Difference between revisions of "Talk:2011"
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* Rather than speculative, it's a joke. Still, seconded. --[[User:Schuzrum-dias|Schuzrum Dias]] 12:42, 3 August 2010 (PDT) | * Rather than speculative, it's a joke. Still, seconded. --[[User:Schuzrum-dias|Schuzrum Dias]] 12:42, 3 August 2010 (PDT) | ||
:* I know, but the CWCiki is meant to be as factual as possible, and while it may seem spergin' to be curtailing such things, it's done to maintain an image of striving for excellence. | :* I know, but the CWCiki is meant to be as factual as possible, and while it may seem spergin' to be curtailing such things, it's done to maintain an image of striving for excellence. | ||
:**It's part of a joke. It's kinda a tradition. The 2010 page was the same last year. Though I guess in hindsight it is rather unnecessary. Sure. Delete it. Why not? --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 13:09, 3 August 2010 (PDT) | |||
::*Sometimes I worry that certain people here are allergic to fun.--[[User:Beat|Beat]] 15:19, 3 August 2010 (PDT) | |||
:::*I second Beat's statement.--[[User:Famicon64|Famicon64]] 20:53, 3 August 2010 (PDT) | |||
::::*Beat is always right. --[[User:Ronichu|Ronichu]] 22:27, 3 August 2010 (PDT) | |||
:::::*This is why I sometimes regret following Chris. It was advertised to me as some kind of awesome troll target and so I started learning about him in the hope that I'd eventually get to have a shot at it. It's bad enough that it's pretty far from that, but removing all the fun from the wiki to me seems a self-defeating goal. We document the site to facilitate trolling and to provide a library which can be used for trolls and followers to remember past laughs. This site is hardly shitty, but it doesn't have some kind of noble cause and I don't think we should pretend it does. We're here to have fun, so let's do that. [[User:Freecell|Freecell]] 06:26, 4 August 2010 (PDT) | |||
*God dammit Crass, stop being a faggot. This shit is on a page that will be filled anyway, it's not cluttering anything up, and it presents a nice 'ending' to the CWChronology. [[User:RachmaninovDESU|RachmaninovDESU]] 08:36, 11 August 2010 (PDT) | |||
==That Chris movie idea== | |||
Much as I love Tom Baker, it seems pretty obvious that the man to portray Michael Snyder is Al Pacino. Also, shouldn't Vanessa Hudgeons be in there somewhere? And if Frank Silva were alive, he'd be pretty good as Bob. - [[User:Manwithoutabody|Manwithoutabody]] 18:24, 15 December 2010 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:24, 15 December 2010
December 21
"Patti's body is resurrected by Mayan tribesmen in preparation for the 13th baktun."
Isn't the big year 2012? --CWCAttack 02:51, 17 December 2009 (CET)
Rule of funny. --DStecks 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need the shoehorned in Evangelion reference? It contributes naught to the article and isn't very funny. --manwithoutabody 19:19, 2 July 2010 (CEST)
Dealt with. --Edward 23:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
WHAT?!? The Evangellion refference was one of the funniest things on here. I don't know how you figured it was unfunny! --zartok-35
- And this is why I hate Evangelion fans. Pfargtl9000 Spam and Eggs 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we bring back the bit about the kidnapping spree and trying to build a girlfriend? The car chase ending doesnt make sense otherwise. Dkd 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Fuck it I'll do it Dkd 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
THE FUCK IS ALL THIS?
This shit is bollocks. I am asking for the deletion of the 2011 article on the grounds that it's all speculative. Take this faggotry to /cwc/. CrassCrab 12:37, 3 August 2010 (PDT)
- Rather than speculative, it's a joke. Still, seconded. --Schuzrum Dias 12:42, 3 August 2010 (PDT)
- I know, but the CWCiki is meant to be as factual as possible, and while it may seem spergin' to be curtailing such things, it's done to maintain an image of striving for excellence.
- It's part of a joke. It's kinda a tradition. The 2010 page was the same last year. Though I guess in hindsight it is rather unnecessary. Sure. Delete it. Why not? --Edward 13:09, 3 August 2010 (PDT)
- Sometimes I worry that certain people here are allergic to fun.--Beat 15:19, 3 August 2010 (PDT)
- I second Beat's statement.--Famicon64 20:53, 3 August 2010 (PDT)
- Beat is always right. --Ronichu 22:27, 3 August 2010 (PDT)
- This is why I sometimes regret following Chris. It was advertised to me as some kind of awesome troll target and so I started learning about him in the hope that I'd eventually get to have a shot at it. It's bad enough that it's pretty far from that, but removing all the fun from the wiki to me seems a self-defeating goal. We document the site to facilitate trolling and to provide a library which can be used for trolls and followers to remember past laughs. This site is hardly shitty, but it doesn't have some kind of noble cause and I don't think we should pretend it does. We're here to have fun, so let's do that. Freecell 06:26, 4 August 2010 (PDT)
- I know, but the CWCiki is meant to be as factual as possible, and while it may seem spergin' to be curtailing such things, it's done to maintain an image of striving for excellence.
- God dammit Crass, stop being a faggot. This shit is on a page that will be filled anyway, it's not cluttering anything up, and it presents a nice 'ending' to the CWChronology. RachmaninovDESU 08:36, 11 August 2010 (PDT)
That Chris movie idea
Much as I love Tom Baker, it seems pretty obvious that the man to portray Michael Snyder is Al Pacino. Also, shouldn't Vanessa Hudgeons be in there somewhere? And if Frank Silva were alive, he'd be pretty good as Bob. - Manwithoutabody 18:24, 15 December 2010 (PST)