Eternally ripped-off Stern ripped two of his most-known bits
KK
of the '80s I remember as a kid. It's always hysterical to hear the
commentary where Stern et al take credit for trends that occurred in
television and music, even movies. And it goes without saying that he
went on and on and on about all these people, in radio and tv, who
"ripped him off" over and over again.
In all the talk about the "Fartman" bit, and the "Fartman" movie script,
and the "Fartman" announcement on Leno, he didn't mention once that he
lifted the idea verbatim from a National Lampoon bit. In the beginning,
he even used the beginning of the track from the NatLamp album to intro
the bit. He didn't change the premise of the orginal at all - the guy
used farts to fly, to gas people, and to shoot flames.
What I didn't know until listening to the Best Of history shows was that
he lifted Butt Bongo too. I don't know why they replayed it, but they
mentioned on one of the old show that "some show in Maine" did a bit
where they play bongos, to music, on girls' asses - and Stern said they
should try it too, since everyone rips him off he should be able to take
someone else's bit.
So, probably Stern's most famous bit - repeated over and over on the
show, the basis for his original movie plans, and the motivation behind
his MTV awards appearance - and another of his most well-known bits and
the title and subject of one of the videos he released - were both
someone else's idea that Stern - the guy who complains that everyone rips
him off - ripped off.
KK
> wow, what a shithead. i'll never listen again.
>
> i don't mean howard. i mean you.
I don't give a shit what you listen to, or what you have people read to
you. This is just another example of what a hypocritical douche Stern is.
KK
> wow, big news flash.
Maybe to you.
Rocinante
Howard never said he invented those bits. In fact, on the history shows he
admits he ripped off those bits and made them better. On the other hand, OA
(who apparently nobody listens to anymore) ripped off every one of Howard's
homeless shopping sprees, contests, and talent shows and have not made them
better.
--
Oh, now we're adding details like surrounding solid objects! Next thing
you'll be saying that it's dangerous to use a wireless modem with a Newton
to connect to a machine as root and reconfigure sendmail while doing 75 in
a
45 mph zone.
-- Marshall McGowan
Rocinante...@gmail.com
12/29/2009 10:41:11 PM
KK
So? People in radio or on TV who do any of the thousands of bits that
Stern claims they've "ripped off" from him haven't made a point of
claiming that they invented those either.
> In fact, on the history shows
> he admits he ripped off those bits and made them better.
I heard the history show about Fartman and didn't hear the original
NatLamp cut he *always* played when he did the bit, and I heard no
mention of the original NatLamp bit. And he didn't make it any better,
or add anything to it. The NatLamp track was a guy daydreaming about
being a superhero with the exact same fart powers Stern's character had.
I was surprised to hear him mention Butt Bongo's original appearance on
some other radio show and play the clip where he said that it was okay to
rip it off because everyone rips him off. If it were the other way
around, you know full well Stern would whine about it for years.
> On the other
> hand, OA (who apparently nobody listens to anymore) ripped off every one
> of Howard's homeless shopping sprees, contests, and talent shows and
> have not made them better.
Yeah, I remember all the times Stern took buses of homeless people to
upscale shopping malls to annoy the wealthy shoppers. All those zero
times.
And Stern will go down in history for having invented the 'contest' and
the 'talent show' now, too? What an ass you are.
x...@xxx.com
>>
>>Howard never said he invented those bits.
>
>
> So? People in radio or on TV who do any of the thousands of bits that
> Stern claims they've "ripped off" from him haven't made a point of
> claiming that they invented those either.
>
Jay Leno for example hired a writer away from Stern and then when he
starts copying his bits said "I didn't copy Stern, Steve Allen used to
do that" Complete bullshit. O&A doing hundreds of his old bits and
pretending that they thought of them all by themselves is more bullshit,
these 2 were listening to stern religiously since High School, they just
happened to "create" their own act which consists of 90% old stern
gimmicks. Stern on the other hand gave credit to the originator of the
bits he started doing. I remember him plugging National Lampoon back
when I hadn't heard the magazine mentioned in 10 years. Whether he made
them better or just made them widely known is a matter of opinion. I
also remember him crediting Bob Grant for something in his act way back
when.
>
>
>
>>In fact, on the history shows
>>he admits he ripped off those bits and made them better.
>
>
> I heard the history show about Fartman and didn't hear the original
> NatLamp cut he *always* played when he did the bit, and I heard no
> mention of the original NatLamp bit. And he didn't make it any better,
> or add anything to it. The NatLamp track was a guy daydreaming about
> being a superhero with the exact same fart powers Stern's character had.
>
He did it on the radio, for a radio listener he made it much better. You
see, Howard has a radio show, not a magazine. He did give them credit
though, they may have threatened to sue him first, but I always remember
that fartman came from Nat Lampoon.
> I was surprised to hear him mention Butt Bongo's original appearance on
> some other radio show and play the clip where he said that it was okay to
> rip it off because everyone rips him off. If it were the other way
> around, you know full well Stern would whine about it for years.
>
>
Not if he was given credit the way he gave credit to the Butt Bongo guy.
>
>
> Yeah, I remember all the times Stern took buses of homeless people to
> upscale shopping malls to annoy the wealthy shoppers. All those zero
> times.
>
> And Stern will go down in history for having invented the 'contest' and
> the 'talent show' now, too? What an ass you are.
>
You are full of shit if you can't admit that O&A do a 3 man stern clone
show. Those bits were Stern's old bits slightly updated and dumbed down.
KK
> KK wrote:
>
>
>>>Howard never said he invented those bits.
>>
>>
>> So? People in radio or on TV who do any of the thousands of bits that
>> Stern claims they've "ripped off" from him haven't made a point of
>> claiming that they invented those either.
>>
>>
> Jay Leno for example hired a writer away from Stern and then when he
> starts copying his bits said "I didn't copy Stern, Steve Allen used to
> do that" Complete bullshit. O&A doing hundreds of his old bits
Name them. And if you're going to equate awarding a prize to a homeless
person with bringing a busload of them to an upscale mall, then don't
waste your time.
> and
> pretending that they thought of them all by themselves is more bullshit,
> these 2 were listening to stern religiously since High School
As did I.
>, they just
> happened to "create" their own act which consists of 90% old stern
> gimmicks. Stern on the other hand gave credit to the originator of the
> bits he started doing. I remember him plugging National Lampoon back
> when I hadn't heard the magazine mentioned in 10 years.
No, you don't. He didn't. I was a Stern *and* (still am) a National
Lampoon fanatic
> Whether he made
> them better or just made them widely known is a matter of opinion. I
> also remember him crediting Bob Grant for something in his act way back
> when.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>In fact, on the history shows
>>>he admits he ripped off those bits and made them better.
>>
>>
>> I heard the history show about Fartman and didn't hear the original
>> NatLamp cut he *always* played when he did the bit, and I heard no
>> mention of the original NatLamp bit. And he didn't make it any better,
>> or add anything to it. The NatLamp track was a guy daydreaming about
>> being a superhero with the exact same fart powers Stern's character
>> had.
>>
>>
> He did it on the radio, for a radio listener he made it much better.
What an asshole. So if he repeats, on the radio, material from, say, a
George Carlin album, he's not ripping it off because "it's better because
it's on the radio"?
> You
> see, Howard has a radio show, not a magazine.
Ah, I see. The problem here is that you're an ignorant shithead.
National Lampoon's Fartman bit, while it was *also* in the magazine, was
a track on the White Album, the beginning of which Stern used to *play*
to intro "his" bit.
> He did give them credit
> though, they may have threatened to sue him first, but I always remember
> that fartman came from Nat Lampoon.
Yeah, you seem really aware of it - didn't even fucking know it was an
album track and not just in the mag.
>> I was surprised to hear him mention Butt Bongo's original appearance on
>> some other radio show and play the clip where he said that it was okay
>> to rip it off because everyone rips him off. If it were the other way
>> around, you know full well Stern would whine about it for years.
>>
>>
>>
> Not if he was given credit the way he gave credit to the Butt Bongo guy.
He didn't give the guy credit, he vaguely referred to a "radio show in
Maine" and never acknowledged again that it wasn't his bit.
>
>
>>
>> Yeah, I remember all the times Stern took buses of homeless people to
>> upscale shopping malls to annoy the wealthy shoppers. All those zero
>> times.
>>
>> And Stern will go down in history for having invented the 'contest' and
>> the 'talent show' now, too? What an ass you are.
>>
>>
> You are full of shit if you can't admit that O&A do a 3 man stern clone
> show. Those bits were Stern's old bits slightly updated and dumbed down.
And you're a kool-aid drinking moron if you think that the HSS was the
same as handing a bum a prize. Name some of the other "updated, dumbed-
down" bits.
KK
> waxing a guy on air
When did Stern do it (date)?
>, trying to start shit with other
> shows
You don't think that's mongoloidally vague?
>...unfortunately, those are all i can name right off the top of my
> head because only about 100,000 people listen to that godawful show and
> nobody knows any of their bits.
Let me get this right - you can't think of more of these "hundreds" of
bits somehow because of the number of listeners they have? How does that
work?
> but rest assured, that tony danza imitation is all original...i'll bet
> that went over really well in 1983.
Well, it went over when Danza's show was on the air and taped nearby.
Are you suggesting that they're still regularly using it?
x...@xxx.com
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:47:33 -0500, X...@XXX.COM wrote:
>
>
>>KK wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Howard never said he invented those bits.
>>>
>>>
>>>So? People in radio or on TV who do any of the thousands of bits that
>>>Stern claims they've "ripped off" from him haven't made a point of
>>>claiming that they invented those either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Jay Leno for example hired a writer away from Stern and then when he
>>starts copying his bits said "I didn't copy Stern, Steve Allen used to
>>do that" Complete bullshit. O&A doing hundreds of his old bits
>
>
>
> Name them. And if you're going to equate awarding a prize to a homeless
> person with bringing a busload of them to an upscale mall, then don't
> waste your time.
>
They've been named and described in detail for the past 5 years at
least. And yes the homeless bits were just slightly updated, dumbed down
Stern bits from the 90s. I also recall Stern discussing that Andy Warhol
used to send homeless people in his place when he was supposed to
receive an award or attend a gallery opening, so his bit was something
of an updated version of that, except on the radio for a wider audience.
>
>
>
>>and
>>pretending that they thought of them all by themselves is more bullshit,
>>these 2 were listening to stern religiously since High School
>
>
>
> As did I.
>
>
>
>>, they just
>>happened to "create" their own act which consists of 90% old stern
>>gimmicks. Stern on the other hand gave credit to the originator of the
>>bits he started doing. I remember him plugging National Lampoon back
>>when I hadn't heard the magazine mentioned in 10 years.
>
>
> No, you don't. He didn't. I was a Stern *and* (still am) a National
> Lampoon fanatic
>
Yes I do, he mentioned National Lampoon when he was doing fartman,
possibly when the movie talk started, and I remember thinking "I haven't
seen a National Lampoon since I was 11 years old and my semi-retarded
uncle had a subscription."
>
>>
>>He did it on the radio, for a radio listener he made it much better.
>
>
>
> What an asshole. So if he repeats, on the radio, material from, say, a
> George Carlin album, he's not ripping it off because "it's better because
> it's on the radio"?
>
George Carlin shows are also on the radio, they are well covered in that
medium as well as on TV. National Lampoon cartoons aren't covered on the
radio unless someone like Stern does a bit related to it. As you already
know, Stern gave credit to National Lampoon and plugged the magazine
when people like me hadn't heard a word about it for 10 years. See how
that is different from copying someone's original act and pretending you
created it all yourself?
>
>
>
>>You
>>see, Howard has a radio show, not a magazine.
>
>
>
> Ah, I see. The problem here is that you're an ignorant shithead.
>
It seems you are just a huge liar who is unable to decipher the facts
here because your clone show is a completely unoriginal radio show whose
every gimmick has been traced directly back to Stern. You can admit they
are just clones and still enjoy their cloning.
