Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

I'm going to nominate it. --Emmzee 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. --Curious Larry 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A minor fix

Actually, AA exists in several other countries besides US and Canada. -- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 03:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Shh! Don't mention the outside world to the Yanks, it just confuses them. Seriously though, this is Uncyclopedia. If it's factually inaccurate, it really doesn't matter. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it that was I joke... But it didn't appeared to me like this at the first sight. -- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look on the Wikipedia article, it says AA has helped those 2 million in the US and Canada. --Emmzee 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Going, here's more info

As a former AA member, I think this is a great article, much better than the NA one. As far as AA in US and Canada, it is, like cigarette sales, declining in those countries, but expanding throughout the rest of the world. The best misinfo has some truth and facts embedded in it, so I'm hoping someone can use this info to compare cigarette smoking to the suicides in AA. Signed, My IP Address.

Hooray!

Featured. --Emmzee the Furious^{Spam me!} _{Don't click here!}

Wrong.

I can't tell if this was intentional, but the {{USERNAME}} character says that alcoholism isn't a disease, which seems to be the viewpoint of the article. Any desire is caused by chemicals in the brain, and an addiction is caused when the chemicals become programmed to irregular patterns, causing your brain to lose balance and irrationally crave the substance. Hence: it is a disease. Every psychological phenomenon is rooted in neurophysiology. Any high school neurbio student could tell you that. --LLBean 13:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Uncyclopedia is the place for factual information. --Emmzee the Furious^{Spam me!} _{Don't click here!}

F***ing unbelievable. People are so addled by this cult, that they come on and place corrections on uncyclopedia!!!

Funny how this gets featured on St Patricks day Diabl0658 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to me that the final sections remove the speaker's credibility, so it's pretty clearly not the "official opinion of Uncyclopedia." --Lenoxus

Someone needs to see the online film "Mind Control Made Easy". Actually, I'm wondering which chemical in my brain is making me respond to this comment. Signed, My IP Address.

From Pee Review

This is a very good start. I just think it needs to be built on a little, and then you'll have a first rate article. Absolutely loved the ending; I was in the middle of a lesson when I read it and had to work very hard to stifle my laughter. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great, now can you review it? --Emmzee 13:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeeze, you don't ask much, do you?

Humour:	8	I sniggered through most of it and laughed out loud in parts.
Concept:	10	I really liked the concept. People can be very hesitant about satirising people who supposedly only want to help, but you've gone right for the jugular here.
Prose and formatting:	8	Using a dialogue instead of a the usual encyclopedia format doesn't always go well, but here it works perfectly; I think it would come across as too reachy otherwise. It also has one of the funnier uses of the username tag. Except some jerk has edited it out. You should fix that. I'd do it myself but, you know, effort. I will add the "annonymous" infobox, though.
Images:	6	The images are all apropriate and the captions raise a chuckle, but nothing mind blowing.
Miscellaneous:	9	The whole thing is nice and tight. It has a funny concept and sticks to it, but doesn't belabour the point.
Final Score:	41	Above, I wrote that it's a good start, in retrospect that was patronising and wrong. This is a fine article as it stands, and I should probably go vote for it on VFH.
Reviewer:	--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)