This HTML5 document contains 18 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Kakun/The middle of Uncyclopedia

rdfs:comment

This requires someone who knows/loves/enjoys wanking to Monty Python. Thanks. 17:58, July 5, 2011 (UTC) I dont enjoy wanking to anything except my own insane fantasies. But I will still do this. -- 18:36, July 5, 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot, man. 11:51, July 7, 2011 (UTC) It was my pleasure. Honestly, I really liked the article a lot. Good luck with it and let me know if you want any more anything from me. -- 16:13, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

dcterms:subject

n13:

n7:

Im giving you 0 extra points cause I was generous with the other ones and I just dont get this article.

n3:

Assuming those spelling mistakes are intentional, I give you a 10 cause, again, I have the feeling that this is really clever shit, that either I dont get, am too stupid to get, or its so cleverly deceptive that I dont get what I am not supposed to get. so...why not give you a 10.

n15:

The potatohead picture was a good choice , in any case, the flowers, unless there is a connection to something I dont realise, why not choose a funny picture. Be a little more creative. Maybe something with a cleverly hidden fish in it. Escher-esque?

n19:

10

n21:

Im giving you a 10 only cause, not matter what, Im left with the feeling that this whole thing is incredibly clever and well crafted and concise and genius, even though that might not be the intent, or not be the case.

n4:

10

n16:

0

n8:

Hi oldtimer Kakun. How are you? Fisher price introspective was one of the first articles I read at uncyclopedia. I laughed pretty hard. I have referenced it in a couple articles of mine but Ive never thought of expanding. This is a great idea. The only thing is...sorry, I dont get this article. This is perhaps a good thing as you will get a pee review from maybe the only person that doesn't get it which may give you some insight into the article from the perspective of someone new/stupid...or maybe not. Maybe I am dense and I don't get some really obvious joke, but having been familiar with the go eat shit fucker incident and the Fisher Price introspective article, I guess I should at least have some sort of clue. I dont though :

n9:

5

n11:

10

n17:

I get the feeling this will be featured in any case, cause, either people from the past might get it, people who are clever might get it, or people will pretend to get it. In either case, Im sure ill see this being featured in no time. In any case, I hope this review was at all valuable and that you at least think about some of the things Ive said. Do write me on my talk page if theres anything you want to say, dont understand something or have any questions...Im always happy to give suggestions or to help.

n5:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n6: n14:

n18:

--07-06

n20:abstract

This requires someone who knows/loves/enjoys wanking to Monty Python. Thanks. 17:58, July 5, 2011 (UTC) I dont enjoy wanking to anything except my own insane fantasies. But I will still do this. -- 18:36, July 5, 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot, man. 11:51, July 7, 2011 (UTC) It was my pleasure. Honestly, I really liked the article a lot. Good luck with it and let me know if you want any more anything from me. -- 16:13, July 7, 2011 (UTC)