User talk:The Thinker/Archive 7

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk Archive 1 | Talk Archive 4 | Talk Archive 7
Talk Archive 2 | Talk Archive 5
Talk Archive 3 | Talk Archive 6


Talk Page Virginity Steal!

That is all.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Now it's a gang-bang! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:09, Nov 25
Gentlemen, you know that RAHB is the only man I test the limits of heterosexuality with. --THINKER 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Take it to the liii-miiiiit babaaaay! -RAHB 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

--THINKER 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Rape!

Yes, I raped your talk page. It almost refused to drink the wine, too...your talk page has a strong will. Nonetheless, I got at it eventually. Shame it was already devirginized. They're always better the first time around. --THE 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


AT LAST!!! :-D Thanks for the vote, not to mention all the help you gave me on that article. I couldn't have gotten it featured without you. Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't have gotten an account without thanks! WOOOOOO! SO, who's up for a little drunken bowling? */me pulls out a bowling ball and aims it at a nearby group of pidgeons* --THE 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its about freakin time already!! Glad to see it make the main page with such a high voting margin; I even added it to my THINKER features. :) --THINKER 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Heee, thanks! Third times the charm!! I love Jaws did WTC, by the way, probably one of the funniest articles I've read in a while. I'll probably make it my "favorite artikle" for next month, unless I forget. :) --THE 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of how awesome you are...

Wanna split the credit for Jews did WTC? What with the fact you wrote all but like two paragraphs of it, I figured I'd better ask before taking partial credit for that one when it's featured Tomorrow.--<<>> 13:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah man, thats a given. My rule of thumb is that if I didn't come up with the concept and/or start the article 100% on my own, anyone else involved gets due credit for the work as well regardless of how much I did. I try to be good about credit; I've got a feature or two under my belt, so a .5 vs. 1 isn't big enough a concern to start short-changing my valued collaborators. On my page I have it listed as an original collaboration between you, me and Mhaille on percussion pictures. I'm really glad it turned out so well, and especially proud that its going to FA :) --THINKER 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that I get .0000001 of an FA for giving Brad the Loose Change idea on IRC? :D --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure does! However, you failed to do anything to the actual article itself, so I'm appropriating that .0000001 into the UnCommons FA municipal fund. Don't be sad; its for the greater good! Of me, and the fake organization I just made up! --THINKER 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Do I get a tax rebate now? --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing. Its .00000001 FA. Oh, and of course we pay out in drachmas. --THINKER 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, drachmas. You know, I hear that if you convert .00000001 FA to those you could actually get about 15,000,000 yen. Imagine that.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mordillo says he'll trade it for 25 shekels. I don't know which is more valuable. --THINKER 01:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, how about this offer: I'll give you....1 American dollar for it, which comes out to about .25 shekels, and then we can use it to buy a turn on the "aim the nuke" machine at the arcade.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk)
Yeah, and for twenty dollars, I'll make you hollar....ahem -RAHB 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote!

In the n00b! Er, Is there something wrong with the maths there??? Have fun MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there was. Math was never my strong suit. Thats why I bullshit around here all the livelong day. And I hope you win; you're actively voting on VFH, which I feel is extremely important. Good luck buddy. --THINKER 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)



You voted...

...for Francis Winkler! In the name of all state-employed public educators of unstraight persuasion everywhere, thank you!

Thanks! --Andorin Kato 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry that you didn't like my article. I hope I didn't do anything wrong personally to get you on my bad side, Thinker, cuz I think you're pretty cool.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 5 @ 03:59)

Nah, its nothing more than the explanation I gave there. I've liked many of your other pieces, voted as such. And I do like the article; just not the ending. ;) --THINKER 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you hated it tho, that's all I wanted to say. I tried to make it funny anyway   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 5 @ 04:26)

Oh man, I'm whining... I'll go now...   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 5 @ 05:02)
I don't hate your article man. I like it very much, right up until the end. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. --THINKER 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unicorns-slash-rainbows and happiness

Unicorn small.png Gay2.gif Oh Hell No. Gay2.gif
Unicorn small.png

I'm not sorry you voted for unicorns!

  Le Cejak <-> (Dec 8 / 15:34)

