Talk:Scientologists

How the FUCK is Wikipedia's article funnier? TRY HARDER TO BE RIDICULOUS (because my humor sucks) -- Herp. Derp. Imandreas did this. 01:48, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

This article is not very funny: I have not been able to find a single external article claiming Luke Perry belongs to scientology (except two morons on ask.com who may have read it here), so the joke is that it was started in 90210 b.c. which the author also just made up in order to be able to make a connection to Luke Perry. Possibly there is a connection to him being in a crappy sci-fi movie almost as implausible as scientology. I must admit I have not seen that film, but the plot of the article is more like The Da Vinci code, also with no connection to Luke Perry. I propose that someone rewrite it entirely.

There is loads of celebrities that DO have an affiliation Jaygo (talk) 19:51, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Not only is invoking Luke Perry (or Oscar Wilde) (or Adolf Hitler) (or Chuck Norris) not a good idea in the absence of a real-world connection, "90210 b.c." is what we (in How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid) refer to as a "nonsense date": a trite way to attempt humor, and a great way to keep Uncyclopedia from superficially looking like an encyclopedia. However, inviting "someone" to rewrite it is painless and probably ineffective. At the least, jump in and substitute for these problems. PS--There would also be an article on Scientology. Spıke Ѧ 20:12 20-Jul-13

Oh, I am more than happy to do so myself, but I understood that it is bad style to do a complete rewrite without some sort of warning, giving others the possibilty to object that it is in fact hilarious and I just dont get it. Sure I will give it a shot ( starting in my own space).

PS no there is not. Scientology redirects to the same page, (unless that was your point that there ought to be two separate pages) Jaygo (talk) 20:32, July 20, 2013 (UTC)