maha-mantra on 108 bead rosary and do 16 rosary a day. So 16 x 108 x 16 = 27, 648 (takes about one to two hours a day). I used to do it for years. And that is 'minimum' daily requirement. So the 4 rules and 16 rounds (27,648 names) are the actual deal. I wanted to keep the real numbers as basic. No exaggeration. But the Jew York and fucking I'll change right now. Also the caption on the photo. I need to go back a figure it out. I'm on it. Actually speaking you have helped me more than any other Wikipedian (and others have helped a lot). Much appreciated. And you're welcome to make any changes. You don't need OK from me. It's twice as good now from your input. Let me know after I do the needful. YO!!--Funnybony 07:33, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Got em. Everything except the number, which is minimum, not exaggeration. There are 4 rules which I had made into crazy 1,000,004 and that is back to 4. But the other number is real. Perhaps it should be explained like: 27,648 (16 Names Maha-mantra on 108 bead rosary and do 16 rosary a day). Otherwise I think I got everything. You mentioned a change in the intro para... dude, please do as you see fit. Let me know of anything else. BTW: Not that reality matters, but I'm an American former rock musician The Misunderstood living in Asia since 1968, and in Thailand since 1988. Bangkok makes Rio look like a nunnery. It's the most amazing city on Earth (in my opinion), but I haven't really been to every city on Earth (like, I wonder if Moscow is amazing as Bangkok?). I like the endless summer right here. Thanks-a-million--Funnybony 08:13, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining 27,468. (In the article, and in the paragraph above, and in the paragraph above that. Low on sleep again?!) On the caption, I'm afraid you have gilded the lily, and I'm going to put it back the way I suggested it. (1) You may have noted the use of poison out of historical accuracy, but how did it make the All-attractive unattractive? (If there's an answer, don't tell me, and don't add it back to the caption!) (2) The conundrum that the All-attractive denies everything recurs in the article; but not here, not so soon. I just want to poke the reader in the ribs at this point, not bury him in facts.

New Hampshire is on the verge of our annual endless winter, and the summer was, from a meteorological (and baseball) standpoint, missing. Yet Al Gore lives. Spıke Ѧ  09:59 21-Oct-09

Spike! You did it! I just went through the entire article, saw all your improvements, and didn't touch a word. I'm not changing anything unless you say so. You have been more helpful than any other editor who has helped me. And the article is really looking good. I don't suggest you see it, but it just so happens that Uncyclopedia article on ITSCON is much more accurate than the "fluff" on Wikipedia. If you ever feel like nominating the Itscon article, it's as much your work as mine. Now, if I can just convince you NOT to join Itscon then the article served its purpose - Har har!!! Thanks a million!!!--Funnybony 17:01, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

No, I started reading about ISKCON and, in the middle of Section 1, my Spidey Sense started tingling. And we were full-circle--You really don't want to know anything more about this subject matter. Your worries are unfounded, merely having to shave my head would require enough additional maintenance to keep me from joining. Glad you are happy with the results. Spıke Ѧ  17:09 21-Oct-09

Changing the names to protect the...

On Itscon I went through it and changed the remaining real names to be close, but not exact, like Maha-mantra I changed to Mega-mantra (there is no-such-thing), and Arjuna to Juno, and one "devotees" to Marksmen. Plus I added a few more categories, like organized crime. You can compare and see the little touches I made, and if you prefer anything as before just revert. I was advised by an Itscon friend who read it of having the whole article without any exact names. Like, even Itscon is a fictional name.

Agendas other than humor?

If there is any obstacle to your nomination, I hinted at it above: You have agendas other than humor. For example, the last two sections of ITSCON still strike me as wanting to communicate your disdain for the cult's phony-math babble more strongly than to make me laugh.

I hate requests for strategic advice (even "What dress should I wear?") because it requires that I pretend to have someone else's values. By my values, the answer is: Just do good work, and people will recognize it. If the goal is "deliver value," you have gigantic Wal-Mart; if the goal is merely "grow," you have WorldCom and Enron. So--if your goal is to accumulate notoriety, recognition, and prizes, you might not be writing your best stuff. Just write it. Spıke Ѧ  11:05 23-Oct-09

PS on today's edit--C'mon! Apart from the redundancy of getting "arrested for criminal activities," what is the point of showing an Iskcon guy's mug shot? Are you writing humor, or assembling a dossier on your former acquaintances (or even contriving to get your own photo into Uncyclopedia)? See above! Spıke Ѧ  14:16 23-Oct-09

PPS--"In spite of all appearances" is essentially an encyclopedia cliché. Spıke Ѧ  15:36 23-Oct-09

Hi Spike, some other editor finds the article too insulting right from the start!? Should the criminal element be removed? Collecting donation, by hook or crook, is basically legal for religious organization. Although they were convicted of other crimes, of every description. Now I'm not sure how to approach it in a detached manner. Can you take over the article and do it without any biased, now that all the info is there? I'm the good person to get the facts from, but, it seems, I'm too biased toward the subject, which in my opinion, is a bloody mad house of fanatic whackos for whom wrong is right. Since the All-attractive (founder), who is non-different from the All-attractive, is right even when he's wrong, and Itscon dislikes the (non) competition named Gaudiya Math (Math means ashram). It has no connection to mathematics, I just made that up to give a reason for the one-sided animosity against Gaudiya Math (the mother cult in India). Only an unbiased guy can do this it seems. At this point I'm stuck.--Funnybony 21:15, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