Fear, Loathing, and NOTES ON THE PROJECT in Las Vegas

Pretty snazzy title for a "notes on the project" section, eh? :D. Alright, thinks seem to have slowed down a bit as far as continuing development of "the Project" is concerned. Do you still want to do the "Behind the scenes with the Smiths" page? If not, then shall we take what we have already and go ahead with the DVD menu plan? If you do still want to do it, then STOP PROCRASTINATING ALREADY!!!!! :-D --THE 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! The project indeed! God its been a while since we've done anything on that one... I still think the Smiths doc is cool, I'll create a userspace page for us to work on (unless you want to do it in yours for consistency). But yes you are correct, we must do that to full-out the DVD, then get that ready, get pics on everything, and release this damn thing. Lets try to have it out by new years, ay? I think we could. :) --THINKER 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, let's go for it! Yes, before the dawn of 2008, the DVD page shall be complete. Excellent! I got a behind the scenes with the Smiths page started up here. Let's get rollin'! :D --THE 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
So, just to klarify...the Smiths page is gonna be a sort of mix between an unscript and a regularly written article, right? --THE 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. I was thinking we'd have the article portion be an almost narrator-like presence, intermixed with smith dialogue. And I promise I will start on it very soon, and no, I'm not bullshitting this time! :D --THINKER 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, alright, cool. I'll jump in once you've got it started, and I've got the idea down for what the tone and such is gonna be like. --THE 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I loved it so far. I got a few ideas for jokes as I read through what you have so far, and I added some content. It feels good to be workin' on the project again :D! As far as length and formatting is concerned...are we gonna divide the Smiths page into various sections with a table of contents, like a script, or just leave it as a kind of "big block," like it is in its present form? --THE 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I was contemplating that. Due to its nature, maybe we could just use line breaks like how Hell's Chicken is divided? Maybe those lines could be like commercial breaks (ie. "Well be back with more innocent bystanders right after this" then line break). What do you think? --THINKER 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. Oh, and is the Smith commentary also going to include the "smythe" guy who played Alister? I think it'd be hilariously ironic to make Smythe some sort of moronic gas station attendant, with no idea of what any of his dialogue was supposed to mean. Whaddya think? I'll be able to work on it more tomorrow, and perhaps today, if this beastly snowstorm doesn't kill my electricity, as I'm expecting it to any sec-- *ZAP!* --THE 14:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure man, that sounds good. We can evolve it as it goes along. Lets just try to either not include the Smiths that are listed in the character box on the script page, or if we do (and I guess we sorta should, since they are the main characters), lets keep their descriptions from the box consistsnt with what we write about them in the article. I started reading your edits and got a little sidetracked last night, so I'll read them today after business is taken care of. --THINKER 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree about the main characters...I suppose we can put them in a kind of secondary place in the special, and focus more on the "untold story" of the production crew. But we should definitely have some bits from the guy who played Alister...and I of course couldn't resist a brief appearance by the female impersonator. There's just too much potential humor there to ignore :D. --THE 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Our noob needs help!

"Have him write an article or two and we'll talk. --THINKER 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"

UnTalented has written a very funny article, which is on VFH. He is struggling in NotM, largely because the other nominees are whores. I'm now officially UnTalented's whore. Read his article, and vote! This noob needs a chance for greatness! He is by far the best writer up for NotM! - UnIdiot | GUN.png | Talk | Contribs - 22:20, Dec 10


Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I appreciate the help. MadMax 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course dude, any time. Even when it leads to my own page getting vandal'd. But hey, at least I got a vanity page out of it. :D --THINKER 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PLS Judging

Would you have any interest in judging for the upcoming PLS in January? Please let me know on my talk page whether or not you are/will be able to. Danke. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a not-shitty Christmas!

WinterBreakCalendar.PNG Heya, The Led Balloon here, wishing you merry Christmas, or any other holiday you feel like celebrating. Just remember what it's all really about: NO WORK, NO SCHOOL, FREE STUFF!!!
Here's to hoping your school(or work) calendar for December doesn't look too much like this...

Merry Christmas, - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:21, Dec 17

Workin on it. Thanks :) --THINKER 01:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Pagans

Pagans, the Whole Lot of Yous

Premier Tom Mayfair has been a naughty boy this year, but he still deserves a kiss from under the mistletoe. His external organ is fair game.

Premier Tom Mayfair

Thank you, Thomas the Commie. :) --THINKER 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Christmasbeerbottletree.jpg AE has awarded you a beer in which you help build your own Christmasbeerbottletree (shown right)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Oh, and I'm sorry your vanity article got deleted. It was great--Æ 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah, no worries. Twas funny when it was there. Thanks for the well wisherings --THINKER 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One Of These

Christmas tree.jpg HEY LOSER! Here's another semi-personalized (that's a lie) Merry Christmas template to add to the overwhelming pile you've got building up on your talk page right now. Have a Merry Christmas, or I'll come over there and make you have a Merry Christmas.
If you don't already have a pile of these building up, you're a hopeless loser that nobody on Uncyclopedia likes...sorry.

Yours truly, RAHB

Ah, Happy Holidays to my good friend, The Thinker. May your holidays be happy, may your presents be plenty, may your manly parts never mysteriously fail to function, for what is apparently no reason at all. And mostly, may all your Christmases be south Florida. -RAHB 03:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, much appreciated RAHB, and the same to you (quite especially the manly parts thing). My New Years resolution involves writing something important. ;) --THINKER 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
My new years resolution involves alcohol, several types of drugs, sex, and other things of that nature. But it also involves writing some fucking important, fucking funny things. I can probably mix a few parts of that resolution too, but I'd probably be best to keep the sex out. Unless maybe I write something funny about sex. That's likely going to happen, I mean, come on, it's me. -RAHB 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good day Sir

RE your abstention of Uncyclopedia:VFH/Gay. Is there anything I can do to the article to make you reconsider? It's ambitious I know, and any additional comments you might have would be very welcome. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 21:28, Dec 22

Mmm, well I think the intro is good, but then gets a bit blatant. I would've stuck with the whole old-meaning-new-meaning thing with a bit more subtlety. Good piece though, that's why I didn't vote against. ;) --THINKER 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I will see what I can do... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 21:51, Dec 22

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas. ~ Mitch

-- Mitch Icons-flag-au.png 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

~ Merry Xmas The Thinker/Archive 7! ~

--YeOldeLuke 08:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Help out a noob in need?

