What do you think Dave's gonna say?
Volfie999
tomorrow like I normally do (when I can be bothered with the
monologue.)
Also assuming that CBS doesn't have a night-time special news dealie
on it.
alynch
They switched the schedule around to have Brian Williams on tonight
instead of Wednesday, so they'll presumably discuss most of the Bin
Laden stuff with him.
randwill
"Volfie999" <mooseb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba9c308c-f3a9-4d96...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Anyone who has watched the show for several years knows pretty much what he
is going to say. And everything he says will be followed by the same polite
laughter and round of applause. So it really doesn't matter what he says. He
just needs to generate sounds of approval on CBS's air and he's done his
job.
Oh, he'll almost certainly say...
What?!
WHAT??!!
DTSmith
> Anyone who has watched the show for several years knows pretty much what he
> is going to say. And everything he says will be followed by the same polite
> laughter and round of applause. So it really doesn't matter what he says. He
> just needs to generate sounds of approval on CBS's air and he's done his
> job.
I thought you'd mention that he'd have one less of his usual nightly
jokes to use now - "They got <insert celebrity name>, now when are
they gonna get Osama bin Laden?"
Jess Band-EE-Coot
Out-dated references don't mean much to Dave.
He'll gladly still tell the joke anyway.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Girls who put out are tramps. Girls who don't are ladies.
This is, however, a rather archaic usage of the word.
Should one of you boys happen upon a girl who doesn't put out,
do not jump to the conclusion that you have found a lady.
What you have probably found is a lesbian.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jess Band-EE-Coot
Outdated references don't mean much to Dave.
randwill
"DTSmith" <smi...@queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:e5e08bba-523d-4c8d...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This *might* be the end of that one. Just means he'll have to double-up on
the thing-on-Trump's-head, Regis-old, Bloomberg-short, ect.
Or hire writers who can produce fresh, cutting edge materi...
Naaah. Ain't gonna' happen.
R H Draney
>
>On 5/2/2011 3:59 PM, DTSmith wrote:
> > On May 2, 3:53 pm, "randwill"<rwilliams4...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Anyone who has watched the show for several years knows pretty much
>what he
> >> is going to say. And everything he says will be followed by the same
>polite
> >> laughter and round of applause. So it really doesn't matter what he
>says. He
> >> just needs to generate sounds of approval on CBS's air and he's done his
> >> job.
> >
> > I thought you'd mention that he'd have one less of his usual nightly
> > jokes to use now - "They got<insert celebrity name>, now when are
> > they gonna get Osama bin Laden?"
>
>
>Outdated references don't mean much to Dave.
>He'll gladly still tell the joke anyway.
Was posting that statement twice supposed to represent some sort of irony?...
I take back what I said in the other thread about not remembering anything from
Friday night's show...I do remember feeling vaguely uncomfortable listening to a
monologue taped four days earlier full of jokes about stuff that "already"
happened at the royal wedding....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Twibil
>
>
> Anyone who has watched the show for several years knows pretty much what he
> is going to say. And everything he says will be followed by the same polite
> laughter and round of applause. So it really doesn't matter what he says. He
> just needs to generate sounds of approval on CBS's air and he's done his
> job.
Ironically, anyone who has seen your posts for the last year or two
knows pretty much what *you're* going to say, too. (Woudn't you think
that someone whose preferred subject matter seems to be complaints
about repeated riffs wouldn't fall into that same trap?)
If you intend to lead, it's best to lead by example.
randwill
"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88c843cb-7e64-416c...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Commenting on repetition is, by its nature, going to be repetitious. I'm no
less shameless than Dave.
What?!
WHAT??!!
Twibil
>
>
> Commenting on repetition is, by its nature, going to be repetitious. I'm no
> less shameless than Dave.
Ah, but do you have a show that's watched by millions of viewers -and
do you get paid millions of dollars to do that show- or are you only
intentionally annoying a few dozen folks on a newsgroup?
Looks like there's quite a difference between you and Dave.
Tony Linguini
On 2-May-2011, "randwill" <rwilli...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> Anyone who has watched the show for several years knows pretty much what
> he
> is going to say. And everything he says will be followed by the same
> polite
> laughter and round of applause. So it really doesn't matter what he says.
> He
> just needs to generate sounds of approval on CBS's air and he's done his
> job.
>
> Oh, he'll almost certainly say...
>
> What?!
>
> WHAT??!!
