File talk:Leftbehind.jpg

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

VFP: the discussioning[edit]

I was suprised that it lasted six whole days on VFP, at least I got it off my chest, and a few others (okay, two) really got it (see "Wow" below) and seven more got it enough to vote "for".

That's good enough for me, as it more than exceded my expectations and I'm realistic: I went in knowing that the chance of this passing VFP were slim-to-nil.

It turned out to be nil.

Left Behind[edit]

Score:0
Featured picture candidate
Left Behind: the rapturing

The nineteenth novel in the god-awful but surprisingly popular Left Behind series, "the rapturing", is due in bookstores during the third year of the Tribulation. Reserve your copy now, sinner.

Image credit: Modusoperandi
Archive - Discuss this image



  • Nom and For. Because I'm trying to use humour to get over the fact that there are people that want to bring about armageddon...plus I got to use a picture of a butt Modusoperandi 20:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong against This image is offensive and word play isn't funny. This image should be left behind its articles. --Sbluen 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, the books are far more offensive...Find a Dispensational Premillennialist that's read these books and look for the righteous, spiteful misting of the eyes as he or she describes just how bad things will be for the, oh, six billion+ of us that aren't "true christians"™. That's offensive; this is just a bum. Just my 2 cents Modusoperandi 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Against, we are not ED. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For. Since when was Uncyclopedia not offensive? Didn't we highlight a picture of Mohammed?--Joe!TALK|CONTRIBS|F@H 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lolfor. --Witty Guy bitch at me 00:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. Baby got back, but not much else. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah! its rude, it will never make the front page, but I laughed my rapture off at this one. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 02:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hell no. Doesn't look good, not funny, and bad photoshop job. --PiOfFive 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, my apologies. I cleaned up the text, still figuring out MSPaint.
  • Against. My eyes! MY EYES!!! - User:Guest/sig 10:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Eerily it's prettier than the actual movie cover..."starring" Kirk Cameron, no less Modusoperandi 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Still, it's NSFW. - User:Guest/sig 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, but that's your fault, for being employed. Since when is any of Uncyclopedia safe for work? Uncyclopedia is the exact opposite of work. But seriously, if there's a way to annotate it as NSFW, I'm all ears. Modusoperandi 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not employed. But there is a Template:NSFWImage for a reason, and NSFW content must not be on the main page. Period. - User:Guest/sig 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • My bad, I'd forgotten about "NSFW vs. work". I changed the pic to one that's practically chaste. Modusoperandi 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • AF-FIR-MA-TIVE. It cuts through the hypocrisy and gets right down to what all these fucknugget Dispensational Premillennialists hope to be "raptured" for. Plus, I love anything that might constitute sacrilege.
  • Vote Withdrawn due to image castration. It now lacks the courage of its convictions.
Comment - I still like the other version better too, but after talking with Modusoperandi, I decided to stick by it on principle. It's still tongue-in-cheek enough for me. (that was not a pun, you filthy pigs.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yah, but I want porn on the main page!! --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Wish Granted! *ka-ZAM* --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For. Have you ever skimmed through one of those books? They're written on a lower reading level than a newspaper. They even released a kid's version and they didn't have to change a fuckin' thing. Sorta tells ya something about the mentality of their audience, huh? Oh, and plus it's got junk in the trunk. -- Imrealized 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd Tap that--65.188.179.127 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That was me, forgot to sign in.--TKF 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • for! mwicked funny Zimbuddha.jpg Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Against This picture is just stupid. --Icons-flag-us.png SonicChao Babbel!Contribs 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • weak against, though my wife thinks this is hilarious, it's just not doing it for me.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For! It pisses off the goym! --4.246.138.172 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Against Sorry, this is not a firm contender. Too soft and of too low quality for featuring. I don't see how something this bad could produce so much voting and debate. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Rapture and rump are both topics that make people hot under the collar. Modusoperandi 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I redid the text. It's a bit clearer now. Last tweak, I swear. Hit F5 if your browser still shows the old text. Modusoperandi 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