You and RAHB wrote that page about Chicken Soup for the soul, right? Well, there's this noob down in the help forums who's working on a similar article, maybe you could help him out? Cheers, - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 06:04, Dec 29

Happy New Yeeeah!

And thanks for helping me become a fully fledged Uncyclopedian, as opposed to a half-assed IP user. Alas, we didn't finish Sex Seafood in 2007, but we'll finish in 2008, dammit! --THE 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah damn it, you're right. The best laid plans, ay? But yes, it will certainly be finished early next year. So happy new year to you as well my friend. :) --THINKER 01:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


--Æ 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

James man!

EMC REVEWED IT A 47 man! I\mm Still drunk1!!! IMMA Nom IT!!!!!! -RAHB 05:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ man! I said, never again man. Never again. Or at least if I do ever again, I'll make sure nobody lets me near a computer, or a phone. -RAHB 08:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hah, well when next time inevitably comes, make sure you sign up for an account at Illogicopedia. ;) --THINKER 15:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some assistance or something...

I've noticed a trend. When I have an article on VFH, it will either pass with flying colors or struggle to stay alive after a series of votes. The trend I've noticed, is that when you vote against or abstain due to "missing something", it fails (or looks like it could fail/quasi). I'm trying to become a better writer here, and this seems like someplace to start. Thusly, it would be greatly appreciated if you could perhaps give a more in-depth analysis of what makes my condom article unfeaturable (in your eyes). Or, if you still just think it is "missing something", could you take a look at something in development of mine? Or you can not help me out at all, it's fine. Hell, I probably wouldn't even help me. Thanks either way! - UnIdiot | GUN.png | Talk | Contribs - 22:04, Jan 3

I'd love to help. My only caveat is that I don't like to work with articles that have already been posted on VFH (with rare exception). I feel that if an author believes their work to be ready for VFH, then the work should stand as posted, rather than be preened during the nomination (excluding minor spelling, grammar and formatting mistakes, which are understandable). That's not what the nom is for. That is of course a broad personal belief and isn't meant to offend you.
As such, I would be more than happy to look at anything you have in development, help you cultivate article concepts, and of course collaborate on concepts that have potential. Link away! :) --THINKER 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The simple answer to your question, UnIdiot, is that The Thinker is right about everything. Therefore, when he marks something against, he is not only expressing his opinion, but making a prediction of the future, based on it. This is not intentional, as he is blessed with the curse that is being right, every single time. Note: Somewhere hiding in the hills above Uncyclopedia, there is a mischievous group of monkeys, who constantly plot to throw the time continuum out of its....vertex or something. Thus, occasionally, they succeed in making the predicted event the opposite of what The Thinker said. They also have death rays and time machines, but thankfully they're not quite advanced enough to know how to use them. (FUCK YOU AND YOUR EDIT CONFLICTING THINKER!) -RAHB 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, all of this is quite true. In addition, I still would be glad to help. And I can edit conflict all I want god damn it, this is my talk page! NOW CUP MY BALLS! --THINKER 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
God dammit. I was afraid you'd bring that completely relevant point in this conversation... /me hands you a glass (FUCK YOU UNIDIOT AND YOUR EDIT CONFLICTING ASS!!!!! In addition, have a nice day.) -RAHB 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I don't want the condom article tweaked at all now, its how it is, and I still think its funny. Who knows, maybe it will pass VFH somehow, and the curse will be lifted. I've also noticed the strong RAHB/Thinker one two VFH punch, where you two vote right after another, usually with similar opinions on the article, and with RAHB either agreeing with Thinker or saying something along those lines. Oh yes Thinker, if you would take a peek at User:The UnIdiot/UnScript, that would be very nice. Its part 1 of a 2 part movie series thing I felt like doing. Before I write part 2 though, I should probably make sure part 1 isn't crap and likely to get me killed if I move it into the main namespace. Anyway, thanks for helping! HORRAY NO EDIT CONFLICT- UnIdiot | GUN.png | Talk | Contribs - 22:27, Jan 3
The simple answer to that atrocious accusation is that I am Thinker's telekinetic apprentice. Though I am not yet as skilled as he in the art of premonition, I have been known to accurately predict the future (and be foiled in the process by those damn monkeys on more than one occasion) many times...../me looks around....woo! No conflict! -RAHB 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Before being FUCKING EDIT CONFLICTED, this was my message, word for word, in it's entirety:

Well, RAHB and I are actually linked telekinetically. As goofy as it sounds, its actually quite frightening how true it often is. That, and we also have hetero-sex with one another. Nothing goofy about that.
And yes, I would be glad to look over your article. I'll do that when I get home so I can be drunk give it my fullest attention. --THINKER 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fucking frightening indeed. --THINKER 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no words to say, but those that my wide-open-mouthed expression would convey. Though we're telekinetically linked, so if there were any words I was thinking right now, you'd probably know them anyways. Jesus fucking christ. =/ (and I won't even say a word about being FUCKING EDIT CONFLICTED by the UnIdiot just now!) -RAHB 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for the help. WELL SO FAR IT SEEMS I'M MANAGING TO AVOID BEING EDIT CONFLICTED SOMEHOW- UnIdiot | GUN.png | Talk | Contribs - 22:40, Jan 3
WELL FUCK YOU SIR!! -RAHB 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

'Lo Thinker

Just a quick response to the WotM stuff, and I thought I'd bring it here, to avoid any shit on the vote page, and hopefully any drama. Simply put: I don't want to cross swords with one of my fave writers, and I don't have a problem with your sentiments or your opinion, but statements like "oh come the fuck on you idiots" rub me up the wrong way a tad. I voted for Cajek last month as a result of a lot of careful thought, on what was a really tough call in my opinion. THE has been consistently good for ages, but in the last couple of months, I personally think no-one's pumped out a higher volume of articles that make me laugh than Cajek. Simple. Nothing to do with a popularity contest from this quarter, and while your comment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, I was having a rough day at work, and my "narky bastard" reflex was triggered. Hope that explains things.

