This HTML5 document contains 17 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

Wackypedia:Review/Ct

rdfs:comment

The only reason this was moved off of VFF was because it originated at Uncyclopedia, a subject of which some bias exists. Personally, I love this article regardless of origin. It has randomness, pure nonsense, mashing of the keyboard, repetitiveness, and it's as funny ha-ha as it is funny strange. (Though admittedly the humor for me may come from nostalgia when it was at Uncyclopedia and on VFH over there.) Mainly, the problem is it's excessive foul language, the Chuck Norris reference, and its weird format. One can only speculate how much effort was actually put into it. (No doubt in my mind the author was high.) 05:28, Apr. 9, 2008

dcterms:subject

n13:

n15:

freakin' wow

n20:

I came

n14:

It made me cum

n7:

10

n9:

100

n3:

10

n16:

I didn't come, but I was damn close

n10:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n11:

n6:

--.HelloolleH.Dot.Boi.iNiT.bLuD :P 12:15, 9 Arply 2008

n4:

WOO

n5:

It made me cum

n8:

10

n17:

9.5

n18:abstract

The only reason this was moved off of VFF was because it originated at Uncyclopedia, a subject of which some bias exists. Personally, I love this article regardless of origin. It has randomness, pure nonsense, mashing of the keyboard, repetitiveness, and it's as funny ha-ha as it is funny strange. (Though admittedly the humor for me may come from nostalgia when it was at Uncyclopedia and on VFH over there.) Mainly, the problem is it's excessive foul language, the Chuck Norris reference, and its weird format. One can only speculate how much effort was actually put into it. (No doubt in my mind the author was high.) 05:28, Apr. 9, 2008 Sorry :P my first review, thoughts? The article is quite simply fricking insane, pain inducingly so. Only reason I laughed at it when it was on Uncyc was becuase it broke the mould: sod the stupid 10,000 word-long articles. Here, it loses some of its sheen but I think it just fits in. There's the problem: at Illogic, it's nothing special - just another randumb article. That said, I do admire it for the furore it caused at Uncyc a while back. PS. The award for Pear Review of the year goes to... HelloolleH! PPS. We need more drug induced articles. -- 18:30, 9 Arply 2008 (UTC) Yeah, that was my thought. In Wikipedia context, Uncyclopedia type articles are hilarious. In Uncyclopedia context, Illogicopedia type articles are hilarious. Unforunately, it doesn't work in reverse. 23:38, Apr. 9, 2008