Faux: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m 4 revisions imported |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[ | [[File:HAX.jpg|thumb|avatar of our lady]] | ||
[[ | [[File:1161880621693.jpg|thumb|one of her fav things]] | ||
Faux is 10 year old boy, frequently seen in the guise of [[Cracky-chan]]. Due to her choice of costuming, invariably the question comes up: | Faux is 10 year old boy, frequently seen in the guise of [[Cracky-chan]]. Due to her choice of costuming, invariably the question comes up: | ||
Is Faux > [[Cracky-chan]]? | Is Faux > [[Cracky-chan]]? | ||
[[ | [[chanchan]]ers have long tried to disprove Lunarsandwich and Whatbandages' unified cracky theory, stating that [[Cracky-chan]]'s level of pure win can not be matched, much less exceeded. Up until this point, no other camwhore has come even remotely close to matching cracky's level of winnage. This is odd because of cracky's prevalent emo traits, and [[emo]] is generally assumed to be autofail. | ||
Current thought dictates that since faux = [[Cracky-chan]] - [[emo]], faux > cracky, however this appears to circumvent all known laws of win and fail, and thus is not widely accepted as anything more than half-baked wikitheory. | Current thought dictates that since faux = [[Cracky-chan]] - [[emo]], faux > cracky, however this appears to circumvent all known laws of win and fail, and thus is not widely accepted as anything more than half-baked wikitheory. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Contact == | == Contact == | ||
Drawing cracky-like marks on your face with lipstick and posting them to [[ | Drawing cracky-like marks on your face with lipstick and posting them to [[chanchan]] has shown to attract Faux's cultists roughly 101% of the time. This is probably your best bet. | ||
{{-}} | {{-}} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:16, 31 March 2022
Faux is 10 year old boy, frequently seen in the guise of Cracky-chan. Due to her choice of costuming, invariably the question comes up:
Is Faux > Cracky-chan?
chanchaners have long tried to disprove Lunarsandwich and Whatbandages' unified cracky theory, stating that Cracky-chan's level of pure win can not be matched, much less exceeded. Up until this point, no other camwhore has come even remotely close to matching cracky's level of winnage. This is odd because of cracky's prevalent emo traits, and emo is generally assumed to be autofail.
Current thought dictates that since faux = Cracky-chan - emo, faux > cracky, however this appears to circumvent all known laws of win and fail, and thus is not widely accepted as anything more than half-baked wikitheory.
Although there is little likelihood that there will be a conclusive, experimentally viable answer to the question, it remains clear that it is only with further research into "Faux" that will finally provide us with an answer.
Contact
Drawing cracky-like marks on your face with lipstick and posting them to chanchan has shown to attract Faux's cultists roughly 101% of the time. This is probably your best bet.
|
Faux is part of a series on |