/me reads through that again. Christ, I'm taking this wayyyy too seriously, aren't I? I have to remember this is a comedy site. *sigh* I'll go do something else now. Good luck with that other popularity contest you're involved with! ;-) --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment had very little to do with Cajek. My comment was meant more as "come on people, why wouldn't you vote for THE?". And, like I said in my edit summary, the popularity contest comment was also not directed towards Cajek's run, but more at So So's 3 month stint in nominationland. But, if the spotlight is shown on Cajek's run, one might make mention of the fact that he has an established connection to many new users, of which a majority of his votership was comprised. Nothing wrong with that: he chose to get defensive about it.
Like I always say, all I care about is the quality of the site. Anything around here that I do, or the comments that I make are all directly related to that concept. However, I also realize that that concept is relative, so no hard feelings. :) --THINKER 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Message acknowledged

I received your message on my IP account. I already have a Log - in - User account. Sometimes, though, I still use the IP. Thanks for your interest. It's up to you to figure which one it is.

Happy New Year - 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A Noob in Need

I, Stateyourname, do solemnly swear that I am a Noob in need of adoption.--Anakin 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... eh, why not. How may I help you? --THINKER 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, I'm writing my first Uncyclopedia article: Atlanta. I'd like to know if what I've written is any good. Also, I've never uploaded images before, and I've already checked the HowTo thingy, and I'm still confused.--Anakin 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
HA! I just read your piece, and I like your style. You've definitely got the makings of a funny article there. Here are a few suggestions for it that I see at first viewing:
  1. Since its a city (and a major one), its going to need a decent amount more input (not to discourage you -- I just dont want to see it get deleted after its WIP time has expired). If you continue with the route you're going now, you'll be fine. Take a look at some other city pages on the site; you'll be able to tell what is good city-specific humor and what is overkill. You want to have a good balance.
  2. Once its lengthened, it just needs to be wikified: get a city template on it, links, etc. When you're ready for that, I'd be glad to help there also.
  3. If you need more time to work on the piece past it's alotted construction time, fear not. You can move the article into your userspace and work on it there for as long as you'd like. In this case, the link would be [[User:Anakin/Atlanta]]. Again, I can help with that too if need be.
As for uploading an image, its a fairly simple process. All you have to do is click the Upload file link in the toolbox section of the sidebar in the lower left of your screen. When you're there, click "Browse" to find the file, then hit "Upload file" at the bottom of the page. And just like that, Uncyclopedia gains another much needed image.
When you want to put the image into the article, the generally used code is: [[Image:YourImage.jpg|thumb|250px|Whatever text you want to appear underneath the image as a caption]]. The first portion is Image:, then whatever the actual image name is (with file extension -- no space between it and the Image: part). Second is to make it a thumbnail-type image. Third is the size of the thumb. Fourth is something funny to accentuate the picture.
Well now that I've over-explained it as thoroughly as possible hope this helps. Keep me posted on your progress. When its ready, we'll get you up on the Pee Review. :) --THINKER 17:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's almost done! What do you think?--Anakin 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking good man! Keep it going!! I'll go through when you think you're 100% done and do some touchups for ya. Great effort dude, you've got the makings of a stellar Uncyclopedian. :) --THINKER 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

TA-DA!!!--Anakin 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll read this when I get off of work. Good stuff on following it through; I saw TKF pitched in a bit, which is a good sign. --THINKER 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta has been submitted to the Pee Review.--Anakin 18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there

