22 Feb 2009, 6:52 pm
22 Feb 2009, 6:56 pm
22 Feb 2009, 7:00 pm
OMG 
This is so screwd up
Thanks for the link
22 Feb 2009, 7:01 pm
22 Feb 2009, 7:15 pm
22 Feb 2009, 7:21 pm
invisiblem0nsters
Toucan
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 265
Location: canada, madagascar, mt kilimanjaro, antarctica.
22 Feb 2009, 7:38 pm
Ixtli
Snowy Owl
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 169
Location: Some silly little island in Canada.
22 Feb 2009, 8:25 pm
22 Feb 2009, 8:32 pm
uncyclopedia is a lot funnier
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asperger_Syndrome
that other stuff was 13-year-old naughty-word humor :b 
22 Feb 2009, 8:45 pm
ZEGH8578 wrote:
uncyclopedia is a lot funnier
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asperger_Syndrome
that other stuff was 13-year-old naughty-word humor :b
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asperger_Syndrome
that other stuff was 13-year-old naughty-word humor :b
I strongly disagree. I have never found the uncyclopedia article remotely funny, or anything other than disappointing. Talk about taking two potentially rich sources of humor and arriving at destination double plus not even remotely not unfun.
Unfortunately at least some involved in compiling/editing the ED article are bigoted and/or mean-spirited twits, and seemed more intent on being malicious than being funny and creating satire. Although it still needs some work, I do think overall, the ED article is funnier than the Uncyclopedia one.
I can see that humor is all very subjective, but I just cannot see the humor in the Uncyclopedia article. Perhaps it would be more funny if I had more than a passing familiarity with Alec Baldwin?
22 Feb 2009, 8:52 pm
22 Feb 2009, 8:53 pm
pandd wrote:
ZEGH8578 wrote:
uncyclopedia is a lot funnier
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asperger_Syndrome
that other stuff was 13-year-old naughty-word humor :b
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asperger_Syndrome
that other stuff was 13-year-old naughty-word humor :b
I strongly disagree. I have never found the uncyclopedia article remotely funny, or anything other than disappointing. Talk about taking two potentially rich sources of humor and arriving at destination double plus not even remotely not unfun.
Unfortunately at least some involved in compiling/editing the ED article are bigoted and/or mean-spirited twits, and seemed more intent on being malicious than being funny and creating satire. Although it still needs some work, I do think overall, the ED article is funnier than the Uncyclopedia one.
I can see that humor is all very subjective, but I just cannot see the humor in the Uncyclopedia article. Perhaps it would be more funny if I had more than a passing familiarity with Alec Baldwin?
if YOU had more similarity w alec baldwin? how do you expect the writers to know what you look like? :S
i loved the baldwin piece btw, he is expressionless :]
i think the ED one lacked humorous quality, it seemed based solely in shock value, using offensive language as much as possible. the uncyclo one actually used clever irony and satire, disguising itself as a serious article.
but as we say in norwegian "opinions are like the ass, theyre split"
elizabethhensley
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Williston, Florida
22 Feb 2009, 8:55 pm
I think it is horrid. Too bad there is no where to comment! 
22 Feb 2009, 9:01 pm
elizabethhensley wrote:
I think it is horrid. Too bad there is no where to comment!
Why would you want to, if someone is that messed up, they are going to believe their own BS versus anything anyone tells them. It is best to let them die in their own filth...
22 Feb 2009, 9:01 pm
22 Feb 2009, 9:02 pm