Either that or he'll claim bin Laden released a new "death to America" tape,
possibly the stock cave footage superimposed on a Heaven/Hell-like
background.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
He's also punishing the wrong people. Email your repetitive jabs
at the writers, not us.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
> Either that or he'll claim bin Laden released a new "death to America" tape,
> possibly the stock cave footage superimposed on a Heaven/Hell-like
> background.
You were at the taping today, weren't you?
randwill
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I said, I'm no less shameless than Dave. In every other respect, I'm
completely different.
If you want.
DDY
I assume that Dave will look at his left wrist and comment that Osama
is arriving in hell right about now. That's pretty much the joke about
Saddam's passing on 1/02/07.
Dave's monologue on 2/04/10 included, "There's a new Osama bin Laden
video. (What's he doing, working at Blockbuster?) There's always a new
Osama bin Laden video. In this one he's worrying about global warming.
Osama bin Laden: very conscientious fellow. And he's blaming the
United States for global warming, and I just thought to myself, 'Well,
you know, wait a minute! This guy thinks it's warm now, wait 'til he
gets to hell!' "
I think we can count on the damnation theme.
David D
DDY's Late Show Fan Page
http://www.ddy.com/dl3.html
Jess Band-EE-Coot
> do you get paid millions of dollars to do that show-
Therein lies the crime;
if Dave's getting paid millions,
we should expect him to try a little harder.
Steve Curtis
>I assume that Dave will look at his left
>wrist and comment that Osama is
>arriving in hell right about now.
Before arriving there, he's going to arrive at the bottom of the sea
since he was buried at sea.
Alan Page
"Steve Curtis" wrote...
> Before arriving there, he's going to arrive at the bottom of the sea
> since he was buried at sea.
SpongeBob SquarePants!
--
Alan
~WWWWW~
What a Wonderful Web We Weave
Wiseguy
news:kqmdnQnRvdj7iCLQ...@giganews.com:
>
> "DTSmith" <smi...@queensu.ca> wrote in message
> news:e5e08bba-523d-4c8d-876e-c35467276d01@
18g2000prd.googlegroups.com..
> . On May 2, 3:53 pm, "randwill" <rwilliams4...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who has watched the show for several years knows pretty much
>> what he
>> is going to say. And everything he says will be followed by the same
>> polite
>> laughter and round of applause. So it really doesn't matter what he
>> says. He
>> just needs to generate sounds of approval on CBS's air and he's done
>> his job.
>
> I thought you'd mention that he'd have one less of his usual nightly
> jokes to use now - "They got <insert celebrity name>, now when are
> they gonna get Osama bin Laden?"
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
> +++++++++
>
> This *might* be the end of that one. Just means he'll have to
> double-up on the thing-on-Trump's-head, Regis-old, Bloomberg-short,
> ect.
>
> Or hire writers who can produce fresh, cutting edge materi...
>
> Naaah. Ain't gonna' happen.
>
>
>
etc.
et cetera
Wiseguy
news:88c843cb-7e64-416c...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com:
And you're not predictable?
Leno and Republicans : bad
Letterman and Democrats : good
Wiseguy
news:24bcd146-c113-47ba...@h36g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
The only people you think are annoying are those that disagree with you.
Can't handle that, huh?
Twibil
>
>
> > do you get paid millions of dollars to do that show-
>
> Therein lies the crime;
> if Dave's getting paid millions,
> we should expect him to try a little harder.
"We"?
Is there a mouse in your pocket, or are you just another one of that
automatically-entitled horde who think it's their job to tell the rest
of us -including Dave- how we should think and act?
Never mind: rhetorical question.
Twibil
You never learn: I'm a reasonably bright centrist conservative.
That means:
(A) neither Leno or Letterman have anything to do with my politics -
because I'm not stupid enough to get my political reportage from
standup comedy, and I don't get mad when somebody makes a joke about a
politician. (That's what comedians *do*, you know.)
(B) Intelligent Republicans and Democrats who put the welfare of the
country ahead of partisan bickering = good.
(C) Stupid Republicans and Democrats = bad.
That last one includes knee-jerk reactionaries like you, BTW.
Twibil
>
>
> > Ah, but do you have a show that's watched by millions of viewers -and
> > do you get paid millions of dollars to do that show- or are you only
> > intentionally annoying a few dozen folks on a newsgroup?
>
> > Looks like there's quite a difference between you and Dave.