Settle down, pal. I'd hardly consider what I put on here to be whoring. It's just a reminder that an article you already voted for is up for further voting. Chill out. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well your impersonal generic whoring (you might not call it as such, but it kinda is) overlooked the fact that I already voted on the top 10. And by now you really should know that whoring is the opposite of what Uncyc needs, but yet you continuously do it anyway. And you're a sysop. Mind = boggled. --THINKER 04:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Continuously" is an exaggeration. The last several articles I've written, I've hardly mentioned in IRC for days after completion. Since unsolicited feedback is pretty rare, I like to at least get a reaction (in addition to any pee reviewing) from readers, and "whoring" (as you and everybody else so delicately put it) is the only way to ensure that, it seems. Advertising is a cornerstone of capitalism and any semi-democratic society, and yet even at its barest it's frowned upon here. I don't get it. Sorry for making you take a whole ten seconds to read my innocent reminder; I'll be sure not to blemish your immaculate talk page again. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 06:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Continuously is no exaggeration in the time I've been here. Granted it hasnt been nearly as long as you, but yet, I've hiked up the HoS ladder. And I perhaps, as a very young n00b, I might've "advertised" an article. But as I got situated, and wrote worth-while pieces, they got the votes on their own. Justify it as you may; right now (amazingly) one of my pieces is leading the top 10 race. Check around if any "advertising," "mentioning," or any other form of "getting people to notice your work" was used in getting support for that.
I want the best for this website. As sad as that point is, it is totally the truth. And I'm sorry dude, while I respect you, and definitely enjoy your work, if you come to my page and leave a totally impersonal, obviously opinion-swaying message on my talk page, I'm gunna give you my opinion about the situation. If you want to continue the campaign, hit up the n00bs. Not the satirists. --THINKER 06:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Twain. I guess I just feel shitty that I've been here since practically the beginning, hold the record for most features and yet have never had one in the top 10. When I should have had a good shot, stupid bullshit like euroipods (which is funny but not the top ten of anything) beat out my articles. This year, with so much good stuff up, I felt like I needed some way to seperate mine, or at least to remind people who liked them in the past that, well, they liked them in the past. I guess none of my three that are on there are as inherently funny as pouring hot water down trousers, but I would think that at least one of them could make the list. It doesn't look that way right now. In my life Uncyclopedia is way down the list of priorities, but it's something I'm good at (and in the big picture, writing is part of what I plan to make a living on... I'm eventually moving to Chicago to do improv and then from there angling for a writing job on Conan or a similar show) and for whatever reason I'm wired to seek out recognition rather than let it come to me. Anyway, sorry for whoring or whatever, and sorry for the impromptu therapy session, but I just thought I'd let you know why I still feel the need to campaign for my articles. Bye. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Its fine dude. Whoring is just a peeve of mine. I hope one of yours makes it in the top 10, but if not, you're still the HoS king. As sad as it may be, Uncyc may not be a priority, but it is something I particularly enjoy. As writers, the better the site looks, the better our work looks on it.
I know a number of us want to write in the big picture.. What troupe are you joining in Chicago? I was thinking about going to UCB in NY at some point, depending on life. --THINKER 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I already did a summer thing at Second City a couple of years ago, but that was just a two week thing. This summer I'm planning on taking the 5-week intensive at iO so that when I finally move up there, I can enter at level three. I've been wanting to do comedy for a living since 7th grade, but my choice was really solidified when my sketch writing teacher at the Second City bootcamp said she could see me being very successful for a long time. I just wish I weren't stuck here in Kansas. I got accepted to Loyola University Chicago and got plenty of scholarship money (more than down here, in fact) but at KU I got enough scholarship money to cover everything and then some. Actually, I'm going to be using the leftover money they pay me to pay for the iO course. So I suppose with no student loans to worry about, the transition to Chicago should be a least a bit more manageable financially.
I've never been to NYC but I've heard the UCB theatre is fantastic. The improv special UCB did on Bravo several years ago inspired the format for the high school troupe I founded. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Get your ass into gear, Thinker

Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnScripts:Chex Mix Addiction: Volume 1

Remember this? - UnIdiot | Talk? | Theme - 02:01, Jan 17

Sorry, there ya go. :) --THINKER 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Whore! Whore! Whore!

Bouncing boobs 288x192.gif

Thanks for voting my tits to the front page. -Zana Dark

God I want you. ;) --THINKER 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Vote

769531427 447c16605d.jpg GopherKiller has given you a free ticket to ride Superman Tower of Bloody Severed Legs for voting on UnNews:Six Flags to sell severed legs in gift shop.

Have Fun! Remember, avoid those rednecks at all costs. They want your legs!--GopherKiller Questions? Comments?Icons-flag-us.png 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm BAAAAaaaack!

And I've written something new. However, you'll only get it if you've read The Odyssey.--Anakin 15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Have you officially adopted me as a n00b?--Anakin 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. I like the Odyssey parody. Of course it'd be nice if it was a complete parody from start to finish of the work, but yeah, that'd be 8,000 pages long so I understand. I'm glad to see you're exploring the alternate namespaces around here; have fun with them, thats what they're there for.
  2. Sure, why not? I personally don't make it such a formal thing. The fact that I just always seem to be around here makes me accessable for any questions or help you might need. So yes, you are adopt'd, lest you feel someone else would be better suited to handle your concerns. --THINKER 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Kearsy

Sorry about my last edit. MadMax 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all man! Thanks for showing me that the article still exists period. It allowed me to contact the author, and now we might get that page fixed up enough to be remade in mainspace. Besides, it was an easy fix either way. You're the man Max! <3 --THINKER 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a relief, I thought I was slipping for a minute! I generally have a soft spot for "2005-cruft" (although admittedly this particular article came a bit later) and Dave's Leather Jacket is an old favorite. I hope you and User:Standard Enemy AI can bring it back. MadMax 08:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)



Your vote for Grass in the Mist II has earned you a romantic evening with Gizelda, this year's winner of Africa's "Sexiest blade of grass of the year" award!!! Enjoy yourself, and good luck figuring out how to have sex with a blade of grass!

Thanks man! :) --THE 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply and seriously confused

Hey there. I just came out of reading your most recently VFH'd article, Stephen Colbert, and, as promised, I am deeply and seriously confused. I should say to start that I am the epitome of the reader described in the article; I love The Colbert Report and I had never heard of Stephen before it. I should also say that I don't particularly enjoy articles that insult the reader; I believe the last good one was written over a year ago. So, at first glance at this article, I went through a variety of negative emotions, through disappointment, anger, bitterness, betrayal, and confusion. (You see, I had thought that most Uncyc users would be fans of the Report.)