> National Lampoon's Fartman bit, while it was *also* in the magazine, was
> a track on the White Album, the beginning of which Stern used to *play*
> to intro "his" bit.
>
So he gave them credit, see what I mean? Back then a mention from stern
was worth millions to a dying magazine
>
>
>
>
>>He did give them credit
>>though, they may have threatened to sue him first, but I always remember
>>that fartman came from Nat Lampoon.
>
>
> Yeah, you seem really aware of it - didn't even fucking know it was an
> album track and not just in the mag.
>
I didn't care that much, I stopped reading the magazine when I was 11
and it seemed too stupid. I used to flip through them once in awhile to
see the tits when I was 12 but I outgrew the magazine by then. I knew it
was from National Lampoon because STERN GAVE THEM CREDIT not because I
gave a shit about the magazine. You seem to be purposely missing the
point, maybe you can find a clone group to spew your idiocy in, they'll
just agree with your lame arguments and you can get on with your life.
>
>
>>
>>Not if he was given credit the way he gave credit to the Butt Bongo guy.
>
>
> He didn't give the guy credit, he vaguely referred to a "radio show in
> Maine" and never acknowledged again that it wasn't his bit.
>
I heard him mention it a few times, including a description of the guy
who was doing the bit. I don't remember if he was using the guy's name
or plugging his show but he never claimed it was his own original bit
the way the clones do.
>>>
>>
>>You are full of shit if you can't admit that O&A do a 3 man stern clone
>>show. Those bits were Stern's old bits slightly updated and dumbed down.
>
>
>
> And you're a kool-aid drinking moron if you think that the HSS was the
> same as handing a bum a prize. Name some of the other "updated, dumbed-
> down" bits.
>
>
>
Same shit, slightly updated and dragged out to waste an entire show. I
guess the clones know how stupid their audience is.
KK
> KK wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:47:33 -0500, X...@XXX.COM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>KK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Howard never said he invented those bits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So? People in radio or on TV who do any of the thousands of bits that
>>>>Stern claims they've "ripped off" from him haven't made a point of
>>>>claiming that they invented those either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Jay Leno for example hired a writer away from Stern and then when he
>>>starts copying his bits said "I didn't copy Stern, Steve Allen used to
>>>do that" Complete bullshit. O&A doing hundreds of his old bits
>>
>>
>>
>> Name them. And if you're going to equate awarding a prize to a
>> homeless person with bringing a busload of them to an upscale mall,
>> then don't waste your time.
>>
>>
> They've been named and described in detail for the past 5 years at
> least.
So ... nothing.
> And yes the homeless bits were just slightly updated, dumbed down
> Stern bits from the 90s.
Save the subjective "slightly updated dumbed down" opinion and tell us
the specifics of the bit that were copied.
> I also recall Stern discussing that Andy Warhol
> used to send homeless people in his place when he was supposed to
> receive an award or attend a gallery opening, so his bit was something
> of an updated version of that, except on the radio for a wider audience.
So, did O&A rip off Stern or Warhol? Did Stern rip off Warhol?
>
>>
>>
>>>and
>>>pretending that they thought of them all by themselves is more
>>>bullshit, these 2 were listening to stern religiously since High School
>>
>>
>>
>> As did I.
>>
>>
>>
>>>, they just
>>>happened to "create" their own act which consists of 90% old stern
>>>gimmicks. Stern on the other hand gave credit to the originator of the
>>>bits he started doing. I remember him plugging National Lampoon back
>>>when I hadn't heard the magazine mentioned in 10 years.
>>
>>
>> No, you don't. He didn't. I was a Stern *and* (still am) a National
>> Lampoon fanatic
>>
>>
> Yes I do, he mentioned National Lampoon when he was doing fartman
I owned the White Album and recognized it immediately when Stern started
doing it. I remember Stern acknowledged it once when a caller brought it
up (remember when Stern didn't screen calls?) but never when he was
promoting the script for the movie that wasn't to be or his appearances.
> possibly when the movie talk started, and I remember thinking "I haven't
> seen a National Lampoon since I was 11 years old and my semi-retarded
> uncle had a subscription."
Are you trying to insult the National Lampoon? Its staffers and founders
created Animal House and Caddyshack, and pretty much the entire opening
cast of SNL was lifted from NatLamp's stage show.
>>
>>>He did it on the radio, for a radio listener he made it much better.
>>
>>
>>
>> What an asshole. So if he repeats, on the radio, material from, say, a
>> George Carlin album, he's not ripping it off because "it's better
>> because it's on the radio"?
>>
>>
> George Carlin shows are also on the radio, they are well covered in that
> medium as well as on TV. National Lampoon cartoons aren't covered on the
> radio unless someone like Stern does a bit related to it.
Go fuck yourself. National Lampoon had its own radio show (yes, before
Stern) and later a syndicated show, and tracks from their albums were
played on their own show and on other humor shows, with attribution.
So even your retarded logic that "if Stern copied something that wasn't
on the radio it's not copying" fails.
And again, since you're apparently too dense to read: the bit Stern
lifted - and *played* parts of on the air - *wasn't a cartoon*. It was a
track on an album.
> As you already
> know, Stern gave credit to National Lampoon and plugged the magazine
> when people like me hadn't heard a word about it for 10 years. See how
> that is different from copying someone's original act and pretending you
> created it all yourself?
Stern pretends he created everything all by himself. Opie and Anthony
are edgier, they're far more self-deprecating, far more comedic, and just
plain not the same act. If you can't see that, you're an ass. But we
already knew that.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>You
>>>see, Howard has a radio show, not a magazine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, I see. The problem here is that you're an ignorant shithead.
>>
>>
> It seems you are just a huge liar who is unable to decipher the facts
> here because your clone show is a completely unoriginal radio show whose
> every gimmick has been traced directly back to Stern. You can admit they
> are just clones and still enjoy their cloning.
You just keep soaking in the fact that you didn't know what you were
talking about. And keep stammering about "clones" like Stern has since
time immemorial.
>
>> National Lampoon's Fartman bit, while it was *also* in the magazine,
>> was a track on the White Album, the beginning of which Stern used to
>> *play* to intro "his" bit.
>>
>>
> So he gave them credit, see what I mean? Back then a mention from stern
> was worth millions to a dying magazine
He didn't give them credit for it - unless you count mentioning it once
after being called out for pilfering it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>He did give them credit
>>>though, they may have threatened to sue him first, but I always
>>>remember that fartman came from Nat Lampoon.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, you seem really aware of it - didn't even fucking know it was an
>> album track and not just in the mag.
>>
>>
> I didn't care that much, I stopped reading the magazine when I was 11
> and it seemed too stupid.
Yeah, National Lampoon was stupid and Stern invented everything. Your
entertainment sense is extraordinarily dull.
NatLamp was hysterical, whether or not a simp like you "got it". It was
some of the most biting social satire in our country's history, and it
launched more comedy careers than you can count on your fingers and toes.
>I used to flip through them once in awhile to
> see the tits when I was 12 but I outgrew the magazine by then.
No, you're still not grown *into* it.
> I knew it
> was from National Lampoon because STERN GAVE THEM CREDIT not because I
> gave a shit about the magazine. You seem to be purposely missing the
> point, maybe you can find a clone group to spew your idiocy in, they'll
> just agree with your lame arguments and you can get on with your life>
If there's a clone, it's Stern as a sad, broken clone of his former
self. Like Keaton in Muliplicity, the current Stern is the fourth or
fifth fading copy.
And again, Stern begrudgingly acknowledged the bit. That's different
than proper attribution.
>
>>
>>
>
>>>Not if he was given credit the way he gave credit to the Butt Bongo
>>>guy.
>>
>>
>> He didn't give the guy credit, he vaguely referred to a "radio show in
>> Maine" and never acknowledged again that it wasn't his bit.
>>
>>
> I heard him mention it a few times, including a description of the guy
> who was doing the bit.
You're full of shit. Provide a reference, if you have one other than
your shown-to-be-shaky recollection.
>I don't remember if he was using the guy's name
> or plugging his show but he never claimed it was his own original bit
> the way the clones do.
>
>
>>>>
>>>You are full of shit if you can't admit that O&A do a 3 man stern clone
>>>show. Those bits were Stern's old bits slightly updated and dumbed
>>>down.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you're a kool-aid drinking moron if you think that the HSS was the
>> same as handing a bum a prize. Name some of the other "updated,
>> dumbed- down" bits.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Same shit, slightly updated and dragged out to waste an entire show. I
> guess the clones know how stupid their audience is.
So, none. Got it.
lab~rat >:-)
>Those bits were Stern's old bits slightly updated and dumbed down.
That's saying a lot.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Drumrboy
> I didn't care that much, I stopped reading the magazine when I was 11
> and it seemed too stupid. I used to flip through them once in awhile to
> see the tits when I was 12 but I outgrew the magazine by then.
Yet you haven't outgrown dick and fart jokes. Go figure.
x...@xxx.com
>>
>>They've been named and described in detail for the past 5 years at
>>least.
>
>
>
> So ... nothing.
>
The homeless bits for starters, but you already knew that. For the other
2 or 3 thousand examples check the archives in this very newsgroup. It
is a subject that has been beaten to death only to be revived by clone
show imbeciles every year as if it has never been discussed before.
Their use of sound effects would be another rich area for you to
research. I'm sure you'll notice the similarities, you'll lie and
pretend they didn't copy it all from Stern but at least you can look at
the evidence.
>
>
>
>
>>And yes the homeless bits were just slightly updated, dumbed down
>>Stern bits from the 90s.
>
>
>
> Save the subjective "slightly updated dumbed down" opinion and tell us
> the specifics of the bit that were copied.
>
Turning homeless people loose among non homeless people is the gimmick.
Stern did it for years before the clones copied him and put them on a
bus to a mall. You can't possibly be this dumb so I am going to guess
you are just dishonest and obtuse. Next year you will come up with the
same stupid argument and pretend you never heard all of this before.
>
>>I also recall Stern discussing that Andy Warhol
>>used to send homeless people in his place when he was supposed to
>>receive an award or attend a gallery opening, so his bit was something
>>of an updated version of that, except on the radio for a wider audience.
>
>
>
> So, did O&A rip off Stern or Warhol? Did Stern rip off Warhol?
>
They ripped off stern Stern ripped off Warhol. The difference that you
are refusing to acknowledge is that STERN CREDITED WARHOL, STERN
CREDITED NATIONAL LAMPOON and STERN CREDITED THE GREASY GUY IN MAINE
when he used their ideas. The clones are trying to pretend they are
thinking up original ideas and it seems they have convinced the dumbest
radio fans in the world that they haven't made an entire radio career
out of copying Stern's act.
>>>
>>
>>Yes I do, he mentioned National Lampoon when he was doing fartman
>
>
> I owned the White Album and recognized it immediately when Stern started
> doing it. I remember Stern acknowledged it once when a caller brought it
> up (remember when Stern didn't screen calls?) but never when he was
> promoting the script for the movie that wasn't to be or his appearances.
>
I wasn't religious about listening to Stern but I know for sure that he
plugged National Lampoon and never used clonelike bullshit arguments
like "No ... my fartman wears a yellow suit, National Lampoon's fartman
had a red suit" Even as a casual listener who hadn't seen a National
Lampoon since I was a pre-teen, I knew that Fartman came from National
Lampoon. Do you know how I knew? Stern said it on the radio. Have you
ever gotten that sort of honesty out of the clones when they have
strippers on, make fun of people with speech impediments or do homeless
gimmicks?
>
>
>>possibly when the movie talk started, and I remember thinking "I haven't
>>seen a National Lampoon since I was 11 years old and my semi-retarded
>>uncle had a subscription."
>
>
> Are you trying to insult the National Lampoon? Its staffers and founders
> created Animal House and Caddyshack, and pretty much the entire opening
> cast of SNL was lifted from NatLamp's stage show.