>
> The only people you think are annoying are those that disagree with you.
> Can't handle that, huh?
I used to have students like you in the classes I taught at the
University of California, and they would regularly hand in papers
which were carefully written but were based on what the student
*wanted* to be true rather than upon objective reality. (Not to
mention the textbooks.)
When they got their papers back with failing grades they invariably
became upset with me and argued that their viewpoints were just as
valid as anyone else's; despite the fact that writing, as you
frequently do, "If__________were _________ then__________" is pure
wish-fulfillment: not reality.
They frequently could not understand this concept, and so, alas, they
failed.
As do you.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
Oh, bravo!! I'll be back when the lash marks heal.
Wiseguy
news:b434ef8b-d39c-4a8d...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On May 2, 10:45 pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:88c843cb-7e64-416c-84c7-db7874
> 4b0...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 2, 12:53 pm, "randwill" <rwilliams4...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Anyone who has watched the show for several years knows pretty
>> >> much what
>> > he
>> >> is going to say. And everything he says will be followed by the
>> >> same poli
>> > te
>> >> laughter and round of applause. So it really doesn't matter what
>> >> he says.
>> > He
>> >> just needs to generate sounds of approval on CBS's air and he's
>> >> done his job.
>>
>> > Ironically, anyone who has seen your posts for the last year or two
>> > knows pretty much what *you're* going to say, too. (Woudn't you
>> > thin
> k
>> > that someone whose preferred subject matter seems to be complaints
>> > about repeated riffs wouldn't fall into that same trap?)
>>
>> > If you intend to lead, it's best to lead by example.
>>
>> And you're not predictable?
>>
>> Leno and Republicans : bad
>>
>> Letterman and Democrats : good
>
> You never learn: I'm a reasonably bright centrist conservative.
>
But you're always in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.
> That means:
>
> (A) neither Leno or Letterman have anything to do with my politics -
> because I'm not stupid enough to get my political reportage from
> standup comedy, and I don't get mad when somebody makes a joke about a
> politician. (That's what comedians *do*, you know.)
>
I wasn't connecting politics with talk-show hosts, just stating your
biases.
> (B) Intelligent Republicans and Democrats who put the welfare of the
> country ahead of partisan bickering = good.
>
But only Democrats are intelligent, right?
> (C) Stupid Republicans and Democrats = bad.
>
> That last one includes knee-jerk reactionaries like you, BTW.
>
Stupid because I don't agree with you?
Wiseguy
ad0cfa...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
> On May 2, 10:46 pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Ah, but do you have a show that's watched by millions of viewers -
and
>> > do you get paid millions of dollars to do that show- or are you
only
>> > intentionally annoying a few dozen folks on a newsgroup?
>>
>> > Looks like there's quite a difference between you and Dave.
>>
>> The only people you think are annoying are those that disagree with
you.
>> Can't handle that, huh?
>
> I used to have students like you in the classes I taught at the
> University of California, and they would regularly hand in papers
> which were carefully written but were based on what the student
> *wanted* to be true rather than upon objective reality. (Not to
> mention the textbooks.)
>
Well, I can only go by what you post here.
> When they got their papers back with failing grades they invariably
> became upset with me and argued that their viewpoints were just as
> valid as anyone else's; despite the fact that writing, as you
> frequently do, "If__________were _________ then__________" is pure
> wish-fulfillment: not reality.
>
> They frequently could not understand this concept, and so, alas, they
> failed.
>
> As do you.
>
Of course, everyone who disagrees with you or challenges you fails.
It's the limited view you have of reality.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
> On 5/3/2011 2:25 AM, Twibil wrote:
>> On May 2, 8:34 pm, Jess Band-EE-Coot<BandEEC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> do you get paid millions of dollars to do that show-
>>>
>>> Therein lies the crime;
>>> if Dave's getting paid millions,
>>> we should expect him to try a little harder.
>>
>> "We"?
>>
>> Is there a mouse in your pocket, or are you just another one of that
>> automatically-entitled horde who think it's their job to tell the rest
>> of us -including Dave- how we should think and act?
>>
>> Never mind: rhetorical question.
>
>
> Oh, bravo!! I'll be back when the lash marks heal.
>
>
>
Btw, for those who actually grasped my point, it stands.
"We" as in "the general public" should expect more effort from the man
based on the salary he's getting.
Fans wouldn't tolerate an athlete getting $30 million a season if they
weren't delivering the goods, so why a comedian?