But I remembered that it was written by Thinker, a writer who truly knows his stuff, who can write with subtlety and nuance and whose articles can be trusted as having a deeper meaning. I was pretty sure that the last sentence of the introduction was a sign of this (even if the link's target disappointed me). However, after reading through it twice, I am struggling to justify it as a satirical piece. I am, admittedly, no comedic mastermind, but I know a little about satire: that it takes elements like exaggeration, reversal, etc. I could find precious little of these in the article outside of the obvious one, exaggeration. Is it meant to be a satire so straight-faced that it deceives? Am I simply missing the subtlety? Or is it genuinely attesting to the insipidity of the Report? I am honestly tempted to vote Against, something I never thought I'd do to one of your articles... but I can't do that when I don't really understand it, which I clearly don't. Can you please explain it to me? — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Thinker looks to the rest of Uncyc) See people, unlike most of you, who have brains incapable of this type of logic, Wehp thinks to ask about that which he doesn't comprehend at first glance. I think the same thing happened with Bow tie, which I was grateful for also. So let me explain a bit.
Essentially, this article is actually me parodying myself. For you see, there are people in this world who are snobs about anything and everything that they like. Sports snobs, film snobs, and in this case, comedy snobs. I have the tendency to be very prickish when people like a comedian for something that (I think) is less humorous than a previous work of the performer. This is because I generally encounter people in my everyday life who don't understand humor whatsoever, but like to purport that they do (I call it "college syndrome"). So anyway, the point of this piece is that this is an overly exaggerated version of me, knowing that the person I'm talking to doesn't understand and doesn't care about the "truths" that I'm conveying, yet I still feel the need to continue justifying my opinion into the ground regardless.
In essence, its actually a piece that I like very much personally because it does contain some points that I really do believe, such as the belief that the Colbert Report, like the Daily Show, is a weak platform for political opinions rather than a comedic venue; something Colbert was not prone to before his tenure under Jon Stewart, and that Stephen was a million times funnier on Strangers with Candy than he is now. Do I think every person who doesn't know about SWC or thinks he's funny on the Colbert Report is an idiot? Of course not (especially not the people here -- in real life.. well.. that depends, haha).
I hope that clears it up a bit. And try to check out some episodes of Strangers with Candy if you can, Wehp. I think Comedy Central still airs it every once and a while, and like the article says, it really is one of the greatest comedic ventures ever aired on television (in my seemingly unhumble opinion). :) --THINKER 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've always loved Strangers With Candy. I've also always loved Jon Stewart and Colbert's Daily Show work and the spin-off. Even though I understand it's an exaggeration, I don't support the sentiment in the slightest. (Especially that Kilborn has ever been even half as funny as Stewart, but that's a conversation for another time.) I suppose that with all the goodwill both shows have accumulated, backlash is inevitable. This looks like it is a case of "I liked Colbert before he was cool, and now he's such a sellout so fuck him". I've been a fan of Colbert's work from pretty close to the beginning as well, and I think that The Daily Show and especially the Colbert Report are the realization of the recognition Colbert has always deserved. I honestly think if you had never seen Colbert before the Report, you'd love his current work. Because if you remove the jaded hipster lens, he's just as good as he's always been.
Just my opinion. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Stewart's delivery is a go-to formula that is 100% predictable. Perhaps when he first took over I was into it, but after however many years of the same old song and dance, I can almost do his act for him. I didn't say Kilborn was funnier, I said the show wasn't a platform for half-jokes masking political sentiment under his command, which was a better atmosphere for Colbert (according to this, Colbert wasn't political until the show took it's turn).
But thats just one of the few reasons I don't like either show. And as much as I'd like to attribute my distaste to being a jaded viewer, clinging to the productions I found funny and not accepting anything further, I know that not to be the case. I just know what I find funny and what I don't find funny. I've been cultivating that instinct for many, many years. And I'm sorry, I don't find these politically-charged springboards humorous in the slightest.
I'm not alone though. Like I said in the article, listen to the audience. They never laugh. I suppose everyone's laughing at home. Anyway, no cigar on that one my friend; as a seasoned observer of the art of comedy, I do not find them funny. You don't have to agree or vote for the article though. I had absolutely 0 intentions of this ever going to VFH anyway. But, I would think that as someone who also believes that he has a grasp on comedic disproportion, that you'd see past the sentiment and recognize the humor of the work itself. Book 'em Danno. --THINKER 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was too much angry, not enough funny (and by "not enough" I mean "hardly any"). That's why I voted against. But I disagree with the sentiment. Agree to disagree. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL, thats so ironic, considering that every article you've written around here I personally find so exceedingly hilarious.
I agree to disagree, here on my talk page. But thats the thing about my talk page; its my talk page. So don't lay down the fuckin' law to me cowboy. I don't recall asking you for your opinion in the first place. Maybe Wehp asked for it? <3 --THINKER 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I was considering starting a convo with you about the Colbert page, but then there already was one, so I decided to join in the pre-existing one. And I believe I sensed a little sarcasm in your first sentence. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So then, this convo would be: Your opinion, my rebuttle, dead stop? Thats not much of a convo.
I'd love to discuss the finer points of comedy with you any time man. But if you want to discuss, "we disagree END" doesn't work, know what I mean? --THINKER 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I was by no means ending the conversation. I mean, odds are we won't convince the other one to budge from his position on this particular topic, but any healthy and stimulating debate you'd want to participate in, I'd be game for. Such as: I love Steve Martin, and most of his earlier movies make my favorites list, but he'd be a better fit for this type of article than Colbert. I mean, the excess vitriol didn't appeal to me from a comedic standpoint to begin with, but I'd be more inclined to agree that a guy who made The Jerk and The Man With Two Brains turning around to make Cheaper By The Dozen 1 and 2 might qualify as the biggest traitor in comedy. Yeah, Steve Martin is making those movies for the paycheck so he can focus on his writing (which is still pretty good), but I'd like to see another genuine Steve Martin movie. It's not as controversial a target as a critically acclaimed hour of television, but in my opinion it's a more accurate one. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Steve Martin certainly fits the mold too, but the jump is not as dramatic. His progression downward was a bit more paced. Almost a snowballing-type of dive into the land of poor comedy. And, I could see the article going that same way if I felt as strongly about Steve Martin, and had been following his career from the moment I'd seen him (which in a sense I had, since I too am a fan of classic Steve Martin, but I just didn't connect as strongly early on because of the time gap between his career's launch and my existence -- I've been following Colbert since Exit 57).