>
And it was sophmoric reading just like those movies are sophmoric films,
my uncle was a retard and he chuckled his way through it every month. I
graduated to other things by the time I was a teenager. I had nothing
against the magazine and it was great fun for retards, I just outgrew it
and didn't find it that funny after the age of 12. Your milage may vary.
>>
>>George Carlin shows are also on the radio, they are well covered in that
>>medium as well as on TV. National Lampoon cartoons aren't covered on the
>>radio unless someone like Stern does a bit related to it.
>
>
> Go fuck yourself. National Lampoon had its own radio show (yes, before
> Stern) and later a syndicated show, and tracks from their albums were
> played on their own show and on other humor shows, with attribution.
>
Just like Howard gave them credit for Fartman, unlike the clones who
would have said "No ... our fartman has short hair, Stern's fartman had
long hair ... it is completely different" I heard some of those bits on
the old WLIR where they did "News Blimps", I prefered the Monty Python
bits to the others.
I never cared where Howard got his ideas and I found fartman to be an
annoying bit. I was glad when he didn't make it into a movie, it was
just too shallow and stupid.
> So even your retarded logic that "if Stern copied something that wasn't
> on the radio it's not copying" fails.
>
That wasn't my logic at all, you are trying to prolong your own death in
this argument. You have tried to completely change my comparison of
Stern's use of older material with the Clone's use of Stern's material.
Howard did an occaisional bit that he lifted from someone, but he
usually gave them credit and in some cases plugged their product. Like
the guy who did those dopey "How's your whole ..... family" The clones
have blatently copied their entire act from Howard and their fans (and
them) will lie and swear that it is all original material. When you run
out of lies you resort to trying to change the argument like you tried
above. Like I said, enjoy your clone show, just don't pretend they
originated any of the act they perform.
> And again, since you're apparently too dense to read: the bit Stern
> lifted - and *played* parts of on the air - *wasn't a cartoon*. It was a
> track on an album.
>
The whole fartman concept was lifted by stern and he gave them credit
for it, like I said. If he played a track from an album (shocking that a
radio personality would play a track from an album, right?) or redid the
comic strip over the radio he didn't pretend that he invented it the way
the clones will. See the difference yet?
>
>
>
>
>>As you already
>>know, Stern gave credit to National Lampoon and plugged the magazine
>>when people like me hadn't heard a word about it for 10 years. See how
>>that is different from copying someone's original act and pretending you
>>created it all yourself?
>
>
> Stern pretends he created everything all by himself.
But you admit that he gave credit to the Butt bongo guy and National
Lampoon. How do you reconcile these lies?
> Opie and Anthony
> are edgier, they're far more self-deprecating, far more comedic, and just
> plain not the same act. If you can't see that, you're an ass. But we
> already knew that.
>
>
They do the same act, they are not edgier because Howard has already
done everything they do, their edge is on Howard's coattails. They are
less self depreciating than Howard was in the 80's and 90's (back when
the clones were listening to him every day) If they were honestly self
depreciating they would admit that they learned everything they know
about doing a radio show from listening to Howard for 20 years before
they got a chance to imitate him on their own show. If you can't admit
that than you are just a lying shill.
>
>
> You just keep soaking in the fact that you didn't know what you were
> talking about. And keep stammering about "clones" like Stern has since
> time immemorial.
>
I will, until they do a radio show that isn't a clone of Howard's act I
will call them clones. You keep avoiding the fact that Howard did give
credit when he used someone else's ideas, unlike the clones.
>
>>
>>So he gave them credit, see what I mean? Back then a mention from stern
>>was worth millions to a dying magazine
>
>
> He didn't give them credit for it - unless you count mentioning it once
> after being called out for pilfering it.
>
He mentioned it more than once and he plugged the magazine enough that I
know it was his favorite magazine as a kid and that Fartman came from
them. WHen the clones get called on their imitation stern act, they
still deny it. So even if your lies were true, Howard still wins.
>>>
>>>>He did give them credit
>>>>though, they may have threatened to sue him first, but I always
>>>>remember that fartman came from Nat Lampoon.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, you seem really aware of it - didn't even fucking know it was an
>>>album track and not just in the mag.
>>>
Unfortunately for you, I am not a retard, I outgrew National Lampoon
when I was a teenager and never gave it another thought. So I am not the
expert you are. Despite this, the point that Howard copied things and
gave the originators credit is still true. The fact that the clones
imitate Howard and they and their fans will lie and twist the facts to
deny it is also true.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't care that much, I stopped reading the magazine when I was 11
>>and it seemed too stupid.
>
>
> Yeah, National Lampoon was stupid and Stern invented everything. Your
> entertainment sense is extraordinarily dull.
Another stupid lie from you. Do you even realize that you are lying? In
this very post I agreed that Howard got fartman from National Lampoon,
the homeless gimmick from Warhol and the butt bongo bit from another
radio guy. Are you this desperate to change someone's mind about your
little clone show? Do you have any self respect? Do your clone show pals
agree with your obvious unreconcilable lies? You seem completely
witless, I can understand your obsession with pre-teen humor a little
better now.
>
> NatLamp was hysterical, whether or not a simp like you "got it". It was
> some of the most biting social satire in our country's history, and it
> launched more comedy careers than you can count on your fingers and toes.
>
It was funny to me when I was 11, my retarded uncle loved it until he
was in his 50s, are you such an asshole that you can't understand ANYONE
disagreeing with you about ANYTHING? I think you are.
>
>
>>I used to flip through them once in awhile to
>>see the tits when I was 12 but I outgrew the magazine by then.
>
>
> No, you're still not grown *into* it.
>
No, I am a lot smarter than you are, after 12 I lost interest in it. I
will guess that I was smarter at 12 than you are now but I am sure that
will set off a chain reaction of obsessive behavior that will involve
posting paychecks, looking up the value of my house and submitting 5th
grade report cards to mediators.
>
>
>
>>I knew it
>>was from National Lampoon because STERN GAVE THEM CREDIT not because I
>>gave a shit about the magazine. You seem to be purposely missing the
>>point, maybe you can find a clone group to spew your idiocy in, they'll
>>just agree with your lame arguments and you can get on with your life>
>
>
>
> If there's a clone, it's Stern as a sad, broken clone of his former
> self. Like Keaton in Muliplicity, the current Stern is the fourth or
> fifth fading copy.
>
Stern is 55 and took a big payday, his show lacks the energy of the 90s
but it is still pretty good. The clones just never made it out of that
shadow because they were doing unoriginal old bits that we all heard in
the 90s when they first heard them.
> And again, Stern begrudgingly acknowledged the bit. That's different
> than proper attribution.
He acknowledged them, he plugged their dying magazine a number of times,
as a casual listener I knew where fartman came from so he gave them
enough credit for most of us to know who created it. Compare that to the
clone fans who will lie and deny the source of their act with the
dumbest arguments I've ever heard. The clones won't even begrudgingly
admit they are doing stern's act.
>>>>Not if he was given credit the way he gave credit to the Butt Bongo
>>>>guy.
>>>
>>>
>>>He didn't give the guy credit, he vaguely referred to a "radio show in
>>>Maine" and never acknowledged again that it wasn't his bit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I heard him mention it a few times, including a description of the guy
>>who was doing the bit.
>
>
> You're full of shit. Provide a reference, if you have one other than
> your shown-to-be-shaky recollection.
>
He had a tape of the guy doing it and said this would be cool, bring in
the strippers. He never claimed he invented it or that it was an
original Stern bit. He has more class than the clones in that respect.
>>
>>Same shit, slightly updated and dragged out to waste an entire show. I
>>guess the clones know how stupid their audience is.
>
>
> So, none. Got it.
>
Except the ones listed in this thread and in this newsgroup over the
past 9 years. Nothing you could understand I guess, maybe you should get
back to your foto funnies, online investigations and Mensa meetings.
KK
> KK wrote:
>>>
>>>They've been named and described in detail for the past 5 years at
>>>least.
>>
>>
>>
>> So ... nothing.
>>
>>
> The homeless bits for starters, but you already knew that
No, what I know is that you dickholes claim that any humor involving a
bum is derivative of and stolen from Stern, which is sheer douchebaggery.
Stern didn't do anything like HSS. Nothing involving putting the
homeless where rich people shop, nothing involving the homeless that the
audience could directly participate in. Nothing.
>. For the other
> 2 or 3 thousand examples check the archives in this very newsgroup. It
> is a subject that has been beaten to death only to be revived by clone
> show imbeciles every year as if it has never been discussed before.
You point to a newsgroup full (well, less full, now that I think about
it) of late-to-the-party, fans of Stern in his current iteration, who say
fucking stupid things like "Stern invented the homeless shopping spree"
as a reference? Please.
(cue clip of Stern claiming to have invented tying bandannas to car
antennas) Tell 'em, Fred!
> Their use of sound effects would be another rich area for you to
> research. I'm sure you'll notice the similarities,
No, I don't. Other than that they both use sound effects, which were
invented before Stern was born.
> you'll lie and
> pretend they didn't copy it all from Stern but at least you can look at
> the evidence.
If you'd fucking provide some, I'll tell you what I think. Otherwise, so
far it's you babbling something stupid, me asking you to support it, and
you telling me to go find it myself.
>>>And yes the homeless bits were just slightly updated, dumbed down Stern
>>>bits from the 90s.
>>
>>
>>
>> Save the subjective "slightly updated dumbed down" opinion and tell us
>> the specifics of the bit that were copied.
>>
>>
> Turning homeless people loose among non homeless people is the gimmick.
Says you. If you've been to the Short Hills Mall you'd see the upscale
part of it, which you're ignoring. But:
> Stern did it for years
When? Stop with the vague generalites and fucking say something.
> before the clones copied him and put them on a
> bus to a mall. You can't possibly be this dumb so I am going to guess
> you are just dishonest and obtuse. Next year you will come up with the
> same stupid argument and pretend you never heard all of this before.
I haven't heard anything.
>
>>>I also recall Stern discussing that Andy Warhol used to send homeless
>>>people in his place when he was supposed to receive an award or attend
>>>a gallery opening, so his bit was something of an updated version of
>>>that, except on the radio for a wider audience.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, did O&A rip off Stern or Warhol? Did Stern rip off Warhol?
>>
>>
> They ripped off stern Stern ripped off Warhol. The difference that you
> are refusing to acknowledge is that STERN CREDITED WARHOL, STERN
> CREDITED NATIONAL LAMPOON
.... *after* he was called out on it.
> and STERN CREDITED THE GREASY GUY IN MAINE
What he said could not be called "crediting".
> when he used their ideas. The clones are trying to pretend they are
> thinking up original ideas and it seems they have convinced the dumbest
> radio fans in the world that they haven't made an entire radio career
> out of copying Stern's act.
No, as you are clearly the dumbest radio fan in the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes I do, he mentioned National Lampoon when he was doing fartman
>>
>>
>> I owned the White Album and recognized it immediately when Stern
>> started doing it. I remember Stern acknowledged it once when a caller
>> brought it up (remember when Stern didn't screen calls?) but never when
>> he was promoting the script for the movie that wasn't to be or his
>> appearances.
>>
>>
> I wasn't religious about listening to Stern but I know for sure that he
> plugged National Lampoon
Now he didn't only "credit" NL but "plugged" them? That's rich. You're
one deluded fuck.
> and never used clonelike bullshit arguments
> like "No ... my fartman wears a yellow suit, National Lampoon's fartman
> had a red suit" Even as a casual listener who hadn't seen a National
> Lampoon since I was a pre-teen, I knew that Fartman came from National
> Lampoon. Do you know how I knew? Stern said it on the radio. Have you
> ever gotten that sort of honesty out of the clones when they have
> strippers on, make fun of people with speech impediments or do homeless
> gimmicks?
To pretend that Stern's show is "honest" is ridiculous even before the
even-more-ridiculous claim that the O&A show is not.
