From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Vote
|
Score: 11.5
|
| Nominated by:
|
—Sir Socky   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:06, 13 September 2011
|
For: 14
|
 For. A mathematical error so revolting it's funny, or something. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:06, 13 September 2011- For. Hilarious. EpicAwesomeness (talk) 15:34, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- For. Heh heh. Humorous. Gamma287
  17:03, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Halfselffor - I loved this when THE wrote it two years ago, and I'm proud to say I think I made it even better.
 pillow talk 19:18, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- For. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)
 11:23, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
- The derivative of 4x+3
 Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell • Latest literary excretion) __ 18:07, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
- For. -- Kip > Talk • Works • •
   20:17, Sep. 14, 2011
- For. Hyperbole's back! :D --
 PLEB SIR Lollipop (TALK) - updated on 14 September 2011, at 20:28
- there's a reason why they call him "humble hype"
 TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  20:30, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
- For. This is some article man. Though you should think about adding to the conversation, it's going so well.
  -> That's Poop Man Poop 12:14, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
- For. What was the original equation, btw? I think I'd do a better job at solving it if I knew what it was. Scofield & Dudes 12:22, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
- For. What's a calculus? It sounds dirty, so you get my vote. Aleister 17:37 15-9-'11
- For. 82.216.27.136 06:38, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
- For.--Sog1970 10:28, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
- For. 75.59.226.67 17:04, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
|
Against: 2.5
|
- I'd like to vote for, but the end just breaks from the rest of it so entirely with the guy's... what is that, an interview? A random blog entry? Something else entirely? There isn't even any context. But the article is funny for the implications; putting more of the actual thing in more directly, especially when done in such a seemingly random manner, just doesn't work for me. It might if it'd at least tie back into the topic at hand (and if it had some context, at that), but even then, why would it be necessary at all? Better are the implications, man. We know what it's really talking about. No need to beat the readers over the head with it.
1234 ~  22:59, 15 September 2011
- Against. Doesn't cut the mustard as a feature in my view
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 13:08, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Against. I agree, its sooo good up until the end. I would have sent this to a ton of people if the end was more subtle. Excellent otherwise:) 83.71.44.62 16:27, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