Can't really make it any more clear than that.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
>> On May 2, 8:34 pm, Jess Band-EE-Coot<BandEEC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> do you get paid millions of dollars to do that show-
>>>
>>> Therein lies the crime;
>>> if Dave's getting paid millions,
>>> we should expect him to try a little harder.
>>
>> "We"?
>>
>> Is there a mouse in your pocket, or are you just another one of that
>> automatically-entitled horde who think it's their job to tell the rest
>> of us -including Dave- how we should think and act?
>>
>> Never mind: rhetorical question.
>
>
> Oh, bravo!! I'll be back when the lash marks heal.
>
>
>
Btw, for those who actually grasped my point, it is a call to rally for
change. "We" as in "the general public" should demand more effort from
the man based on the salary he's getting.
Fans wouldn't tolerate an athlete getting $30 million a season if they
weren't delivering the goods, so why a comedian?
Can't really make it any more clear than that.
--
Dan Dassow
>
> Btw, for those who actually grasped my point, it is a call to rally for
> change. "We" as in "the general public" should demand more effort from
> the man based on the salary he's getting.
> Fans wouldn't tolerate an athlete getting $30 million a season if they
> weren't delivering the goods, so why a comedian?
> Can't really make it any more clear than that.
Jess,
I believe the majority here understand your point. However, your
argument is based on a false premise. The customer for commercial
television is not the viewing public, it is the sponsors. The networks
promise to deliver viewers to the sponsors, i.e. ratings within
specific demographics. When the networks deliver, the sponsors
continue to pay for commercials. Otherwise, they will no longer
sponsor the show. It is immaterial whether of not Mr. Letterman
continues to phone in his show so long as he has sufficient viewers to
sustain the ad revenue for the broadcast of his show. Letterman does
not have a captive audience. They are free to watch other programs or
do other activities instead of watching Letterman.
I personally refuse to pay the inflated prices for sports tickets and
outrages prices for food and drink at sports stadiums. Letterman is an
essentially free diversion, which only cost me my time. If I do not
like something on his show, I simply do something else.
Dan Dassow
Twibil
>
>
> > You never learn: I'm a reasonably bright centrist conservative.
>
> But you're always in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.
No. That's what we call "a lie". (You know; an untruth.)
The mistake you're making here is that that you think I'm against
Republicans in general because I happily point it out when *you* act
like an idiot, which is frequently.
But the fact is, you're not representitive of Republicans in general
(thank God) and I'm only against *stupid* Republicans -just as I'm
against stupid Democrats- because they're both bad for the country.
> I wasn't connecting politics with talk-show hosts, just stating your
> biases.
Yes, you were. Go back and read your post again. You said "Leno and
Republicans : bad. Letterman and Democrats : good", and sweetheart you
simply can't connect politics with talk-show hosts any more closely
than that.
> But only Democrats are intelligent, right?
No. And I've said that before, not to mention that I said it again
right up above.
Try reading for content rather than only seeing what you want to.
> > (C) Stupid Republicans and Democrats = bad.
>
> > That last one includes knee-jerk reactionaries like you, BTW.
>
> Stupid because I don't agree with you?
No. Stupid because you don't understand basic logic, and stupid
because you simply make things up as you go along......and then are
apparently dumb enough to think that whatever you type must be true:
no matter that you said something entirely different only two posts
ago.
See above.
Twibil
>
>
> Of course, everyone who disagrees with you or challenges you fails.
Not at all. Once more you're intentionally confusing yourself with
"everyone".
> It's the limited view you have of reality.
Yeah, *that* must be it.
(snort)
Twibil
>
>
> I believe the majority here understand your point. However, your
> argument is based on a false premise. The customer for commercial
> television is not the viewing public, it is the sponsors. The networks
> promise to deliver viewers to the sponsors, i.e. ratings within
> specific demographics. When the networks deliver, the sponsors
> continue to pay for commercials. Otherwise, they will no longer
> sponsor the show. It is immaterial whether of not Mr. Letterman
> continues to phone in his show so long as he has sufficient viewers to
> sustain the ad revenue for the broadcast of his show. Letterman does
> not have a captive audience. They are free to watch other programs or
> do other activities instead of watching Letterman.
>
> I personally refuse to pay the inflated prices for sports tickets and
> outrages prices for food and drink at sports stadiums. Letterman is an
> essentially free diversion, which only cost me my time. If I do not
> like something on his show, I simply do something else.