>
>
>>
>>>possibly when the movie talk started, and I remember thinking "I
>>>haven't seen a National Lampoon since I was 11 years old and my
>>>semi-retarded uncle had a subscription."
>>
>>
>> Are you trying to insult the National Lampoon? Its staffers and
>> founders created Animal House and Caddyshack, and pretty much the
>> entire opening cast of SNL was lifted from NatLamp's stage show.
>>
>>
> And it was sophmoric reading just like those movies are sophmoric films
You mean "sophomoric"?
And some of it was just silly but the good stuff was nothing of the
sort. I imagine you just didn't get it.
,
> my uncle was a retard and he chuckled his way through it every month. I
> graduated to other things by the time I was a teenager. I had nothing
> against the magazine and it was great fun for retards, I just outgrew it
> and didn't find it that funny after the age of 12. Your milage may vary.
>
>
>>>George Carlin shows are also on the radio, they are well covered in
>>>that medium as well as on TV. National Lampoon cartoons aren't covered
>>>on the radio unless someone like Stern does a bit related to it.
>>
>>
>> Go fuck yourself. National Lampoon had its own radio show (yes, before
>> Stern) and later a syndicated show, and tracks from their albums were
>> played on their own show and on other humor shows, with attribution.
>>
>>
> Just like Howard gave them credit for Fartman,
Stop fucking saying that. He did not give credit - he begrudgingly
admitted it when he was called out on it.
> unlike the clones who
> would have said "No ... our fartman has short hair, Stern's fartman had
> long hair ... it is completely different" I heard some of those bits on
> the old WLIR where they did "News Blimps", I prefered the Monty Python
> bits to the others.
>
> I never cared where Howard got his ideas and I found fartman to be an
> annoying bit. I was glad when he didn't make it into a movie, it was
> just too shallow and stupid.
>
>
>> So even your retarded logic that "if Stern copied something that wasn't
>> on the radio it's not copying" fails.
>>
>>
> That wasn't my logic at all
You're right. There was none.
>, you are trying to prolong your own death in
> this argument. You have tried to completely change my comparison of
> Stern's use of older material with the Clone's use of Stern's material.
> Howard did an occaisional bit that he lifted from someone, but he
> usually gave them credit and in some cases plugged their product. Like
> the guy who did those dopey "How's your whole ..... family" The clones
> have blatently copied their entire act from Howard and their fans (and
> them) will lie and swear that it is all original material
You keep bleating about "their whole act" and so forth - of all the
"hundreds" of bits that you're fucking whining about, why don't you
actually describe some (or even one) accurately in comparison to the one
you think it was lifted from.
Or just keep saying "all of it" and "hundreds" and "everybody knows" and
not have to back up anything you say.
I was a Stern fan for years. I'm an O&A fan. The shows are nothing
alike.
>. When you run
> out of lies you resort to trying to change the argument like you tried
> above. Like I said, enjoy your clone show, just don't pretend they
> originated any of the act they perform.
>
>> And again, since you're apparently too dense to read: the bit Stern
>> lifted - and *played* parts of on the air - *wasn't a cartoon*. It was
>> a track on an album.
>>
>>
> The whole fartman concept was lifted by stern and he gave them credit
> for it, like I said. If he played a track from an album (shocking that a
> radio personality would play a track from an album, right?)
Nice backtracking, shithead. Last post you didn't know it was from an
album.
And you're just digging yourself deeper: he played only the intro to the
album bit into his own Fartman shit, he didn't play the whole track from
the album like you'd play a comedy track on the radio.
> or redid the
> comic strip over the radio he didn't pretend that he invented it the way
> the clones will. See the difference yet?
He gave no credit for it - and he lifted it fucking VERBATIM - until he
was called out on it. Stern, on the other hand, would claim to have
invented the fart joke and call anyone making fart noises "clones".
>>
>>
>>
>>>As you already
>>>know, Stern gave credit to National Lampoon and plugged the magazine
>>>when people like me hadn't heard a word about it for 10 years. See how
>>>that is different from copying someone's original act and pretending
>>>you created it all yourself?
>>
>>
>> Stern pretends he created everything all by himself.
>
> But you admit that he gave credit to the Butt bongo guy and National
> Lampoon. How do you reconcile these lies?
I've said over and over that what he said about NL was not credit. And
he didn't even identify the fucking Butt Bongo guy's name - how can that
be credit?
>
>> Opie and Anthony
>> are edgier, they're far more self-deprecating, far more comedic, and
>> just plain not the same act. If you can't see that, you're an ass.
>> But we already knew that.
>>
>>
>>
> They do the same act, they are not edgier because Howard has already
> done everything they do,
You listen to them? You can't make claims like that unless you do - and,
if you did, you'd fucking well know that you're a sad, lifeless lunatic
devoted to a has-been once-funny guy.
> their edge is on Howard's coattails.
yeah? Tell me some of your favorite "edgy" stuff Stern has done.
> They are
> less self depreciating than Howard was in the 80's and 90's (back when
> the clones were listening to him every day) If they were honestly self
> depreciating
It's "deprecating".
> they would admit that they learned everything they know
> about doing a radio show from listening to Howard for 20 years before
> they got a chance to imitate him on their own show. If you can't admit
> that than you are just a lying shill.
Howard broke ground in FM talk ... by *talking*, by being irreverent
(very different than edgy), by taking down walls, and by having naked
women on the radio. Gregorio has credited him with as much.
>
>>
>> You just keep soaking in the fact that you didn't know what you were
>> talking about. And keep stammering about "clones" like Stern has since
>> time immemorial.
>>
>>
> I will, until they do a radio show that isn't a clone of Howard's act I
> will call them clones. You keep avoiding the fact that Howard did give
> credit when he used someone else's ideas, unlike the clones.
For the last time:
1. He lifted fartman and butt bongo VERBATIM
2. He did not "credit" them
3. Unlike his obvious and undeniable VERBATIM taking of those bits, the
bits you claim O&A "stole" have at most vague similarites "both have
homeless people". There is no comparison.
>
>>
>>>So he gave them credit, see what I mean? Back then a mention from stern
>>>was worth millions to a dying magazine
>>
>>
>> He didn't give them credit for it - unless you count mentioning it once
>> after being called out for pilfering it.
>>
>>
> He mentioned it more than once and he plugged the magazine enough that I
> know it was his favorite magazine as a kid
Wrong. He raved about *MAD* magazine, which was his favorite.
> and that Fartman came from
> them.
You didn't even know it was an audio track until half an hour ago,
shithead.
> WHen the clones get called on their imitation stern act, they
> still deny it. So even if your lies were true, Howard still wins.
I haven't seen you claim anything specific enough to confirm *or* deny.
>
>>>>>He did give them credit
>>>>>though, they may have threatened to sue him first, but I always
>>>>>remember that fartman came from Nat Lampoon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, you seem really aware of it - didn't even fucking know it was an
>>>>album track and not just in the mag.
>>>>
>>>>
> Unfortunately for you, I am not a retard,
Most retards don't know it.
> I outgrew National Lampoon
> when I was a teenager and never gave it another thought.
Then you didn't get any of it other than the dick jokes.
> So I am not the
> expert you are. Despite this, the point that Howard copied things and
> gave the originators credit is still true.
Being caught and called out isn't "giving credit".
> The fact that the clones
> imitate Howard and they and their fans will lie and twist the facts to
> deny it is also true.
>
>
>>>>
>>>I didn't care that much, I stopped reading the magazine when I was 11
>>>and it seemed too stupid.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, National Lampoon was stupid and Stern invented everything. Your
>> entertainment sense is extraordinarily dull.
>
> Another stupid lie from you.
What is the lie?
> Do you even realize that you are lying? In
> this very post I agreed that Howard got fartman from National Lampoon,
> the homeless gimmick from Warhol and the butt bongo bit from another
> radio guy. Are you this desperate to change someone's mind about your
> little clone show? Do you have any self respect? Do your clone show pals
> agree with your obvious unreconcilable lies? You seem completely
> witless, I can understand your obsession with pre-teen humor a little
> better now.
>
>
>> NatLamp was hysterical, whether or not a simp like you "got it". It
>> was some of the most biting social satire in our country's history, and
>> it launched more comedy careers than you can count on your fingers and
>> toes.
>>
>>
> It was funny to me when I was 11, my retarded uncle loved it until he
> was in his 50s, are you such an asshole that you can't understand ANYONE
> disagreeing with you about ANYTHING? I think you are.
National Lampoon was more adult, more serious in its satire and in its
message than the Stern show has ever been. If you think you outgrew it,
you just didn't get it.
>
>>
>>>I used to flip through them once in awhile to see the tits when I was
>>>12 but I outgrew the magazine by then.
>>
>>
>> No, you're still not grown *into* it.
>>
>>
> No, I am a lot smarter than you are, after 12 I lost interest in it. I
> will guess that I was smarter at 12 than you are now but I am sure that
> will set off a chain reaction of obsessive behavior that will involve
> posting paychecks, looking up the value of my house and submitting 5th
> grade report cards to mediators.
Huh? I'm on the record here as opposing any invasion or intrusion of
personal or private lives here.
What specific ones are in this thread? And "I remember this one time"
doesn't count.
> and in this newsgroup over the
> past 9 years. Nothing you could understand I guess, maybe you should get
> back to your foto funnies, online investigations and Mensa meetings.
Online investigations? I don't go to the meetings.
x...@xxx.com
>>
>>The homeless bits for starters, but you already knew that
>
>
>
> No, what I know is that you dickholes claim that any humor involving a
> bum is derivative of and stolen from Stern, which is sheer douchebaggery.
>
No, the radio bits done by the clones involving homeless people and
people with speech impediments are perfect examples of the clones
imitating Stern's act.
> Stern didn't do anything like HSS. Nothing involving putting the
> homeless where rich people shop, nothing involving the homeless that the
> audience could directly participate in. Nothing.
>
He did many similar things with the homeless over the years, just
because he didn't put them on a bus doesn't negatge the fact that the
clones weren't regurgitating an old Stern bit when they did their thing.
Next will they do "ass conga party" except they will do it in a cab so
nobody can claim they copied it from Stern?
>
>
>>. For the other
>>2 or 3 thousand examples check the archives in this very newsgroup. It
>>is a subject that has been beaten to death only to be revived by clone
>>show imbeciles every year as if it has never been discussed before.
>
>
> You point to a newsgroup full (well, less full, now that I think about
> it) of late-to-the-party, fans of Stern in his current iteration, who say
> fucking stupid things like "Stern invented the homeless shopping spree"
> as a reference? Please.
>
No he did funny things with the homeless, the clones imitated him and
put them on a bus for a less funny completely unshocking, and boring
bit. It was dull because it was already done by Howard so 15 years later
the homeless don't have the shock or humor value they had when the bit
was original (back when the clones were listening to Howard every day)
Don't think I didn't notice your lie at the end there though, it is
getting pathetic how desperate you are to defend a stern clone show
rather than admit they are doing his show with 3 guys.
>
>>Their use of sound effects would be another rich area for you to
>>research. I'm sure you'll notice the similarities,
>
>
> No, I don't. Other than that they both use sound effects, which were
> invented before Stern was born.
>
then you are either a liar or a complete dolt.
>
>>you'll lie and
>>pretend they didn't copy it all from Stern but at least you can look at
>>the evidence.
>
>
>
> If you'd fucking provide some, I'll tell you what I think. Otherwise, so
> far it's you babbling something stupid, me asking you to support it, and
> you telling me to go find it myself.
>
I've provided more than enough, if I started googling for you I'd be as
obsessive and stupid as you. You can review the evidence without my
help. Their entire show is based on the show howard did for 20 years
before they came along, complete with sound effects and movie clips for
punctuation. Did they decide to do that while still living in their
skinner's box or did they copy the idea from the guy they listened to
religiously for 20 years? Why can't they give Stern credit for their act
the way Stern gave credit to National Lampoon?
>>
>>Turning homeless people loose among non homeless people is the gimmick.