Excessive vitrol is a great comedic device when used properly: obviously we see that you don't feel it was used properly here, but in the case of a Lewis Black, Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Kinnison or Lenny Bruce, angry comedy can be a perfectly viable form of comedic expression. Its not as trumped up in this piece, but thats part of the point, as I described previously. --THINKER 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sure. But in the case of your article, I just couldn't find any jokes, you know? It was a rant, and a well-written rant, but it just lacked any actual comedy. And frankly, in this case the anger was directed squarely at any readers who like Colbert or Stewart, whereas with Black and Bruce the anger is with the audience. There's a difference.
Exit 57 was around before I had cable, and now it's just about impossible to find any trace of it beyond a few pretty great sketches on the YouTubes. I have a version of Dinello's "Guy Named Jesus" song from when it was originally performed at Second City, and it's one of the best things on the disc. But I've been a Colbert fan since SWC and own the whole series, and I could watch a classic SWC episode and a Colbert Report episode back-to-back and call it a damn fine hour of comedy. I see elements of Noblet in "Colbert" and vice versa, and at its core CR isn't a political show at all. It's a character-driven comedy, featuring a classic Colbert creation, and that creation just happens to have a politically-oriented job. Since CR is a show produced in the span of one day four times a week, it's pretty unfair to expect it to hit as often as a 12-episode sketch show or a 3-season sitcom. But mostly, CR produces character-based comedy and commentary that isn't rivaled in the medium of television. I think the criticism in your article is mostly pretty flimsy, and there are enough remaining elements of the "Old Colbert" visible to me in the "New Colbert" that I can't help but love them both. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You analysis of CR and the character-driven comedy is fundamentally flawed. As a comedian, one inherently plays a character. How close or far from the actuality of it's presenter depends on that presenter. Hell, "THINKER" is a character. It draws from many elements of the me I actually am, but distorts many others, and changes to fit the needs of the comedy I present via this website.
Stephen Colbert had perfected his presentation to a tee in SWC. The character, the contour of his comedic style. It was presented through Chuck Noblet. On CR, yes, he is a character. However the character has no contour. It is a springboard for opinions. The character is not an actual character; it is little more shell. An imitation. The man behind the anchorman, like a puppet-master, is presenting his opinions via this created vessel. To say that there isn't a political motivation is not only ludicrous (given how amazingly overt the sentiment is), but its missing the mark which the presenter is hoping to achieve. And if you want to deny this fact in Colbert, as much of a stretch as it may be, so be it. But there is no way you can deny it in Jon Stewart. And as his protege (refer to the wikipedia reference mentioned previously), its an ipso facto situation.
Do I expect CR to hit as often as a 12-episode sketch show or 3-season sitcom? Of course not. Not because it isn't possible to achieve: because of all the reasons I've stated prior. The concept is a platform, and that cannot display humor anywhere near as cleverly, nor as functionally, as a serial, political slant or otherwise. The slant just deeply worsens the chances for those so called hits.
The step-up calls for punchlines. SWC did not. Consider this point before responding. --THINKER 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said there isn't a political motivation. The character is obviously politically oriented. But it's also a pretty well fleshed out one. He's not merely a right-wing parody; he has myriad personal likes and dislikes, fears, behaviors and a well-established ego. The reason so many people love the show is because of how endearingly smart-yet-oblivious the character is. People don't "hate" the character (the way the audience "hates" the villain in a melodrama) even though most of the political positions he takes are usually counter to the positions of the fanbase. There's obviously the inherent irony, but he still has an appeal beyond that. An appeal only a great character can have. People don't fall in love with springboards.
As for Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, I believe their golden years were from Indecision 2000 to Indecision 2004. In that era there was still plenty of political humor, but it was much more based in cleverness and silliness than divisiveness. After Bush was re-elected, though, there was a definite increase in that divisive attitude from Jon Stewart, which admittedly made the show a tad less pleasant. But I still think that overall The Daily Show under Stewart's reign has produced some of the most memorable and funny moments in recent television history. Because the show is more than Stewart winking into the camera, even if you won't admit it. And if the audience doesn't laugh (in both shows), what's that sound they make after jokes that the hosts have to hold for? Hmm.
But your qualm is evidently not so much with Colbert and Stewart as it is with the templates of the shows themselves. I think that no matter how good the material really is, your excessively negative perception of the shows as "platforms" is clouding whatever enjoyment you might otherwise get out of them. Frankly, I just don't get it. You don't like the political slant? They're "reporting" on politics; what kind of slant are they supposed to have? You don't like the "constant stream of Bush jokes"? Well, Bush has been the most powerful man in the world for the past eight years. Why pretend like he doesn't exist in a faux news show? Both shows have produced brilliant satire (yes) but because they are the way that they are, you don't like them? I just don't buy how SWC being so great means TDS and TCR suck. TDS is just a different animal, and TCR is another Colbert character just with a political orientation. So they both require punchlines; so what? Honestly, if it's all about the presentation, your article's excessive anger is much cheaper than TDS and TCR's supposed springboardiness. Colbert never called me a fuckhead. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Colbert called me a fuckhead once. Admittedly I probably provoked it, what with the whole "accidentally lit him on fire while drunk" bit. -RAHB 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply confused

