09 Jul 2008 11:35 am
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep:
28 Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 1,357
OFFLINE
---Last edited 09 Jul 2008 11:37 am by Khorib
09 Jul 2008 08:39 pm
Regular
Rep:
16 Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 513
OFFLINE
I dont see anything wrong with it. Its alot more honest then wikipedia besides there information on homosexuality is very honest
09 Jul 2008 08:47 pm
Guardian of MvC
Rep:
83 Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,426
OFFLINE
---
12 Jul 2008 07:35 pm
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep:
28 Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 1,357
OFFLINE
Read this if your stupid 2 wins wrote:
I dont see anything wrong with it. Its alot more honest then wikipedia besides there information on homosexuality is very honest
You (and conservapedia) are absolutely absurd.
---
03 Aug 2008 04:31 am
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep:
24 Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 1,940
OFFLINE
Encyclopedia Dramatica rules over all.
--- WHUT DA FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK?
03 Aug 2008 05:08 am
you are smart
Rep:
48 Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 16,610
OFFLINE
I must disagree
uncyclo>ED
---
05 Aug 2008 03:45 am
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep:
24 Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 1,940
OFFLINE
Atresac wrote:
I must disagree
uncyclo>ED
Uncyclopedia is just a bunch of random unfunny bullshit. Honestly, an entire page of
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA? Wtf, how is that clever or funny in the slightest? Moreso, how did it manage to get the best article of the year?
--- WHUT DA FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK?
05 Aug 2008 03:51 am
you are smart
Rep:
48 Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 16,610
OFFLINE
dude the AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA article is amazing.
ED is just a bunch of /b/tards calling things fags or faggots or gay. It’s just 4chan in wikipedia form.
---
Post Reply