Talk:Stephen Colbert
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Colbert article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
| |
| Talk page archives: | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Contents |
[edit] Yeah
It could be better. With something to expose the satire a little more explicitly. If you have to tell people its funny it probably isn't.
And WTF at the comment below this one 96.42.150.151 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] delite this page
this page is not funy and is porably oe of the most unfuny things i have ever seen
this is one of the funniest websites ever but, this colbert page is completely idiotic all it is bashing the colbert report what this page needs is some completely randomly made up stuff making it funny this is all factual stuff making it unfunny and kind of uncomfortable to read
- Ahem.....this IP is not funy is porably oe of the most unfuny things i have ever seen
- ips is one of the funniest contributers ever but, this talk page message is completely idiotic all it is bashing :somebody bashing colbert report what this talk page coment needs is some coherint sentince structure and speeling checked makig it :reedable this is all sutpid idiot saying stuped things making it not reedable -rAHP
[edit] Comment
Like it's current form. Keep it. -RAHB 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IP Love Note
Someone removed the only funny sentence in the entire article:
"The only thing yet discovered that is less funny than Colbert is this article. Seriously."
Because reading a 10 page rant from some idiot who thinks hes funny and isn't....is the same as Colbert! Whoever wrote this article and feels so proud of himself needs to get a frigging sense of humor. You're supposed to make fun of yourself, the readers, and the subject...this guy failed in all aspects. If uncyclopedia continues on this trend of sucking, eventually it will collapse and form a black hole. Probably about 15 minutes until then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.231.68.202 (talk • contribs)
- From the article: Seriously, I'm eagerly awaiting your slack-jawed demonstration of retaliatory idiocy.
- So, thank you for that. Oh, and yeah this too:
| Writer of the Year 2007 |
- --THINKER 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hmm
Definitely have some words in there, but perhaps it should be changed in such a fashion as to be actually funny? I've read maybe 300 uncyclopedia articles and found about 10 good jokes from all of them. Like a drop of honey in a sewage processing reservoir. This article isn't even worth reading....step it up, somehow. There is more than enough source material to string together something half amusing, the previous editor failed miserably. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.157.91.54 (talk • contribs)
 | CERTIFIED HILARIO |
|
| ¡Laugh-a-palooza! |
- --THINKER 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like someone is grumpy-wumpmy. Need some {{sofixit}}, Mr. IP? *a-hem*
- Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:28, Jan 29
[edit] Strangers With Candy is a horrible show
There is nothing funny about Strangers With Candy. It was the worst show ever on Comedy Central and then they went and made a shit movie based on it. If the writer of this article actually believes Strangers With Candy is better than the Daily Show or the Colbert Report than I have to believe the author also likes to get violated by livestock because that is what I equate watching Strangers With Candy to. I love arrogant people that think "Wow I liked a show but no one else did and it got canceled so I must be smart and everyone else stupid." You're probably a Sarah Silverman Show fan too aren't you?
- Lawl. --THINKER 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Are you kidding me!?
This whole thing is stupid. I'm fine with making fun of it but you can only go so far man. Colbert, the leader of Colbertica, is one of the best things to ever hit comedy. So, why the hell do y'all think you can trash him like this. That's all I'm saying man! That's all I'm saying!
- ...You, sir, don't seem to understand our little site here. First of all, we like being funny and clever. Kissing up to Stephen Colbert and praising him for his show isn't really funny anymore. We'd much rather be original about it. Secondly, we don't care who we offend. And as far as people we might care about offending, the entire Colbert Nation is pretty low on the list. Plus, I hardly consider the man to be "one of the best things to ever hit comedy." Not by a long shot. I like him, I like his show, I liked him in Harvey Birdman, but he hasn't reached legendary status yet.
- Bottom line: We don't care what you think. If you care what you think, you're free to vandalize the article as you see fit, get yourself put on Ban Patrol, and blocked by some admin who will take you for just another Colbert fanboy. (Nice version: {{sofixit}}) ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ CUN • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 01:47 May 7
its not about praising nor is it about defiling its about whats funny and neither is funny unless its stupidly insane praise like chuck norris thats some funny stuff but only cause its ridiculous and absurd randomly bashing someone from your own personal opinion of them isnt funny its just discrimination on its bare knuckles and praising someone on here for personal reasons is just as dumb because that again is personal opinions take me for instance i like the band nickleback i but if there were a thing on her about them wich im sure after reading this some overly opinionated persons going to make one if there isnt i wouldnt put my opinion id put something like nickleback was recently kicked out of gotham last week for drunkenly challenging batman to a gentleman's duel and losing (granted thats kind of stupid but its not really insulting anyone cause its insane
- Wow. That may be the longest run-on sentence I've ever read on this site. They're starting up punctuation lessons at the community college on Thursdays if you were free those nights. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ CUN • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 13:28 May 11
- This IP's opinion is officially invalidated, by their stating of the words "unless its stupidly insane praise like chuck norris thats some funny stuff". Despite the fact that the rest of their message is largely incoherent, this is the point of it that makes the rest of it not even matter. Please go to the back of the line, in order to get a real comedic opinion. It's a pretty long one too, you might want to bring a tent. -Some Admin Or Something
haha yeah punctuation and grammar aren't my strong suit but it really doesn't matter all i'm saying is this page isn't even funny its just ... stupid isn't there a beginners guide to this?