Who would have thought a parody of a frightening and awful series of books writ by people who think that the end of the world is a good thing would have brought out such emotion? Not me.
I figured that voting would go, Nom&For, Against, Against, Against, Implied Against, and Poof!...it would be gone.
I never thought a pic of a bum would be so divisive.
I'll say it again, "Wow." Modusoperandi 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Is that "wow" to the discussion, "wow" to the mighty bum, or "wow" to the fact that someone actually got tripe like you're lampooning (weak pun) published in the first place, thereby facilitating said bum-based lampoonage? For my part(s), I'm tempted to say D. All the above. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
On a serious note, though, if the iPod Floppy pic can get featured, I think this has a legitimate claim to the front page. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 12:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As a first try I figured that it would be shot down, post haste. Instead, it's Fer!, Agin!!, Fer!, Agin!! etc as the people that get it, really seem to "get" the joke, and the people that don't, really don't. Modusoperandi 13:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If they don't vote for this image, they're prigs in my opinion. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the tag on the pic, I'm all virginal with to the whole nommin' bit. Be gentle... Modusoperandi 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*streeeeetch-SNAP* Just try to relax. You may feel a little pinch... --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I just figured that it would be unloved enough to be quickly dropped from VFP but hoped that enough people would understand whatever it is that I'm trying to say that I'd finally get a feature: thereby receiving a substitute for the love I never got as a child from my cold, distant parents. Wait, was that out loud?
This love/hate mix is blowing my mind! I'm guessing it's because if you know the books (or at least the culture behind them) it's good satire, but if you don't it's just a bum. Modusoperandi 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't its the joke that they're not getting as much as the fear that the first image was too visually sexual for younger eyes, and the spandex clad cheek is too suggestive to the older crowd. My husband buddy laughed so far I had to slap his back so he could breath; its takes a lot to knock the wind out of the big guys sails. Frankly, I think you are a genius, and I think others are fearful... Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You give me too much credit <blush>. If you were me (and I don't think that you are. If you are, can you scratch that place I can't reach?), you'd see that most of the stuff that I write for Uncyc comes about because something pissed me off. If others appreciate it, good. If not, then at least I've got whatever-it-was off my chest, which is good too. So it's good either way. I couldn't keep quiet when the Danish cartoon/riot bullshit was happening (which resulted in freedom of speech), and I couldn't sit and do nothing after reading about the Dispensational Premillennialist and their ilk (which resulted in this pic).
My original choice of pic was, well, unfortunate. I failed to realize that there's a weird line in between ok and not ok. Niggers was a featured page (and a good one at that, but the title makes it NSFW), but a thong'd bum can't be a featured image. I don't even pretend to understand the taboos anymore: instead I just stumble along and hope that most people are adult about such things. Modusoperandi
I don't know if I am you. Are you several months pregnant? Do you find yourself with the hope that the baby is born with ten fingers and ten toes, but not a head so big (10cm) that the doctor will ask "Do you want to tear, or a cut?" If so, go for the tear; it helps you keep it tight better.
As for the weird sense of what is appropriate, I wrote an article called the Angry Young Black Man in the first person - its a stretch, but work with me on this - it was summarily removed without so much as a VFD hearing because the Admin thought it was too militant! Hello? The ANGRY BLACK MAN is militant because he is angry, but Nigger is OK. Go figure. I do however have an idea for an article that I need to think about that you'll like, very much. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
On tearing vs. cutting -- O_o -- Jeez Pret-Pret, between Immy's recent Bea Arthur kick and that bit of advice, I now officially need reformatting to purge the unwanted imagery from my cranial-dome. This is probably why Daleks clone themselves. Real Point Follows: -- But I do agree with the sentiments that both of you are expressing -- there does seem to be a very faint, blurred line between what passes for wit and what doesn't clear the censors around here. While I loved the original picture for its <ahem> "in your face" treatment of the subject, I also suspect that had the current boutee de Spandex been the version that was originally presented, the image might have stood a chance. Hypocrisy in action? Sure. But the fact that the NSFW shield has been thrown up is what really chaps my can. Hell, you should check out Wikipedia's entry on the "Kama Sutra" some time -- there's no frickin' NSFW template on that article! Then again, if you're looking up Hindu stroke-books at work, I think you deserve what you get... --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As George from Seinfeld would say, "We live in a society!". I don't know what that means, but I'm sure that it's something Modusoperandi 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait, did someone say Bea Arthur? And what took me so long to hear it? Just keep quiet