User talk:Nerd42

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

You can find my old talk page at User talk:Nerd42/old user page

You can post here that you agree or disagree with the points I bring up in my letter and maybe I'll respond or whatever. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, as a very active administrator and contributor to the site I have to say that I disagree with your first point. There is a certain amount of sex related humour within Uncyclopedia but to state that it is "overrun" with it is very far from the mark. There is plenty of "humour" within the site that I personally do not like, but as an Admin I don't have the right to delete it purely based upon my tastes, and so, aside from attempts to add more "funny" to some of these articles or at least urge the authors to do the same, I make no attempt to remove articles I disagree with on whatever level. Admins should be fair, and try to see a wider picture.

I am not a big fan of "graphic" sexual humour, though as you can see from my contributions I'm not above the use of innuendo and double entendres, though I tend to go more towards the British Picture Postcard level of the Carry On Films tradition.

With regards to the idea of seperating content by some kind of rating system I personally think it would be unworkable, mainly because the defining point within many articles would be too close to call, plus "policing" articles would be a nightmare, before we even get into a who polices the police discussion. The best way to add a rating system is through the use of templates, the most obvious one the old faithful NSFW template. I happen to think this is enough, and people having free will, can go where they will.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and its your choice to stay or leave. For what its worth, I've enjoyed quite a few of your contributions. Bon voyage.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

As regards to your ratings suggestion, I think I have a suggestion that could work: P for "porn," M for "Safe for Mom," G for "Safe for Grandma," and D for "Safe for my Daughter." But being perfectly honest, I don't think it'd actually work (just as Mhaille said, policing would be horrid. Way to much work for much fewer readers.) I'm definitely sad to see you go, as well (so much so that I'm actually posting at the site, something I'm doing very little of of late), but I can understand the why of it even if I don't exactly agree. May your writings attract many a chuckle in your future.--<<>> 04:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, sexual humor is almost never funny. I disagree that we need a ratings system, however. Either it's funny and therefore excusable, or it's not funny, and therefore inexcusable and a candidate for deletion. I disagree, also, about the amount of sexual or offensive content on Uncyclopedia. Offensive content for the mere sake of being offensive is plain not funny, and articles get huffed every day that aren't funny. The crap takes a long time to get voted on and deleted, but it's slowly diminishing, and the incoming crap is rather efficiently deleted immediately or within a week's time. Personally, I don't think Uncyclopedia is about the fact that a good chunk of the articles here are shite. I think it's about the community and the incoming articles that are good. That's the problem these days — people are too hell-bent on getting rid of bad-quality articles (for differing values of "quality") and not focused enough on the new ones. The crap will take an eternity to wade through, but there's nothing anyone can do about that, and the only time it impacts Uncyclopedia is when somebody hits random and finds a worthless page. But they usually survive the experience. Usually. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) 17:27 Oct 27, 2007

Pleasure to have had you at Uncyclopedia, and perhaps someday you'll return to the site with less convictions. It's common knowledge that "humor" and what is "funny" is solely based on perspective. Uncyclopedia, like every other wiki, aims for decision making via consensus, which is only effective given Uncyclopedia's small community size. I disagree with your second point based on this. As you already know, a "100% consensus" is not possible, and consequently results in a minority (whether they be outspoken or not). This minority is, however, not entirely powerless. Minorities help establish a stronger overall approval (in that, they point out what may be wrong with the article which has gone unnoticed by the majority). I think your second point contrasts Uncyclopedia to some sort of despotism. When it comes to determining what's funny, there is no such thing as a "100% consensus" with so many readers and editors. But the first and most basic principal of consensus is that silence equates to consent. In other words, if an edit is made and not reverted, it is generally accepted by the community (or at least those we assume read the material) that the content is approved. Of course, readers and many editors alike disagree. This consistent disagreement, in theory, helps establish a stronger consensus through collaboration and such. In other words, getting everybody to laugh at an article is impossible, but we try to appeal to as many people as possible by giving people collective rights even if they are a minority when it comes to consensus, and with this comes the continuous cycle of editing that is every wiki, especially Uncyclopedia. -- [SIR] e|m|c ^[talk] 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never said there should be a 100% consensus about everything. That would be "minority rule". I do not advocate minority rule. I do think that articles that deal with controversial subjects should not "attack" or purposefully be offensive/degrading to people who hold minority views (example) no matter what the majority says, because such articles are not funny. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the link you gave does contain some seeds of humour, enough to make me smile anyway. But, and its an important but, articles don't just attack people or be purposefully offensive to just minorities, they treat majority views just the same.

I belong to a minority that is often openly attacked, is ridiculed on a few pages within this site, as well as out there in the "real world", usually by those seen as the majority. At the end of the day, this is just a satire website. It is not going to be used by individuals or groups in any serious discussion on issues. If you don't want to edit here anymore, don't. Its your freedom of choice. Maybe you should start UnControversialopedia. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

(Mhaille is a pixie. Uncyclopedia's reputation for anti-pixie/pro-fairy bias is not entirely undeserved.) Sir Modusoperandi 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

/me sprinkles magic dust into Modusoperandi's eyes..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Ah! Pixie dust is salt! My beautiful eyes! Sir Modusoperandi 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "gay-bashing" ?

Um, I've been accused of this thing called "gay-bashing" and it seems to be following me around. Seems that anti-homosexual bigots are hunted down like Salem witches nowadays.

I'd like to make it clear that I am not against homosexuals as people. I am opposed to homosexuality as a socially accepted practice and as a social/political movement, like millions of other people are. I stated once in a conversation about God that I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong because my sense of right and wrong is derived from my beliefs about God. I'm not sure, but I don't think that qualifies as "gay-bashing" --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As a trisexual, I take personal offense. Our lifestyle is just as normal as yours, maybe three or four times as normal.   ~   Cajek! <Pop Bomb> <-> (Dec 12 / 16:42) yeah, but seriously, shut the fuck up.

My argument has nothing to do with what is normal. I do not derive my sense of morality from what other people do. It has to do with what I believe is right and wrong. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I think the church has a much different definition of what "gay" is or means than the gay community does. Consider the difference between thoughts and actions. Do all thoughts lead to action? Some thoughts should not lead to action. Death for example. Sex with Angry Elephants for another example. Perhaps some that the gay community would consider bisexual, are actually considered straight by the church, based on what actions they in fact choose to take. Simsilikesims 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which church are you referring to? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also which GOD are YOU refering to? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Also, why am I on this page? Sir Modusoperandi 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Also, where ARE your TROUSERS? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

He left them three forums ago at the village dump. ~ 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I lost them quite a lot longer ago than that. And I haven't missed them one bit! Sir Modusoperandi 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)