>
>
> Says you. If you've been to the Short Hills Mall you'd see the upscale
> part of it, which you're ignoring. But:
>
>
>>Stern did it for years
>
>
> When? Stop with the vague generalites and fucking say something.
>
He turned homeless people on regular people every year. Some of those
people were upscale some were guests in the studio, again just another
idea copied and slightly edited by the clones so they could claim "We
put them on a bus and sent them to a mall to sing christmas carols ...
Howard only send them outside a restaurant to sing christmas carols !!!
see how original that is?"
>>
>>They ripped off stern Stern ripped off Warhol. The difference that you
>>are refusing to acknowledge is that STERN CREDITED WARHOL, STERN
>>CREDITED NATIONAL LAMPOON
>
>
> .... *after* he was called out on it.
>
No, he talked about it first then did it, nobody called him on copying
Warhol. Another lie from you, shocking.
>
>
>>and STERN CREDITED THE GREASY GUY IN MAINE
>
>
> What he said could not be called "crediting".
>
He gave him credit for the bit before lifting it, more than the clones
ever did and they imitate Howard's entire act from the 90s.
>
>>when he used their ideas. The clones are trying to pretend they are
>>thinking up original ideas and it seems they have convinced the dumbest
>>radio fans in the world that they haven't made an entire radio career
>>out of copying Stern's act.
>
>
> No, as you are clearly the dumbest radio fan in the world.
>
From someone with your obsessive need to lie and ignore facts, it is
hard to take an insult from you seriously.
>>
>>I wasn't religious about listening to Stern but I know for sure that he
>>plugged National Lampoon
>
>
> Now he didn't only "credit" NL but "plugged" them? That's rich. You're
> one deluded fuck.
>
He plugged them plenty, enough that his fans knew NL was his favorite
magazine as a kid and that he shared the magazine with his kids.
>
>
>>and never used clonelike bullshit arguments
>>like "No ... my fartman wears a yellow suit, National Lampoon's fartman
>>had a red suit" Even as a casual listener who hadn't seen a National
>>Lampoon since I was a pre-teen, I knew that Fartman came from National
>>Lampoon. Do you know how I knew? Stern said it on the radio. Have you
>>ever gotten that sort of honesty out of the clones when they have
>>strippers on, make fun of people with speech impediments or do homeless
>>gimmicks?
>
>
> To pretend that Stern's show is "honest" is ridiculous even before the
> even-more-ridiculous claim that the O&A show is not.
>
>
It is a show, but his act is mostly his own. The clones are doing a show
as well, except their show was done first by Stern in the 90s. If they
were the slightest bit honest they could admit that they copied 90% of
their act from Stern and developed their show while listening to Stern
for 20 years. Not only LISTENING but being super fanboys who tried to
get on the show as wackpackers.
>>
>>And it was sophmoric reading just like those movies are sophmoric films
>
>
> You mean "sophomoric"?
>
> And some of it was just silly but the good stuff was nothing of the
> sort. I imagine you just didn't get it.
>
I imagine you are not smart enough to know what I get, don't get, find
amusing or don't find amusing and you are just being obtuse when you
pretend that you know anything.
>>
>>Just like Howard gave them credit for Fartman,
>
>
> Stop fucking saying that. He did not give credit - he begrudgingly
> admitted it when he was called out on it.
>
Hence they got credit and listeners like me know the origin of fartman.
So he gave them credit unlike the clones who lie and twist the truth
rather than admit they lifted anything from Stern even thought their
entire show is a copy of his.
>
>
>>unlike the clones who
>>would have said "No ... our fartman has short hair, Stern's fartman had
>>long hair ... it is completely different" I heard some of those bits on
>>the old WLIR where they did "News Blimps", I prefered the Monty Python
>>bits to the others.
>>
>>I never cared where Howard got his ideas and I found fartman to be an
>>annoying bit. I was glad when he didn't make it into a movie, it was
>>just too shallow and stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>>>So even your retarded logic that "if Stern copied something that wasn't
>>>on the radio it's not copying" fails.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That wasn't my logic at all
>
>
> You're right. There was none.
>
No, there was just you lying some more, you tried to misrepresent what I
said because you have no argument that isn't a complete lie. Thats a
step up from the lying at least.
>
>>, you are trying to prolong your own death in
>>this argument. You have tried to completely change my comparison of
>>Stern's use of older material with the Clone's use of Stern's material.
>>Howard did an occaisional bit that he lifted from someone, but he
>>usually gave them credit and in some cases plugged their product. Like
>>the guy who did those dopey "How's your whole ..... family" The clones
>>have blatently copied their entire act from Howard and their fans (and
>>them) will lie and swear that it is all original material
>
>
>
> You keep bleating about "their whole act" and so forth - of all the
> "hundreds" of bits that you're fucking whining about, why don't you
> actually describe some (or even one) accurately in comparison to the one
> you think it was lifted from.
>
They have been listed here hundreds of times and you were
(obsessively)involved in EVERY thread so I know you have seen the examples.
> Or just keep saying "all of it" and "hundreds" and "everybody knows" and
> not have to back up anything you say.
>
> I was a Stern fan for years. I'm an O&A fan. The shows are nothing
> alike.
>
>
One is a copy of the other, they are exactly alike except with different
performers.
>>
>>The whole fartman concept was lifted by stern and he gave them credit
>>for it, like I said. If he played a track from an album (shocking that a
>>radio personality would play a track from an album, right?)
>
>
> Nice backtracking, shithead. Last post you didn't know it was from an
> album.
>
And I still don't know or care, I am taking your word as an obsessive
nutcase that it was from an album. Nice try at changing the subject though.
> And you're just digging yourself deeper: he played only the intro to the
> album bit into his own Fartman shit, he didn't play the whole track from
> the album like you'd play a comedy track on the radio.
>
>
And? He gave National Lampoon credit. He liked the bit, he copied it and
gave the magazine credit for it. See how the clones are different?
>
>
>
>>or redid the
>>comic strip over the radio he didn't pretend that he invented it the way
>>the clones will. See the difference yet?
>
>
> He gave no credit for it - and he lifted it fucking VERBATIM - until he
> was called out on it. Stern, on the other hand, would claim to have
> invented the fart joke and call anyone making fart noises "clones".
>
He gave them credit, I knew where the bit came from and I wasn't nearly
as obsessive about things as you. Plus I hadn't heard anything about the
magazine in years, because he gave them credit for the bit. Something
the clones and their fans will lie and twist the truth for 10 full years
to avoid doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Stern pretends he created everything all by himself.
>>
>>But you admit that he gave credit to the Butt bongo guy and National
>>Lampoon. How do you reconcile these lies?
>
>
> I've said over and over that what he said about NL was not credit. And
> he didn't even identify the fucking Butt Bongo guy's name - how can that
> be credit?
>
If you credit someone for originating something, you are giving them
credit. Stern gave them credit and plugged the magazine. Plus he didn't
pretend he invented the butt bongo thing, he told his listeners up front
where he got the idea. Since you are an asbergers stricken nutcase you
can differentiate between giving proper attribution and NOT taking
credit for someone else's idea. For a guy defending a complete clone of
a radio show, I don't think that nuance is very important.
>
>>> Opie and Anthony
>>>are edgier, they're far more self-deprecating, far more comedic, and
>>>just plain not the same act. If you can't see that, you're an ass.
>>>But we already knew that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>They do the same act, they are not edgier because Howard has already
>>done everything they do,
>
>
> You listen to them? You can't make claims like that unless you do - and,
> if you did, you'd fucking well know that you're a sad, lifeless lunatic
> devoted to a has-been once-funny guy.
>
I'm not devoted to anything you sad, sedentary obsessed pile of blubber.
You spend 8 hours a day listening to your radio friends another few
hours arguing about them with anyone who is willing to engage you. I
listen to both shows once in awhile and prefer the commercial free music
stations. You are the obsessed nutcase who blows a fuse every time
someone mentions the obvious about your clone radio heroes. Do you
really want to compare personality disorders? Or would you rather get to
work posting your paycheck, looking up median home values in my
neighborhood and finding out where my kids go to school?
>
>
>
>>their edge is on Howard's coattails.
>
>
> yeah? Tell me some of your favorite "edgy" stuff Stern has done.
No thanks, you are an unpleasant, loudmouthed asshole, I'm not bored
enough to start a new tangent.
>
>>They are
>>less self depreciating than Howard was in the 80's and 90's (back when
>>the clones were listening to him every day) If they were honestly self
>>depreciating
>
>
> It's "deprecating".
>
Good boy, did that satisfy your ocd for a moment? See what I mean about
you being an unpleasant asshole?
>
>
>>they would admit that they learned everything they know
>>about doing a radio show from listening to Howard for 20 years before
>>they got a chance to imitate him on their own show. If you can't admit
>>that than you are just a lying shill.
>
>
> Howard broke ground in FM talk ... by *talking*, by being irreverent
> (very different than edgy), by taking down walls, and by having naked
> women on the radio. Gregorio has credited him with as much.
>
Has he admitted to patterning his show, act and career after Howard's
show? When he does that I will give him honesty points.
>>
>>I will, until they do a radio show that isn't a clone of Howard's act I
>>will call them clones. You keep avoiding the fact that Howard did give
>>credit when he used someone else's ideas, unlike the clones.
>
>
> For the last time:
>
> 1. He lifted fartman and butt bongo VERBATIM
> 2. He did not "credit" them
> 3. Unlike his obvious and undeniable VERBATIM taking of those bits, the
> bits you claim O&A "stole" have at most vague similarites "both have
> homeless people". There is no comparison.
>
He lifted those bits and credited the originators and/or did not claim
he was the inventor of those bits. The clones copied Stern's homeless
bits and claim they are the originators of it and do not give Howard
credit for the material they copied. There is no comparison, Howard was
somewhat professional about it and the clones were unprofessional stern
imitators.
>
>>
>>He mentioned it more than once and he plugged the magazine enough that I
>>know it was his favorite magazine as a kid
>
>
> Wrong. He raved about *MAD* magazine, which was his favorite.
>
>
>
>>and that Fartman came from
>>them.
>
>
> You didn't even know it was an audio track until half an hour ago,
> shithead.
>
I still don't know that it is, I am taking your word for it and you are
a proven liar and psychotic. So it is still a 50/50 chance to me. That
aside, he did give credit to the magazine so whatever form he used on
his show was credited to them and he did not try to take credit for
originating the bit. You see how clone fans like you and the clones are
different? If the clones used fartman and were called on it they would
say "Our fartman went on a bus .... their fartman flew .... see how
original we are?"
>
>
>>WHen the clones get called on their imitation stern act, they
>>still deny it. So even if your lies were true, Howard still wins.
>
>
> I haven't seen you claim anything specific enough to confirm *or* deny.
>
>
Yes you have, you just choose to ignore those things and carry on with
your idiotic ranting.
>>
>>Unfortunately for you, I am not a retard,
>
>
> Most retards don't know it.
>
Most retards would know it, they would have collected the magazines and
had copies of the albums and then they would sit in a newsgroup arguing
about it 25 years later.
>
>>I outgrew National Lampoon
>>when I was a teenager and never gave it another thought.
>
>
> Then you didn't get any of it other than the dick jokes.
>
I got it all, I just moved on to other things. Obviously you don't
understand how growing up works, you are still obsessed with the same
stupid 12 year old's things at 40. Most people don't hang on that long
or that tight. My uncle was retarded by today's standards, we understood
why he kept up his interest all those years. Like I said, you are just
an unpleasant asshole you freaks out when someone doesn't share your
opinion.
>
>
>>So I am not the
>>expert you are. Despite this, the point that Howard copied things and
>>gave the originators credit is still true.
>
>
> Being caught and called out isn't "giving credit".
>
>
Yes it is. Being caught and denying it would be what the clones try to do.
>>
>>Another stupid lie from you.
>
>
> What is the lie?