about Estelle Getty, or you might send me into a state of blissful recollection and then my writing will suffer. Oh wait, it already has. -- Imrealized 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys realize that only a minority of people who voted Against on VFP said the image was offensive or NSFW, right? Perhaps - I dunno - the other people just don't find it funny? Saying that anyone who votes against is a "prig" or is "fearful," and going on and on about how this image is being discriminated against because a couple people opposed a bum on the front page, is ridiculous. Humor is subjective, even - believe it or not - if it's directed against something as ridiculous as Left Behind. —rc (t) 19:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not what I's on about, RC. If people just don't think it's funny, well as the Fonz said, "Eyyyyyyyy!" But I still stand behind my position of not standing behind the NSFW citation on this behind... that was left. Behind? I'm lost. Oh well, I guess what I'm saying is if you think it's unfunny, that's cool. But prudishness should never stand between humor and highlight. Besides, I'm just here to show support... and for the food. Especially the pies. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Humour is subjective: true. That other people didn't find it to be funny: true. That people with subjective humour don't necessarily find the same things to be funny isn't what we were talking about. While we may have overstated things a bit and blurred the lines between worlds, we were mostly talking about the oddities of societal taboos.
To reiterate a previous point, "Wow."
Now I have questions for you: Who are you and what are you doing in my bathroom? Modusoperandi 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, this bit's for KiY) And I would agree with you that safe-for-workishness shouldn't be an essential criteria for being featured. But that's not why most people have opposed this particular image, at least publicly.
And for Modus: yes, that's fine, of course. But PP's "If they don't vote for this image, they're prigs in my opinion" reeks of drawing a line in the sand and saying, if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists you don't understand humor. And it's my bathroom, you psycho. —rc (t) 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
My bad, I wondered why the toilet paper was so plush and luxurious. Modusoperandi 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
and, upon rereading the comments, the againsts are split between
  • because of the butt
  • because it's no longer the NSFW butt
  • not funny
This means that at least some of our collective paranoia is justified. Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.
So, to sum up.
  • I'm paranoid,
  • people don't always think that things are funny,
  • taboos would make an interesting Master's thesis,
  • somebody ate all my pies (I'm looking at you, King)
  • the King likes Kama Sutra,
  • I'm going to like whatever it is that Mrs. Pretty is writing next,
  • I'm not allowed in Rc's bathroom.
Did I miss anything? Modusoperandi 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Aw man, I'm sorry... I thought they were out for public consumption. IOU? And as an aside, the last time I encountered a translated version of the K.S., I got one of the biggest gut laughs of my life at the euphamisms for naughty bits/acts being used. "Vajra" indeed! It sounds like the new model of ricer crotch-rocket (pun most definitely intended!) Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce! The downside was the wife and I couldn't get serious for almost two weeks after reading that -- we'd get a terminal case of the giggles, and someone would say "Yoni," and the mood would be gone. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you do indeed have a point about societal taboos. So much of the world is "save the children from porn!" vs "save the children from controlling censors!" If something's funny, I'll vote for it. Heck, I'd even vote for a picture of PP's tear vs. cutting... actually, no... on second thought scratch that. I know I sure as heck wouldn't change my vote from for to against something because it was "censored" (unless of course the joke itself was removed in the process, which this wasn't). That kind of bizarre meta-censorship makes my head hurt.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That was just one user, and that's mostly because he wants porn to be ubiquitous on the internet. Which, of course, it is already. I just don't have the heart to tell him. I can't take away someones dream, even if it has already come true. That would be like telling Santa Claus that there are no children. Or something like that, only a something that makes sense, rather than what ever is that I just typed. Modusoperandi 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all Modus, I shall say again that I like the image and feel that it should make the featured image stage. That said, in the event that that it isn't (and it would be shame) you've accomplished one very positive outcome with the image - you got people talking. And that is always the sign of good Karma. Now, shall I ask the question that enquiring minds should want to know? This safe for work thing - am I to understand that users of this site are using paid time at the office, and using their employers computers to stay on Uncyclopedia when they should be working? Shame, shame on you, tsk, tsk, tsk. I'd be much less concerned about something being "safe for work" and more concerned with who'se "logging" the key strokes and web sites visited. One of the fringe benfits to being a stay at home Mom is that if I want to sluff off at work, all that means is that we go out to dinner. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