- Sure it matters. The fact that you find Chuck Norris jokes to be "some funny stuff" invalidates your opinion. This article is funny. Chuck Norris is not. You are not. Thank you for playing. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ CUN • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 12:56 May 29
Haha, ok, so because I find some Chuck Norris jokes funny, it makes my input into this discussion invalidated?[1] Does it make what I said any different?[2] This article does have its funny points,[3] but it's still just a random hate page.[4] <<<There, see, it's all grammarized for ya =P[5]
- ↑ Yes, it does. In fact, it makes any statement you make unreliable and invalid.
- ↑ Yes. Your idea of humor does not match ours. Therefore, you can tell it to HTBFANJS.
- ↑ I know.
- ↑ There's nothing random about it. It's clever, original, and it's just a big joke. No one here "hates" Stephen Colbert. If anything, Colbert fans should like this article because it's satire. Colbert's show is satire. Therefore, you should like this article. Why you are being selective about which satire you are offended by is beyond me.
- ↑ My corrections are in red. Thanks for playing.
~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ CUN • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 20:56 May 29
- No need to be cruel, SysRq. The joke of the article isn't immediately apparent. It took me a while to get it myself. Adressing the random user who is offended by this article: the article is parodying itself by accusing Colbert of replacing comedy with bias, but doing the exact same thing itself. See the irony? It's an odd joke, and it's not immediately apparent, but it works rather magnificently. Also, try reading Thinker's previous posts on the subject, he's explained this about five dozen times, and reading them could prevent these repetive arguments from popping up every five seconds. --THE 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing me in a helpful manner, I think I get it now, but I wasn't offended by this page the title of this talk is how to improve, so I was merely stating an idea as to how to improve it, but this guy insults me based on an improvement suggestion seems to me someone needs to lay off the testosterone pills and start drinking decaf. (if your really that bothered by grammar have fun correcting any error i have made [this will be my last input in this particular discussion]
- Oh, I get it. I was just coming on here to talk about how un-funny this article was, though I get it now. But jeez, can SysRq be anymore of an asshole?
What he was typing sort of constitutes as cyber bullying, no? against the rules in the Beginners guild?
[edit] Not Cool Or funny. Went way beyond Funny into sadistic and awful.
I think that this page should be deleted. If you are going to bash a fellow comedian, you should do it in a funny manner. I hate how the top thing in this article says that Stephen Colbert is a traitor. That's not funny. This page makes me want to stop visiting Uncyclopedia. My friends agree. It literally makes me feel a little sick. Comrade John 01:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I present to you... The Door! Don't let it hit you on the way out. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 01:47 May 14, 2008
- Stop visiting then. We don't care. The article is hilarious. It's just that Colbert fanboys don't understand that this is satire, (even though Colbert's show is satire, so it's kind of ironic that people that watch the show don't get the joke) which in my opinion makes this article that much funnier. But if you don't understand satire, we won't miss you. This article is much better than the last one that was here, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.
- I would at least had a couple of photoshoped pictures, extended his cartoon series which he sometimes played, and not have called him a traitor. :'( I'm not all that good at this whole writing scene, so I don't really know. It doesn't seem like satire to me, and I Used to watch the Colbert Report religiously until I had to start doing school work or fail.
- I've explained this article several times. Readers need to step up; the material does not need to step down. --THINKER 05:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This article is win
As a piece of satire this article is fairly successful. I get the article and I'm not upset because it is not "stupidly insane praise." The article is actually original and not just the usual Colbert fanboy dribble that can be found anywhere else on the internet. I can see how pissing off these people as they are shocked to see something negative about Colbert and crying as if you are insulting their penis size. However, the actual article is dry and just not funny. It has a good direction, but its currents state is pretty much tl;dr. It would be difficult rewrite, as has been mentioned, but I think it can be done without losing the originality or direction. --67.160.25.116 05:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] From now on
I refuse to edit this page further. If any IPs/trolls plan on leaving comments here in the future, just read this before you do. I hope I've summarized things sufficiently. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ CUN • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 22:14 May 29