>
You don't even realize you are doing it anymore, do you? Are you so
sputtering mad that you can't even keep track of your own opinions and lies?
>
>
> National Lampoon was more adult, more serious in its satire and in its
> message than the Stern show has ever been. If you think you outgrew it,
> you just didn't get it.
>
I never claimed any comparison to the Stern show, that is just another
lie from you. I did claim that I outgrew the magazine when I became a
teenager, I was no longer interested in reading it. Unlike you, I
understood the magazine just fine at age 12, based on your logic and
reading comprehension in these threads I will guess that you don't
really understand it all yet.
>>
>>No, I am a lot smarter than you are, after 12 I lost interest in it. I
>>will guess that I was smarter at 12 than you are now but I am sure that
>>will set off a chain reaction of obsessive behavior that will involve
>>posting paychecks, looking up the value of my house and submitting 5th
>>grade report cards to mediators.
>
>
> Huh? I'm on the record here as opposing any invasion or intrusion of
> personal or private lives here.
>
Except when you want to post your paycheck, research someone's house
value, go on about someone's homelife, wife and employment. I can see
that your self realization skills are as weak as your logic.
>>
>>Except the ones listed in this thread
>
>
> What specific ones are in this thread? And "I remember this one time"
> doesn't count.
>
There were 3, either you are lying that you didn't see them or you
really are stupid.
KK
> KK wrote:
>>>
>>>The homeless bits for starters, but you already knew that
>>
>>
>>
>> No, what I know is that you dickholes claim that any humor involving a
>> bum is derivative of and stolen from Stern, which is sheer
>> douchebaggery.
>>
>>
> No, the radio bits done by the clones involving homeless people and
> people with speech impediments are perfect examples of the clones
> imitating Stern's act.
So, any entertainment involving homeless people is theft. Gotcha. You
really can't see that's vague bullshit?
>> Stern didn't do anything like HSS. Nothing involving putting the
>> homeless where rich people shop, nothing involving the homeless that
>> the audience could directly participate in. Nothing.
>>
>>
> He did many similar things with the homeless over the years,
S P E C I F I C S Please. Even Jimmy isn't this deluded.
> just
> because he didn't put them on a bus doesn't negatge the fact that the
> clones weren't regurgitating an old Stern bit when they did their thing.
> Next will they do "ass conga party" except they will do it in a cab so
> nobody can claim they copied it from Stern?
No, but if someone does it will be "copied" from some radio show in Maine,
not Stern.
>
>
>>>. For the other
>>>2 or 3 thousand examples check the archives in this very newsgroup. It
>>>is a subject that has been beaten to death only to be revived by clone
>>>show imbeciles every year as if it has never been discussed before.
>>
>>
>> You point to a newsgroup full (well, less full, now that I think about
>> it) of late-to-the-party, fans of Stern in his current iteration, who
>> say fucking stupid things like "Stern invented the homeless shopping
>> spree" as a reference? Please.
>>
>>
> No he did funny things with the homeless
S P E C I F I C S
> the clones imitated him and
> put them on a bus for a less funny completely unshocking, and boring
> bit. It was dull because it was already done by Howard so 15 years later
> the homeless don't have the shock or humor value they had when the bit
> was original (back when the clones were listening to Howard every day)
>
> Don't think I didn't notice your lie at the end there though, it is
> getting pathetic how desperate you are to defend a stern clone show
> rather than admit they are doing his show with 3 guys.
What lie?
>>>Their use of sound effects would be another rich area for you to
>>>research. I'm sure you'll notice the similarities,
>>
>>
>> No, I don't. Other than that they both use sound effects, which were
>> invented before Stern was born.
>>
>>
> then you are either a liar or a complete dolt.
You think there were no sound effects on the radio before Stern? Fucking
say something.
>>>you'll lie and
>>>pretend they didn't copy it all from Stern but at least you can look at
>>>the evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you'd fucking provide some, I'll tell you what I think. Otherwise,
>> so far it's you babbling something stupid, me asking you to support it,
>> and you telling me to go find it myself.
>>
>>
> I've provided more than enough
You've provided shit.
>, if I started googling for you I'd be as
> obsessive and stupid as you.
Well, go one more step back and don't fucking make retarded claims that
you have no intention of supporting - to the extent that your fucking lazy
ass (just like Jimmy) won't bother to fucking Google something you insist
is right. You'll fucking post ad nauseum with the same shit over and over
again, but typing in that little search field is what's obsessive, right?
Okay.
> You can review the evidence without my help.
It's not my job to research your bullshit. You claim something, the onus
is on you to support it. This is third-grade logic.
> Their entire show is based on the show howard did for 20 years before
> they came along,
Repeating something fifty times doesn't make it any more true.
> complete with sound effects and movie clips for
> punctuation. Did they decide to do that while still living in their
> skinner's box or did they copy the idea from the guy they listened to
> religiously for 20 years? Why can't they give Stern credit for their act
> the way Stern gave credit to National Lampoon?
As I said, and as you promptly ignored, they've credited Stern
appropriately. Stop fucking saying Stern "credited" Lampoon, because he
didn't.
>
>
>>>Turning homeless people loose among non homeless people is the gimmick.
>>
>>
>> Says you. If you've been to the Short Hills Mall you'd see the upscale
>> part of it, which you're ignoring. But:
>>
>>
>>>Stern did it for years
>>
>>
>> When? Stop with the vague generalites and fucking say something.
>>
>>
> He turned homeless people on regular people every year. Some of those
> people were upscale some were guests in the studio, again just another
> idea copied and slightly edited by the clones so they could claim "We
> put them on a bus and sent them to a mall to sing christmas carols ...
> Howard only send them outside a restaurant to sing christmas carols !!!
> see how original that is?"
They weren't sent to a mall to sing christmas carols.
>
>>>They ripped off stern Stern ripped off Warhol. The difference that you
>>>are refusing to acknowledge is that STERN CREDITED WARHOL, STERN
>>>CREDITED NATIONAL LAMPOON
>>
>>
>> .... *after* he was called out on it.
>>
>>
> No, he talked about it first then did it, nobody called him on copying
> Warhol. Another lie from you, shocking.
No. Stern did not introduce Fartman as a NL bit. He acknowledged NL
*after* he was called out on it.
>
>
>
>>>and STERN CREDITED THE GREASY GUY IN MAINE
>>
>>
>> What he said could not be called "crediting".
>>
>>
> He gave him credit for the bit before lifting it, more than the clones
> ever did and they imitate Howard's entire act from the 90s.
Didn't even give his fucking name.
>
>>>when he used their ideas. The clones are trying to pretend they are
>>>thinking up original ideas and it seems they have convinced the dumbest
>>>radio fans in the world that they haven't made an entire radio career
>>>out of copying Stern's act.
>>
>>
>> No, as you are clearly the dumbest radio fan in the world.
>>
>>
> From someone with your obsessive need to lie and ignore facts, it is
> hard to take an insult from you seriously.
>
>
>>>I wasn't religious about listening to Stern but I know for sure that he
>>>plugged National Lampoon
>>
>>
>> Now he didn't only "credit" NL but "plugged" them? That's rich. You're
>> one deluded fuck.
>>
>>
> He plugged them plenty, enough that his fans knew NL was his favorite
> magazine as a kid and that he shared the magazine with his kids.
Wrong. It was Mad magazine that was his favorite. Apparently I'm more
of a Stern (then) fan than you are.
>
>
>>>and never used clonelike bullshit arguments like "No ... my fartman
>>>wears a yellow suit, National Lampoon's fartman had a red suit" Even as
>>>a casual listener who hadn't seen a National Lampoon since I was a
>>>pre-teen, I knew that Fartman came from National Lampoon. Do you know
>>>how I knew? Stern said it on the radio. Have you ever gotten that sort
>>>of honesty out of the clones when they have strippers on, make fun of
>>>people with speech impediments or do homeless gimmicks?
>>
>>
>> To pretend that Stern's show is "honest" is ridiculous even before the
>> even-more-ridiculous claim that the O&A show is not.
>>
>>
>>
> It is a show, but his act is mostly his own. The clones are doing a show
> as well, except their show was done first by Stern in the 90s. If they
> were the slightest bit honest they could admit that they copied 90% of
> their act from Stern and developed their show while listening to Stern
> for 20 years. Not only LISTENING but being super fanboys who tried to
> get on the show as wackpackers.
>
>
>>>And it was sophmoric reading just like those movies are sophmoric films
>>
>>
>> You mean "sophomoric"?
>>
>> And some of it was just silly but the good stuff was nothing of the
>> sort. I imagine you just didn't get it.
>>
>>
> I imagine you are not smart enough to know what I get, don't get, find
> amusing or don't find amusing and you are just being obtuse when you
> pretend that you know anything.
No: if you believe that you've "outgrown" National Lampoon (pre-1984)
but that the Stern show is adult, thoughtful, comedy, then you can't
possibly have understoon most of the stuff in NL. Period.
Lazy liar.
>
>> Or just keep saying "all of it" and "hundreds" and "everybody knows"
>> and not have to back up anything you say.
>>
>> I was a Stern fan for years. I'm an O&A fan. The shows are nothing
>> alike.
>>
>>
>>
> One is a copy of the other, they are exactly alike except with different
> performers.
>
>
>>>The whole fartman concept was lifted by stern and he gave them credit
>>>for it, like I said. If he played a track from an album (shocking that
>>>a radio personality would play a track from an album, right?)
>>
>>
>> Nice backtracking, shithead. Last post you didn't know it was from an
>> album.
>>
>>
> And I still don't know or care, I am taking your word as an obsessive
> nutcase that it was from an album. Nice try at changing the subject
> though.
>
>> And you're just digging yourself deeper: he played only the intro to
>> the album bit into his own Fartman shit, he didn't play the whole track
>> from the album like you'd play a comedy track on the radio.
>>
>>
>>
> And? He gave National Lampoon credit. He liked the bit, he copied it and
> gave the magazine credit for it. See how the clones are different?
I've replied to the lie that he "credited" NL enough.
(repeated shit)
>>>> Opie and Anthony
>>>>are edgier, they're far more self-deprecating, far more comedic, and
>>>>just plain not the same act. If you can't see that, you're an ass.
>>>>But we already knew that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>They do the same act, they are not edgier because Howard has already
>>>done everything they do,
>>
>>
>> You listen to them? You can't make claims like that unless you do -
>> and, if you did, you'd fucking well know that you're a sad, lifeless
>> lunatic devoted to a has-been once-funny guy.
>>
>>
> I'm not devoted to anything you sad, sedentary obsessed pile of blubber.
You fucking reply to every word I write, and defend a washed-up old guy
who isn't funny anymore. You're obsessed and demonstrably intelectually
sedentary.
> You spend 8 hours a day listening to your radio friends another few
> hours
they're on 8 hours a day?
> arguing about them with anyone who is willing to engage you. I
> listen to both shows once in awhile and prefer the commercial free music
> stations. You are the obsessed nutcase who blows a fuse every time
> someone mentions the obvious about your clone radio heroes.
Even Stern hasn't called anyone a "clone" for ten years. And if you
think you're blowing a fuse any less than I am here, you're even more of
an idiot than I thought.
> Do you
> really want to compare personality disorders? Or would you rather get to
> work posting your paycheck, looking up median home values in my
> neighborhood and finding out where my kids go to school?
If you claim that I'm poor, and I offer to post my pay stub, that's not a
personality disorder - it's respect for the truth. If you tell me I'm a
loser and that you live in a better neighborhood than me, and you've told
the newsgroup where you live, looking up that neighborhood isn't a
"disorder".
I never said shit about anyone's kids.
>
>
>>
>>>their edge is on Howard's coattails.
>>
>>
>> yeah? Tell me some of your favorite "edgy" stuff Stern has done.
>
> No thanks, you are an unpleasant, loudmouthed asshole, I'm not bored
> enough to start a new tangent.
It wouldn't be a tangent - it would be something solid to back up the
drivel you've leaked out over this thread's lifespan.