logging key strokes? <cough, cough> <beep, boop, boop, bip, beep>, "Hello, I.T.? You geeks wanna go to the peelers tonight? No, no. It's my treat."
Anyone wanna lend me a couple hundred bucks in singles?
Seriously for a moment, while religion can be a tool for good it can also be used to do great harm. Like the other main "-isms" (nationalism and racism), the extreme edge of religion, fundamentalism, is dangerous, as its possessor not only has god on his side, but also that god is the god of a time long before pesky things like humanism, the enlightenment and universal sufferage. The great swaths of the holy books of the "Sons of Abraham" that are either ignored or quickly passed over in polite society are the very same passages that fundamentalists fixate on. Things like the citizens of Sodom being punished (collectively, no less!) for "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy...And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ez 16:49-50) are ignored and only the bit about "abomination" and "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13) are put forward as what god thinks (something about gays...can't remember now...I'll give Fred Phelps a call, he'll tell me what god wants). The books of the big three monotheistic religions are full of hateful shit like that! The Koran has Allah repeatedly bragging about the cities that he's destroyed and even that book with Jesus in it (its name escapes me at the moment) has "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1Cor 14:34-35). Plus it's got "The Revelation of Jesus Christ ... unto his servant John" or more commonly called "that chunk at the back of the book where the world ends. Badly."
Sorry to get all biblical. It's just that there are so many passages of the holy texts that should go from canon to apocrypha because they are evil. Really, really evil...and that makes me mad...and when I get mad I type...like this. Whew, I feel better. A little anyway...the fundies are still out there, and even if you are christian, muslim or hebrew, to them you aren't "true", which makes it okay for them to fuck you over, righteously. Speaking as an atheist, they doubly hate me (although they call it "love", which greatly demeans the word) as I not only don't believe in their version of god (that version being the one true god), I don't believe in any god (at least not until one of them starts returning my calls!).
"...and that verbosely illustrates what I was trying to say when I posted a satirical pic of a bum on a book cover...". Wow, my shit is deep. Someone get a shovel. Modusoperandi 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Shit, did I miss this whole thing? Hey, while we're spouting Bible passages (thank Gawd for ten years of church, Sunday school, Bible study, youth group, mandatory proselytizing and lies) here's another one I just rediscovered: (2 Kings 18:27)... "But the commander replied, "Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the men sitting on the wall — who, like you, will have to eat their own filth and drink their own urine?" I think every child should have a book that contains such wonderful imagery, don't you? -- Imrealized 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I already own a copy of The Worst Case Scenario Survival Guide. I've got that need covered. Who needs this Bye-bull of which you speak? :) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? I've got the Zombie Survival Guide, it works against both zombies and people that act like zombies (<cough, cough...fundies>). Besides, if you're "chosen" that last part of the bible is unnecessary, and if you're not, you're f*cked, even if you know it by heart. So it's pointless. Trippy, but pointless. Modusoperandi 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess the image is rather good, though from what I hear, the original porn version was even better. There's nothing wrong with porn, as long as its nothing ugly or disgusting, it's especially OK when it's just a load of sexy bitches.

Indeed, the bible contains some crappy shit (also some good stuff, but the shit makes it suspiciously smelly), and for God's sake, it's just a book, who knows who wrote all that stuff, all those thousands of years ago.
And that's far from the worst, a lot of people are just imposing their interpretation of some religious texts on other people, asserting that they are speaking in the name God. We have a free will and a right to use it, dammit. Get off my back!
(For those who think you have no free will, you're interpreting the phrase "free will" too literally, and/or you're trying to live a meaningless life, I'd say good luck, but that would be meaningless, wouldn't it.)
In accordance with the Incompleteness Theorem, I just wanna conclude with the fact that I own an original set of the critically-acclaimed works of Traumatic Memories, the best guide to life this society has to offer. 84.194.239.31 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You make Left Behind sound like something philosophical and I admire you for it. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://uncyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Leftbehind.jpg&oldid=3694767"