>
> Dan Dassow
Bingo.
Thanks for that, Dan.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
Dan, darling;
I understand what keeps a show on the air. I work for one.
You're talking about ad revenue and ratings.
I'm talking about giving direct feedback to an artist as a means to
express that their current work is less than satisfactory.
But thanks for the lesson on how ratings work ;)
Jess
Jess Band-EE-Coot
> Bingo.
>
> Thanks for that, Dan.
You are why the world remains unchanged.
Donz5
> I'm talking about giving direct feedback to an artist as a means to
> express that their current work is less than satisfactory.
Dave's not here, chief.
randwill
"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2f31e12e-5dd0-4909...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Writer's are.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
Don, please.
You *know* that's not what I meant.
Steve Curtis
>"Donz5" wrote:
>>Dave's not here, chief.
>Writer's are.
And you've posted an apostrophe that shouldn't be here.
randwill
"Steve Curtis" <iamh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12784-4DC...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
Oh, yeah. A mistake. I wasn't pretending to be infallible, so no biggie.
Twibil
>
>
> I understand what keeps a show on the air. I work for one.
> You're talking about ad revenue and ratings.
> I'm talking about giving direct feedback to an artist as a means to
> express that their current work is less than satisfactory.
Oh dear.
You aren't giving "direct feedback" to anyone except your own echo.
Dave's not here.
Twibil
>
>
> > Bingo.
>
> > Thanks for that, Dan.
>
> You are why the world remains unchanged.
Being polite keeps the world unchanged?
Who knew?
randwill
"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1c713f5-94c6-4f65...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Oh dear.
Dave's not here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Writers are.
Better?
Jess Band-EE-Coot
On a side note, no one (including YOU) knows who is here and who isn't.
So please put *that* tired argument to bed.
That said, nowhere in this thread did I directly suggest posting
feedback for "Dave" *here*. I simply encouraged his fans to speak up if
they're disgruntled about Dave's lazy work ethic to salary ratio.
The vessel for which you chose to do so was not specified,
you anal retentive fucks.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
> On 5/3/2011 8:42 PM, randwill wrote:
>> "Twibil"<noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b1c713f5-94c6-4f65...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 3, 1:52 pm, Jess Band-EE-Coot<BandEEC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand what keeps a show on the air. I work for one.
>>> You're talking about ad revenue and ratings.
>>> I'm talking about giving direct feedback to an artist as a means to
>>> express that their current work is less than satisfactory.
>>
>> Oh dear.
>>
>> You aren't giving "direct feedback" to anyone except your own echo.
>>
>> Dave's not here.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>> Writers are.
>>
>> Better?
>>
>>
>
>
> On a side note, no one (including YOU) knows who is here and who isn't.
> So please put *that* tired argument to bed.
>
> That said, nowhere in this thread did I directly suggest posting
> feedback for "Dave" *here*. I simply encouraged his fans to speak up if
> they're disgruntled about Dave's lazy work ethic to salary ratio.
> The vessel for which you chose to do so was not specified,
> you anal retentive fucks.
>
>
That was not directed at you, Randwill.
I should have replied directly to Twibill's post.
Wiseguy
news:4dc0b8ea$0$5295$607e...@cv.net:
> On 5/3/2011 8:42 PM, randwill wrote:
>> "Twibil"<noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b1c713f5-94c6-4f65-b785-
10e17d...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com
>> ... On May 3, 1:52 pm, Jess Band-EE-Coot<BandEEC...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand what keeps a show on the air. I work for one.
>>> You're talking about ad revenue and ratings.
>>> I'm talking about giving direct feedback to an artist as a means to
>>> express that their current work is less than satisfactory.
>>
>> Oh dear.
>>
>> You aren't giving "direct feedback" to anyone except your own echo.
>>
>> Dave's not here.
>>
>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> +++++++
>>
>> Writers are.
>>
>> Better?
>>
>>
>
>
> On a side note, no one (including YOU) knows who is here and who
> isn't. So please put *that* tired argument to bed.
>
> That said, nowhere in this thread did I directly suggest posting
> feedback for "Dave" *here*. I simply encouraged his fans to speak up
> if they're disgruntled about Dave's lazy work ethic to salary ratio.
> The vessel for which you chose to do so was not specified,
> you anal retentive fucks.