"Why" said: "I don't see much satire here, but a lot of insults, an inconsistent writing style, and several places where the article tells me I'm supposed to find it funny." And I said--earlier today and above in this section--"I hinted at it above: You have agendas other than humor. For example, the last two sections of ITSCON still strike me as wanting to communicate your disdain for the cult's phony-math babble more strongly than to make me laugh." Same thing. Perhaps walk away from it for a week and come back and try to read it as if for the first time. Don't explain to me why your bill of particulars against ISKCON is justified--your defense of the article above PROVES that "you have agendas other than humor." I will not take over the article. Be patient and reread what I wrote; I have no advice for you that is more specific. But even doing so will not win you an Uncyclopedia prize before midnight. Spıke Ѧ  21:33 23-Oct-09

Is this a better intro:

ITSCON, a misorganized confederation acting as a quasi-Hindu religious cult, operates a number of money-collecting scams, including book distribution at airports around the world. Its representatives pass-out and sell books, often short-changing and stealing from travelers, while dressed in flaming-pink bed-sheets. Claiming devotion to God, as The All-attractive, these followers use pamphlets, books, and other items to separate normal people (the demons) from their money, which all rightfully belongs to God, who created money, along with other stuff.

The business accumulated enough booty for the cult's Governing Booty Commission (GBC) to expand the business, live lives of leisure, and attract lots more young acolytes as bait. ITSCON’s apparent goals are empire-building and squashing its mother faith in material superiority.

ITSCON has the singular distinction of being a copyright infringer against The All-attractive Himself (they sell His books, keep all the cash, and offer The All-attractive some flowers every day).

Is the above preferable to what is up at present? Sorry to bother you, but I a reluctant to change anything in case mistake. Or should I just rewrite it? A person with no background could also not do justice to this subject. Thanks--Funnybony 21:43, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

It seems about like what's there now. I am not going to compare it word for word. Words number 3 and 4--"misorganized confederation"--are new, and do worse than the original at piquing my interest. At this point, I don't care about how well organized it is, nor whether it is a confederation, federation, or republic.

You aren't listening (REREAD above). You are acting desperate for instant results. Get some sleep! Spıke Ѧ  21:59 23-Oct-09

Make Over of ITSCON

Took your and Why's words to heart and did a serious makeover on ITSCON. Now going to leave it for a week. It started out pretty absurd, which was, perhaps, a lot more funny. Then you helped me rewrite into better, but much more serious and literal, and therefore, offensive sounding manner and points. Now it's in-between (minus a lot of junk you got ditched). The picture is also changed as an All-attractive magnet (to which He is actually often compared). The main picture is much more attractive now (no pun intended).--Funnybony 04:50, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Spike, just to give a glimpse into your depth of understanding, the thing I DON'T want is my picture on this or any Uncyclopedia article. So I guess it just takes one to know one.--Funnybony 05:09, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

I have no idea why this article has generated this much discussion, but this is a reminder not to delete discussions from talk pages, even if they're your own words. Thanks. --Andorin Kato 05:58, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

This is all part of following a Pee review to it's negative conclusion

If it seems a lot, just see how much has actually been written by me. And search-out how an unfriendly to bitter semi-PEE-review has been left out of this discussion, in spite of causing it. And when this led nowhere, then I was accused of bias, in spite of taking all advice. FACT: If I had followed reviewer A, then reviewer B would hate it, and vise versa.

Spike DID help, but another reviewer hated it

I'm not ungrateful for help given by Spike because regardless what any reviewer thinks Spike DID greatly improve the article. But he then took "serious" to the point of offensive or "insults", i.e., NOT funny. Well, I followed all advice by the end but the results was another reviewer hated it.

Who is unbiased?

Then they both accused me of bias. Spike told me he "hates Valley Girl talk" (as if I ever use it) so where is unbiased!??

UnPsychepedia

For a joke site you people really take yourselves seriously. A tiny group of seeming nice mixed with hateful people have banded together and are canceling each other out, and operating on a "handle bias." And from appearances it looks like a little gang of only about 15 to 20 people out of the human race even vote on VFH. Jeez! That's a group almost too small to matter, and which consists person's opposing takes on humor are or handle bias. One says "It's a great article!" next guy says, "It's terrible article!" - obviously ONE of them is dead wrong, or just a jerk.--Funnybony 21:08, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

ITSCON Pee Review to conclusion

I have been taken by Pee review to an unsuccessful place, and now I hope I have repaired the tone back to satire. It seems that every Pee reviewer has totally different view-points, so, if it's just hit and miss, then who to follow? There are some angry guys writing PEE (not all of them). But dare not make any friends, otherwise motives will be questioned too!--Funnybony 06:08, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Now I bet the person in question will try to distract away from their own short-comings by saying I have another agenda. Well, if that appears so then don't blame me because I took all PEE advice--Funnybony 06:31, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Fact: My only agenda for writing my 22nd FREE article was just to spoof a spoof-worthy cult of which I am knowledgeble enough to write.--Funnybony 06:36, October 25, 2009 (UTC)