>
>
>>>They are
>>>less self depreciating than Howard was in the 80's and 90's (back when
>>>the clones were listening to him every day) If they were honestly self
>>>depreciating
>>
>>
>> It's "deprecating".
>>
>>
> Good boy, did that satisfy your ocd for a moment? See what I mean about
> you being an unpleasant asshole?
It's not OCD to point out that you're an idiot. You missed "sophomoric"
before, also.
>
>
>
>
>>>they would admit that they learned everything they know about doing a
>>>radio show from listening to Howard for 20 years before they got a
>>>chance to imitate him on their own show. If you can't admit that than
>>>you are just a lying shill.
>>
>>
>> Howard broke ground in FM talk ... by *talking*, by being irreverent
>> (very different than edgy), by taking down walls, and by having naked
>> women on the radio. Gregorio has credited him with as much.
>>
>>
> Has he admitted to patterning his show, act and career after Howard's
> show? When he does that I will give him honesty points.
He didn't do any of those things.
>
>>>I will, until they do a radio show that isn't a clone of Howard's act I
>>>will call them clones. You keep avoiding the fact that Howard did give
>>>credit when he used someone else's ideas, unlike the clones.
>>
>>
>> For the last time:
>>
>> 1. He lifted fartman and butt bongo VERBATIM 2. He did not "credit"
>> them
>> 3. Unlike his obvious and undeniable VERBATIM taking of those bits, the
>> bits you claim O&A "stole" have at most vague similarites "both have
>> homeless people". There is no comparison.
>>
( .... )
>
>>>He mentioned it more than once and he plugged the magazine enough that
>>>I know it was his favorite magazine as a kid
>>
>>
>> Wrong. He raved about *MAD* magazine, which was his favorite.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>>and that Fartman came from
>>>them.
>>
>>
>> You didn't even know it was an audio track until half an hour ago,
>> shithead.
>>
>>
> I still don't know that it is,
Look up the album, you lazy piece of shit. And if you don't/didn't know
that, then everything you've said about "credit" and knowing about the
bit and where it came from is completely, 100% bullshit.
lab~rat >:-)
>I didn't care that much, I stopped reading the magazine when I was 11
>and it seemed too stupid
Congratulations, you're the first person I've ever heard that didn't
like National Lampoon. Maybe it was your age, but still, your taste
is in your ass...
x...@xxx.com
I can't imagine how full your life is that you would ask that question
of people you meet. Since you obviously can't read very well I will
explain it to you, I DID like the magazine when I was a kid, when I
became a teenager I had other interests and no longer bothered with it.
lab~rat >:-)
When I was 11, I liked pulling girls' hair and eating a whole pack of
gum at once. It's cool that you're such an intellectual that the
notion of college-oriented humor was below you. On the down side,
it's made you a humorless jackass with a shitty personality.
Seriously, just sitting here I can recall a cartoon about adult
palindrome theaters showing "Solo Gigolos" and "Madam I'm Adam". Plus
a note in the letters section that asked "Aren't you glad they didn't
name him Alexander Graham Airraidsiren?".
What did you think was funny? Monty Python or some stupid shit like
that?
x...@xxx.com
Do you miss the point constantly because you are stupid or do you just
want to argue? I've repeated myself several times in this thread and you
still completely miss the point and go into attack mode. I never said I
didn't find it funny. I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became
a teenager. If you were buying and reading a magazine for palindromes
and dopey letters like that then you really are in no position to judge
who has a sense of humor. If I recall, we played around with palindromes
in 3rd grade and I recall being pretty amused by them. Not so much in my
teens.
Just because you didn't outgrow it is no reason to become defensive.
I'll guess that by slow witted hillbilly standards I might be considered
humorless, but thankfully I am miles away from any place where those
standards are common.
Drumrboy
> I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became
> a teenager. If you were buying and reading a magazine for palindromes
> and dopey letters like that then you really are in no position to judge
> who has a sense of humor. If I recall, we played around with palindromes
> in 3rd grade and I recall being pretty amused by them. Not so much in my
> teens.
Yet you haven't outgrown dick and fart jokes, not to mention gay porn,
on the radio.
Let me guess, you FF past those parts?
Seriously, A Stern fan pointing fingers at someone else's "lowbrow"
humor is laughable.
x...@xxx.com
> On Jan 5, 12:02 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became
>>a teenager. If you were buying and reading a magazine for palindromes
>>and dopey letters like that then you really are in no position to judge
>>who has a sense of humor. If I recall, we played around with palindromes
>>in 3rd grade and I recall being pretty amused by them. Not so much in my
>>teens.
>
>
> Yet you haven't outgrown dick and fart jokes, not to mention gay porn,
> on the radio.
>
Do you have even one of your own ideas? Do you just spout cliches as an
answer to every question? First, your response has nothing to do with
what is being discussed and 2nd you have no idea what you are talking
about or what I listen to on the radio. You could have read some of the
posts in the thread before going into auto cliche mode, but that would
require independent thought.
> Let me guess, you FF past those parts?
>
> Seriously, A Stern fan pointing fingers at someone else's "lowbrow"
> humor is laughable.
You totally misread what I wrote, you just saw your little usenet pal
getting defensive and jumped in to parrot his dopey argument. If you
could post a cliche free response that even hints that you understand
the discussion I would explain it (again)
Drumrboy
Pipe down Juke box boy. If I want any shit out of you I'll squeeze
your head. Shouldn't you be studying for your law degree?
Drumrboy
> Drumrboy wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 12:02 pm, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >>I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became
> >>a teenager. If you were buying and reading a magazine for palindromes
> >>and dopey letters like that then you really are in no position to judge
> >>who has a sense of humor. If I recall, we played around with palindromes
> >>in 3rd grade and I recall being pretty amused by them. Not so much in my
> >>teens.
>
> > Yet you haven't outgrown dick and fart jokes, not to mention gay porn,
> > on the radio.
>
> Do you have even one of your own ideas? Do you just spout cliches as an
> answer to every question? First, your response has nothing to do with
> what is being discussed and 2nd you have no idea what you are talking
> about or what I listen to on the radio. You could have read some of the
> posts in the thread before going into auto cliche mode, but that would
> require independent thought.
Let's see...
You stated: "I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became a
teenager."
I stated: "Yet you haven't outgrown dick and fart jokes, not to
mention gay porn, on the radio."
See how that works, Jackass? Fuck, you closet faggots are touchy.
> > Let me guess, you FF past those parts?
>
> > Seriously, A Stern fan pointing fingers at someone else's "lowbrow"
> > humor is laughable.
>
> You totally misread what I wrote, you just saw your little usenet pal
> getting defensive and jumped in to parrot his dopey argument. If you
> could post a cliche free response that even hints that you understand
> the discussion I would explain it (again)
I understand the conversation just fine, Jackass, It's right here in
black and white.
"I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became a teenager."
Yet you still listen to dick and fart jokes. Most of us have outgrown
that in the 6th grade. You commenting on someones lowbrow sense of
humor makes You a hypocrite, no big deal.
PS: (This is where you try to move the goal posts again)
lab~rat >:-)
I didn't miss the point at all. You don't care for National Lampoon.
>I've repeated myself several times in this thread and you
>still completely miss the point and go into attack mode. I never said I
>didn't find it funny.
Maybe you should articulate yourself a little better. You said you
didn't care for it. You said you looked at it to see tits. You never
said you found it funny.
>I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became
>a teenager. If you were buying and reading a magazine for palindromes
>and dopey letters like that then you really are in no position to judge
>who has a sense of humor. If I recall, we played around with palindromes
>in 3rd grade and I recall being pretty amused by them. Not so much in my
>teens.
Yeah, but in your teens you were still buying magazines to see tits
because girls thought you were a humorless douche and that's the only
way you could see them. Meanwhile, I used those immature magazines,
along with MAD and Cracked and a hundred others to sculpt and nurture
a sense of humor rife with parody and satire that worked awesome on
the fairer sex. I consider it one of my better investments in myself.
>Just because you didn't outgrow it is no reason to become defensive.
>I'll guess that by slow witted hillbilly standards I might be considered
>humorless, but thankfully I am miles away from any place where those
>standards are common.
Ok, so I guess I haven't matured into the new and improved Howard
Stern humor and am still stuck laughing at clever plays on words
instead. Maybe when I'm in my 50's I'll be grown up enough to get a
kick out of ball shaving and taint sniffing.
lab~rat >:-)
I find it funny that you have to repeatedly tell us what the
discussion is about and how we misread what we wrote and how we are
dumb for not understanding what you meant while the common denominator
is you not getting your intended message across.
Work on that before you criticize us.
lab~rat >:-)
>oh damn, he's going to be limping from his other leg after that one!
Who rattled your treefort?
x...@xxx.com
>
> Let's see...
>
> You stated: "I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became a
> teenager."
>
> I stated: "Yet you haven't outgrown dick and fart jokes, not to
> mention gay porn, on the radio."
>
> See how that works, Jackass? Fuck, you closet faggots are touchy.
>
It doesn't work, that was my point. You missed the entire point of the
discussion and just jumped in with the same "dick and fart jokes" cliche
you use 100 times a month.
>
>>>Let me guess, you FF past those parts?
>>
>>>Seriously, A Stern fan pointing fingers at someone else's "lowbrow"
>>>humor is laughable.
>>
>>You totally misread what I wrote, you just saw your little usenet pal
>>getting defensive and jumped in to parrot his dopey argument. If you
>>could post a cliche free response that even hints that you understand
>>the discussion I would explain it (again)
>
>
> I understand the conversation just fine, Jackass, It's right here in
> black and white.
>
> "I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became a teenager."
>
> Yet you still listen to dick and fart jokes. Most of us have outgrown
> that in the 6th grade. You commenting on someones lowbrow sense of
> humor makes You a hypocrite, no big deal.
>
> PS: (This is where you try to move the goal posts again)
Nope, give it another shot. You missed it completely. If I start moving
the goalposts around you might hit the target accidentally one time.
Maybe there is a cliche that covers what you want to say.
x...@xxx.com
Thanks for proving that you missed the point. The truth is I outgrew
comic books, jokebooks, mad magazine and a million other things when I
became a teenager. I have nothing against them nor do I dislike them, I
just lost interest and never bothered with them after I moved on.
>
>>I've repeated myself several times in this thread and you
>>still completely miss the point and go into attack mode. I never said I
>>didn't find it funny.
>
>
> Maybe you should articulate yourself a little better. You said you
> didn't care for it. You said you looked at it to see tits. You never
> said you found it funny.
>
Did I say I found it unfunny or that it wasn't a funny magazine? Why do
you jump to conclusions and go into attack mode about nonsense like
this? The last time I picked it up (at age 12)I flipped through and
checked out the tits, after age 12 I had no interest in it at all.
>
>>I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became
>>a teenager. If you were buying and reading a magazine for palindromes
>>and dopey letters like that then you really are in no position to judge
>>who has a sense of humor. If I recall, we played around with palindromes
>>in 3rd grade and I recall being pretty amused by them. Not so much in my
>>teens.
>
>
> Yeah, but in your teens you were still buying magazines to see tits
No I wasn't. I never bought a magazine in my life.
> because girls thought you were a humorless douche and that's the only
> way you could see them.
Sure hillbilly, you are all laughs. Someone doesn't like the same things
you do and you have to attack like a humor-filled douche. You sure know
how to have fun. I'll have to guess that this line made you chuckle, you
must be a barrel of laughs around the roadkill pile.
> Meanwhile, I used those immature magazines,
> along with MAD and Cracked and a hundred others to sculpt and nurture
> a sense of humor rife with parody and satire that worked awesome on
> the fairer sex. I consider it one of my better investments in myself.
>
Where did it all go? You seem to have grown bitter and humorless in your
old age. I don't even remember the last time I noticed you being able to
recognize a joke in this forum. I guess you need pictures before you can
tell if something is funny. If you want to credit MAD magazine for any
luck you had finding a woman than I would have to assume you never dated
anything except 12 year olds and buck toothed hillbillies.