>
>
Don't waste your time reasoning with fanatics. It won't work.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
But I enjoy trying to reason with some of the most obnoxious "fans"
any artist could ever hope to acquire. It's no wonder this place is
a Ghost Town. No one can stand any of them and their overly anal
whippings. It's such a joy to comment when all they care about are
grammatical errors and semantics.
Traci
So what? Dave's the guy who makes all the decisions regarding what gets
on the show and I'm nearly positive he could not give a rat's ass what
anyone here thinks. Direct feedback for the artist? Give me a freakin'
break. Like Dave is going to pay attention to a bunch of obsessive fans
who discuss every minute aspect of the show.
For me, this little forum has always been a lovely diversion and a grand
place to talk about the show in such detail as the outside world would
find it nearly pathological. Never in a million years would I think
ANYTHING said here would influence the show whether Dave was here or
not.
Traci
Twibil
>
>
> Don't waste your time reasoning with fanatics.
Hey, Cool!
Could you please call me "obsessed", "psychotic", and "Nazi" too?
I've always wanted to collect the full Usenet set.
Twibil
>
>
> For me, this little forum has always been a lovely diversion and a grand
> place to talk about the show in such detail as the outside world would
> find it nearly pathological. Never in a million years would I think
> ANYTHING said here would influence the show whether Dave was here or
> not.
<DING!>
Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Traci.
lpfeffa
Don't forget "fucktard" & "asshat"
Donz5
And our own exclusive afl golden oldie, "ass bitches."
Though Jess is doing her best to force through "anal whippings" and
"anal retentive fucks."
I'm sensing a theme.
Twibil
>
>
> >> Don't waste your time reasoning with fanatics.
>
> > Hey, Cool!
>
> > Could you please call me "obsessed", "psychotic", and "Nazi" too?
>
> > I've always wanted to collect the full Usenet set.
>
> Don't forget "fucktard" & "asshat"
Sorry.
I shall always regret that I was remiss.
lpfeffa
Probably because you're an obsessed, psychotic, asshatty,
Nazi-ish, fucktarding fanatic.
-- Lucy, said with the love.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
> Though Jess is doing her best to force through "anal whippings"
I only said that once.
You guys are the ones who latched onto the "fluffer" thing.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
If that's what you want out of the group, then more power to ya.
However, you may just be selling the influence of this group short.
If there's people commenting on something in a public forum,
there's always the chance someone is reading it.
lpfeffa
>
>
> If there's people commenting on something in a public forum,
> there's always the chance someone is reading it.
>
>
>
...and mocking us relentlessly for it.
Twibil
>
>
> Probably because you're an obsessed, psychotic, asshatty,
> Nazi-ish, fucktarding fanatic.
>
> -- Lucy, said with the love.
And hey; that's not easy!
Q: How are you at holding footballs?
Donz5
> On 5/5/2011 1:12 PM, Traci wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > randwill says...
>
> >>news:b1c713f5-94c6-4f65...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 3, 1:52 pm, Jess Band-EE-Coot<BandEEC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I understand what keeps a show on the air. I work for one.
> >>> You're talking about ad revenue and ratings.
> >>> I'm talking about giving direct feedback to an artist as a means to
> >>> express that their current work is less than satisfactory.
>
> >> Oh dear.
>
> >> You aren't giving "direct feedback" to anyone except your own echo.
>
> >> Dave's not here.
>
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
>
> >> Writers are.
>
> > So what? Dave's the guy who makes all the decisions regarding what gets
> > on the show and I'm nearly positive he could not give a rat's ass what
> > anyone here thinks. Direct feedback for the artist? Give me a freakin'
> > break. Like Dave is going to pay attention to a bunch of obsessive fans
> > who discuss every minute aspect of the show.
>
> > For me, this little forum has always been a lovely diversion and a grand
> > place to talk about the show in such detail as the outside world would
> > find it nearly pathological. Never in a million years would I think
> > ANYTHING said here would influence the show whether Dave was here or
> > not.
>
> > Traci
>
> If that's what you want out of the group, then more power to ya.
>
> However, you may just be selling the influence of this group short.
Speaking for those of us here who know the staff, who have talked to
them specifically about this newsgroup, I can attest that Traci has it
exactly right:
We have zero influence, and to imagine that we do is an exercise in
delusional fantasizing.
Alan Page
"Donz5" wrote...
> We have zero influence, and to imagine that we do is an exercise in
> delusional fantasizing.
