Why? talk:1000 Uncyclopedians Typing Hamlet

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

what is this?[edit]

umm is this just the plot of hamlet with some crap thrown in?

Hamlet --Rcmurphy KUN 18:42, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some easy way to calculate the similarity of this to Hamlet. That way we could track out progress. --Spintherism 04:58, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

in response to the above:

yes, a little pearl script should do the trick. --Psychiccyberfreak 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

mmm PEARL... so much better than PERL! --UppyMan 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would guess that there is an approximately 3% corrolation --Vercalos 07:14, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe only 1.24% if you subtract common words like "a," "an" and "the." Swordmaster 19:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would estimate the chances of Chuck Norris being a virgin to be bordering on the 0% ark, possibly at 0%, or maybe even 0%. You love it.
  • What's more interesting than the infinite monkeys concept is the idea of "literary numbers," that there are exremely large numbers that correlate to an encrypted version of an entire novel, or a play like Hamlet. Since numbers are infinite, that doesn't mean that there's a limit to what can be written, but it does suggest that a computer that is designed to tabulate and de-crypt extremely large numbers, theoretically, could produce a poem on the level of Kubla Kahn at totally random, at least theoretically . . . .
    see http://www.mindspring.com/~jimvb/hamlet.htm
    --Hrodulf 14:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am just some guy who likes this site, but what Hrodulf just wrote makes less sense than the version of Hamlet written here (Version, Edited for 1953)

I'm also just some guy who likes this site. What Hrodulf said made complete sense. All he's saying is this, *walks off* ~Tim

Protecting this page?[edit]

I'm wondering if we should protect this page, in light of the recent spate of edits by anonymous IPs. As I understand it, the contents of this page should only come from deletions, and since only admins can delete, why not protect the page? Otherwise it's just becoming a free-for-all sandbox and is no different from the pages we're deleting. Thoughts? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:53, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that only admins should add materials, we do want others to rearrange and bold selected text. Since this page sees a great deal of administrator action anyway, for now I say leave it unprotected. --KP CUN 05:02, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Scene 1 is totally unrecognizable in its current form...what a horrifying project! :^) --Randall00 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What the...?[edit]

Whats with the thing with the vaginas? Unrelated and makes no sense. Well... the whole article doesnt make sense... but it makes even less sense in the context of the article. I'm cleaning up. --WickedAxeOfFury 03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not supposed to make sense :P ~Tim

By the way, what exactly is this supposed to be? I just got the link from Vagina????? HELP?

What Uncylopedia is famous for. Random and stupidly funny jokes right after another. I actually had to stop reading because my stomach was hurting from laughing so much. ~Tim