>
>>Just because you didn't outgrow it is no reason to become defensive.
>>I'll guess that by slow witted hillbilly standards I might be considered
>>humorless, but thankfully I am miles away from any place where those
>>standards are common.
>
>
> Ok, so I guess I haven't matured into the new and improved Howard
> Stern humor and am still stuck laughing at clever plays on words
> instead. Maybe when I'm in my 50's I'll be grown up enough to get a
> kick out of ball shaving and taint sniffing.
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
I bet you get a kick out of that already, you just can't admit it
because it goes against your need to hate a show you discuss for hours
every day (from 8:15 - 3:45 anyway). Still no reason to get defensive
though.
Drumrboy
> Drumrboy wrote:
>
> > Let's see...
>
> > You stated: "I said I outgrew that sort of thing when I became a
> > teenager."
>
> > I stated: "Yet you haven't outgrown dick and fart jokes, not to
> > mention gay porn, on the radio."
>
> > See how that works, Jackass? Fuck, you closet faggots are touchy.
>
> It doesn't work, that was my point. You missed the entire point of the
> discussion and just jumped in with the same "dick and fart jokes" cliche
> you use 100 times a month.
Fuck, I even spelt it out for you. You're just being silly now.
You claimed you "outgrew" National Lampoon, I claimed it was ironic
that you didn't "outgrow" dick and fart jokes.
Get it now, Dummy?
Not my fault you can't follow a simple premiss. LOL! You don't even
know what the fuck you're argument is anymore.
x...@xxx.com
If I don't, you all seem to twist the discussion into cliches and nonsense.
>
> Work on that before you criticize us.
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Just to keep you from missing the point, I am not criticizing YOU or
your beloved magazine I am criticizing your stupid dishonest arguments
where you try to change the subject and make things personal every time
something hurts your feelings.
lab~rat >:-)
>>
>> Maybe you should articulate yourself a little better. You said you
>> didn't care for it. You said you looked at it to see tits. You never
>> said you found it funny.
>>
>
>Did I say I found it unfunny or that it wasn't a funny magazine? Why do
>you jump to conclusions and go into attack mode about nonsense like
>this? The last time I picked it up (at age 12)I flipped through and
>checked out the tits, after age 12 I had no interest in it at all.
Now you're just lying. Clearly you said age 11. Why are you moving
the goal posts again?
lab~rat >:-)
Just so you know, you aren't clever enough to hurt my feelings.
x...@xxx.com
You are wrong again, check the thread. But maybe this simplistic
explanation will help you understand the difference between you and non
hillbilly people:
"When developing humor, it is important to remember that a child's sense
of humor reflects his newest level of intellectual achievements. Humor
is basically a form of intellectual play with ideas. Children have a
built-in tendency to have fun with any newly developed skill, whether
physical or mental. Humor is generally funniest at the time it can first
be understood, and for a number of months following. Jokes become
progressively less funny after you "get them". This is why you'll find
adults groan at some puns."
x...@xxx.com
>>
>>Just to keep you from missing the point, I am not criticizing YOU or
>>your beloved magazine I am criticizing your stupid dishonest arguments
>>where you try to change the subject and make things personal every time
>>something hurts your feelings.
>
>
> Just so you know, you aren't clever enough to hurt my feelings.
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
I do it all the time. Whenever you go from bullshit/know nothing mode
into hillbilly psychologist mode it is because your feelings got hurt.
Try to get in touch with your own feelings, it will give you a chance to
grow as a person.
Maybe you can read this again:
lab~rat >:-)
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Just to keep you from missing the point, I am not criticizing YOU or
>>>your beloved magazine I am criticizing your stupid dishonest arguments
>>>where you try to change the subject and make things personal every time
>>>something hurts your feelings.
>>
>>
>> Just so you know, you aren't clever enough to hurt my feelings.
>> --
>> lab~rat >:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
>I do it all the time. Whenever you go from bullshit/know nothing mode
>into hillbilly psychologist mode it is because your feelings got hurt.
>Try to get in touch with your own feelings, it will give you a chance to
>grow as a person.
In order for you to hurt my feelings, I have to give a crap about what
you think. Until that happens you don't have a chance.
>Maybe you can read this again:
>
>"When developing humor, it is important to remember that a child's sense
>of humor reflects his newest level of intellectual achievements. Humor
>is basically a form of intellectual play with ideas. Children have a
>built-in tendency to have fun with any newly developed skill, whether
>physical or mental. Humor is generally funniest at the time it can first
>be understood, and for a number of months following. Jokes become
>progressively less funny after you "get them". This is why you'll find
>adults groan at some puns."
Where does taint sniffing fit in?
lab~rat >:-)
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:35:22 -0500, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>>>Maybe you should articulate yourself a little better. You said you
>>>>didn't care for it. You said you looked at it to see tits. You never
>>>>said you found it funny.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Did I say I found it unfunny or that it wasn't a funny magazine? Why do
>>>you jump to conclusions and go into attack mode about nonsense like
>>>this? The last time I picked it up (at age 12)I flipped through and
>>>checked out the tits, after age 12 I had no interest in it at all.
>>
>>
>> Now you're just lying. Clearly you said age 11. Why are you moving
>> the goal posts again?
>> --
>> lab~rat >:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
>You are wrong again, check the thread.
I guess I just mentally blocked the pathetic vision of a pock marked
fat kid flipping through NL with his greasy fingers looking for a
picture of a tit.
>But maybe this simplistic
>explanation will help you understand the difference between you and non
>hillbilly people:
>
>"When developing humor, it is important to remember that a child's sense
>of humor reflects his newest level of intellectual achievements. Humor
>is basically a form of intellectual play with ideas. Children have a
>built-in tendency to have fun with any newly developed skill, whether
>physical or mental. Humor is generally funniest at the time it can first
>be understood, and for a number of months following. Jokes become
>progressively less funny after you "get them". This is why you'll find
>adults groan at some puns."
>
So where do people that like Stern fit in to the maturity/humor
continuum?
x...@xxx.com
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:51:44 -0500, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> puked:
>
>
>>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Just to keep you from missing the point, I am not criticizing YOU or
>>>>your beloved magazine I am criticizing your stupid dishonest arguments
>>>>where you try to change the subject and make things personal every time
>>>>something hurts your feelings.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just so you know, you aren't clever enough to hurt my feelings.
>>>--
>>>lab~rat >:-)
>>>Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>>
>>I do it all the time. Whenever you go from bullshit/know nothing mode
>>into hillbilly psychologist mode it is because your feelings got hurt.
>>Try to get in touch with your own feelings, it will give you a chance to
>>grow as a person.
>
>
> In order for you to hurt my feelings, I have to give a crap about what
> you think. Until that happens you don't have a chance.
>
We both know when it happens, its okay if you cry a little.
>
>>Maybe you can read this again:
>>
>>"When developing humor, it is important to remember that a child's sense
>>of humor reflects his newest level of intellectual achievements. Humor
>>is basically a form of intellectual play with ideas. Children have a
>>built-in tendency to have fun with any newly developed skill, whether
>>physical or mental. Humor is generally funniest at the time it can first
>>be understood, and for a number of months following. Jokes become
>>progressively less funny after you "get them". This is why you'll find
>>adults groan at some puns."
>
>
> Where does taint sniffing fit in?
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Ask your boss.
x...@xxx.com
>
>
> I guess I just mentally blocked the pathetic vision of a pock marked
> fat kid flipping through NL with his greasy fingers looking for a
> picture of a tit.
>
Hurts to remember those days, doesn't it?
>
>>But maybe this simplistic
>>explanation will help you understand the difference between you and non
>>hillbilly people:
>>
>>"When developing humor, it is important to remember that a child's sense
>>of humor reflects his newest level of intellectual achievements. Humor
>>is basically a form of intellectual play with ideas. Children have a
>>built-in tendency to have fun with any newly developed skill, whether
>>physical or mental. Humor is generally funniest at the time it can first
>>be understood, and for a number of months following. Jokes become
>>progressively less funny after you "get them". This is why you'll find
>>adults groan at some puns."
>>
>
>
> So where do people that like Stern fit in to the maturity/humor
> continuum?
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Several levels, he has the scatalogical humor for folks like you and
bizarre personality disorders to keep others interested.
lab~rat >:-)
>>
>> So where do people that like Stern fit in to the maturity/humor
>> continuum?
>> --
>> lab~rat >:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
>Several levels, he has the scatalogical humor for folks like you and
>bizarre personality disorders to keep others interested.
Just curious, do you see the hypocrisy in your position? Everyone
else does.
lab~rat >:-)
x...@xxx.com
No they don't. If by everyone, you mean YOU then the problem is that you
are lying and stupid. Too stupid to lie really.
x...@xxx.com
>>
>>>>Maybe you can read this again:
>>>>
>>>>"When developing humor, it is important to remember that a child's sense
>>>>of humor reflects his newest level of intellectual achievements. Humor
>>>>is basically a form of intellectual play with ideas. Children have a
>>>>built-in tendency to have fun with any newly developed skill, whether
>>>>physical or mental. Humor is generally funniest at the time it can first
>>>>be understood, and for a number of months following. Jokes become
>>>>progressively less funny after you "get them". This is why you'll find
>>>>adults groan at some puns."
>>>
>>>
>>>Where does taint sniffing fit in?
>>>--
>>>lab~rat >:-)
>>>Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>>
>>Ask your boss.
>
>
> You think my wife knows?
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
It is her father in law (and probably ex girlfriend, cousin and neice)
after all, I am sure she doesn't mind a little ass kissing to keep the
trailer rent paid. You should keep working on that El Camino and stop
worrying about how stupid you seem.
lab~rat >:-)
Her father's been dead since 1980. But keep stabbing in the dark.
BTW, I have TWO companies now. Do you find that AMAZING?
lab~rat >:-)
So that must mean you're ready to explain the Stern/maturity
continuum. Or not.
x...@xxx.com
Especially since you are so stupid you think her father-in-law is HER
father rather than yours. Then again, in the trailer park things like
that are possible.
x...@xxx.com
there is nothing for me to explain, you were a rabid stern fan for years
and now you are sort of a stalker of his, maybe you can explain it.
Apparently the genius of Howard is getting people who don't like him to
think about him obsessively.
Dude777
> there is nothing for me to explain, you were a rabid stern fan for years
> and now you are sort of a stalker of his, maybe you can explain it.
I can't speak for the Rat but when Howie became everything that he once
railed against, well, that was the end.
lab~rat >:-)
lab~rat >:-)
I guess I'll have to make a note to pay closer attention to your
posts. Or not.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:48:25 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>BTW, I have TWO companies now. Do you find that AMAZING?
>
>jackie had like 6 or 7 companies at one time. two companies is
>amazing for you with your limited skill set, but you're no jackie.
My point exactly. The fact that anyone, including you, would find it
amazing shows how detached they are from owning and running their own
company.
Hell, Jimmy, I'll bet even you are incorporated, aren't ya? I mean,
doing shifting gigs and whatnot, it would make sense, right? My
sister was when she was doing television work.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the revised credo of this website...
x...@xxx.com
It won't help, you just don't have the brainpower. Maybe you should get
back to running your 2 companies from 8 am to 3:45 every day. Do you
ever knock over the receptionist in your mad dash out the door when the
whistle blows?
lab~rat >:-)
I'm at work WAY before 8 am, but thanks for concerning yourself with
me. It shows how important I am to you.
x...@xxx.com
>>It won't help, you just don't have the brainpower. Maybe you should get
>>back to running your 2 companies from 8 am to 3:45 every day. Do you
>>ever knock over the receptionist in your mad dash out the door when the
>>whistle blows?
>
>
> I'm at work WAY before 8 am, but thanks for concerning yourself with
> me. It shows how important I am to you.
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
No it doesn't