So...Dave's not here?
--
Alan
~WWWWW~
What a Wonderful Web We Weave
Donz5
Shhh -- he goes by the s/n "wiseguy." Keep it to yourself.
lpfeffa
Zevon used to hang out at alt.music.zevon under various
screen names. Sometimes, he'd get downright snarky to some
of the posters. They'd snark right back. It was pretty
amusing.
Alan Page
"lpfeffa" wrote...
> Zevon used to hang out at alt.music.zevon under various screen names.
> Sometimes, he'd get downright snarky to some of the posters. They'd snark
> right back. It was pretty amusing.
Who is this "Zevon" you speak of?
lpfeffa
> "lpfeffa" wrote...
>> Zevon used to hang out at alt.music.zevon under various screen names.
>> Sometimes, he'd get downright snarky to some of the posters. They'd snark
>> right back. It was pretty amusing.
>
> Who is this "Zevon" you speak of?
>
Y'know, the dead guy who's never gonna get into the RnR HoF.
As Chris Rock once called him, "Hairy Paul."
Donz5
Did they know it was him?
Twibil
>
>
> > So...Dave's not here?
>
> Shhh -- he goes by the s/n "wiseguy." Keep it to yourself.
!
Now *THAT* was funny!
Alan Page
"lpfeffa" wrote...
> Y'know, the dead guy who's never gonna get into the RnR HoF.
I seem to remember seeing him...it was NYC...October 30, 2002...was he
at the Ed Sullivan Theater that night extolling the enjoyment of sandwiches?
> As Chris Rock once called him, "Hairy Paul."
Sounds like a werewolf.
lpfeffa
Most didn't. That's what made it so funny.
randwill
"Traci" <hoosie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.282ca47ce...@news.eternal-september.org...
> randwill says...
>>
>> "Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b1c713f5-94c6-4f65...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 3, 1:52 pm, Jess Band-EE-Coot <BandEEC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I understand what keeps a show on the air. I work for one.
>> > You're talking about ad revenue and ratings.
>> > I'm talking about giving direct feedback to an artist as a means to
>> > express that their current work is less than satisfactory.
>>
>> Oh dear.
>>
>> You aren't giving "direct feedback" to anyone except your own echo.
>>
>> Dave's not here.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Writers are.
>>
>
>
> So what? Dave's the guy who makes all the decisions regarding what gets
> on the show and I'm nearly positive he could not give a rat's ass what
> anyone here thinks. Direct feedback for the artist? Give me a freakin'
> break. Like Dave is going to pay attention to a bunch of obsessive fans
> who discuss every minute aspect of the show.
>
>
Kinda' sad to think that the LS writers might be turning out fresh, edgy
comedy for the monologue every day, but Dave trashes it so he can repeat the
same tired, unfunny stuff over and over. Maybe that's the deal. Who knows.
What?!
WHAT??!!
Jess Band-EE-Coot
> Speaking for those of us here who know the staff, who have talked to
> them specifically about this newsgroup, I can attest that Traci has it
> exactly right:
>
> We have zero influence, and to imagine that we do is an exercise in
> delusional fantasizing.
When you have access to Dave's bedroom, we'll talk.
Donz5
> On 5/5/2011 8:40 PM, Donz5 wrote:
>
> > Speaking for those of us here who know the staff, who have talked to
> > them specifically about this newsgroup, I can attest that Traci has it
> > exactly right:
>
> > We have zero influence, and to imagine that we do is an exercise in
> > delusional fantasizing.
>
> When you have access to Dave's bedroom, we'll talk.
No, we won't.
Jess Band-EE-Coot
Promise?
Wiseguy
e83f19...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com:
Of cpurse not. Since Dave is just as biased (if not more) as you are, he
would not point out your obvious character flaw.
Traci
EXACTLY!
Traci
Traci
> I can attest that Traci has it exactly right:
Excuse me, can you say that again a little closer to the microphone?
Traci - My lawyer is asking
Twibil
>
>
> >> > So...Dave's not here?
>
> >> Shhh -- he goes by the s/n "wiseguy." Keep it to yourself.
>
> > !
>
> > Now *THAT* was funny!
>
> Of cpurse not. Since Dave is just as biased (if not more) as you are, he
> would not point out your obvious character flaw.
Thanx for that.
After all, if you insist on repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot,
it's only polite for the rest of us to keep passing you the ammunition.