...and start my first sentence with a little sarcasm. And a tad of hubris. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

You're just asking for the Charles Bronson, frenchie. --THINKER 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

PLS Judging

I'm sending you this because you are signed up to judge the Poo Lit Surprise. If you no longer want to judge or are incapable of doing so, please tell me as soon as possible. If you're still good to go then here are the instructions:

First, read all of the articles in your specified category. Second, judge them. Judge how you like, as long as it's at least fair and based on merit (one suggestion would be to use the Pee Review format). Post your top 5 articles here. Hit me up on my talk page for questions, comments, if these rules are not cognizant within you, or of you don't know what the word "cognizant" means.

Thank you again for your valued participation in the balletic train wreck that is the Poo Lit Surprise! -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply fried

Not that I have any qualms with your vote on Polish Inquisition. Just wondered why? Thanks. ~ Mordillo 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, being a Jewy McJewinstein (and a partially Polish one at that) the joke was a little thin for me personally. Not for, not against, just in the middles. :) --THINKER 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
First, it's good that I don't have to explain it to you, like those other gentiles. Any suggestions? ~ Mordillo 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would first exaggurate it a bit more, trump it up some. And Second, I'd play up the war-type elements of an inquisition. More POWs, war-time attrocities, that kinda thing. I know they're there; they just need to be pushed a bit farther. --THINKER 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Keep up the good, um, wordmaking. You are, uh, right real good. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I second that congrats. I propose a something. -RAHB 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
/me fills a goblet.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
/me raises glass. A toast! Just...for an excuse to drink something alcoholic! -RAHB 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, compadre

On your slaughter of me and victory over everybody else nominated for Writer of the Year. Of course, you are quite deserving of the honor. Know that, if I hadn't voted for Mhaille (another person for whom I have great respect), then my vote would have certainly been cast in your favor. Yours in writing, Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I want you to know even though I voted for someone else, I still didn't want you to win. Congrats. -- Sir Kip > Talk Works Contribs Sophia Commander of the Order USA! 02:50, Feb. 1, 2008

Let's not forget who's mainly to blame for your winning of WotY

Yes, some may say that it's "you" who actually "wrote" all those "featured articles", but they'd be wrong. Clearly, they are forgetting that I was the one who voted for your first featured article, and also nominated you, and probably did other stuff too that makes me completely responsible for your victory.

You're welcome. --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfect timing; all you chucklepots shall get your personal thankerings this evening. --THINKER 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A Word from My Newber

Congratulations, The Thinker! Your GRAND PRIZE for winning the 2007 Writer of the Year Award is two prepaid round-trip tickets to the innovative city of Atlanta!!!

Click here to fill out the appropriate forms!--Anakin 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Now THAT looks like it has serious potential. Actually, if he isn't doing anything overly pressing, I might recommend that you mention this project to THE. He is quite good with UnScripts and may be able to guide you in this endeavor.
Keep it up n00bie! This type of consistency will land you a FA some time soon. --THINKER 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


The image is fixed, your vote now sir? Dame PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to, but I still don't understand the joke of it. Why isn't it just UnBooks:Gone with the Wind? --THINKER 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Because its the White folk who are portrayed in mockery. If it were just straight Gone Withthe Wind, then it would be at you bookstore. Dame PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


...on being named Writer of the Year. Wow. What an honour. And a pretty template indeed that adorns the top of your user page.

Well, you deserved it. Just now I randomly picked one of your articles - the one on Osama bin Laden and Disney World - and it confirmed that I made the right vote.

Yes, I've been away, because I'm a student once again. And because I study creative writing, it's not exactly a break to write Uncyclopedia articles. I'm busy writing "literary" fiction, children's stuff, and song lyrics. I did one article recently - the UnNews about Uncyclopedia reaching 23,000 articles once again (by the way, you're UnQuoted in the article). Sir Roger 19:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Yes I read that piece and liked it very much. Inadvertently, I think it might've been the catalyst for a widespread flame war going on in VD.
Good luck with the creative writing thing dude! Let me know when you've got anything online, I'd love to read it. --THINKER 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly my dear...