It begs the question
CaptainFanatic
an animated television series without realizing the shots you've taken from
the Simpson's writers.
Remember the Poochie the Dog episode ?.
Obviously the creators of the very show that you go on and on about enjoy
picking at you with the understanding that you're all not bright enough to
realize it.
This is what makes the show brilliant.
The fact that it goes over the heads of the less intelligent folks that are
gathered here is wonderful.
I won't even bother commenting about how you welcome someone to the group.
Obviously you think that the behavior was "intelligent, witty, and sharp".
But remember watching a television show that is "intelligent, witty and
sharp" doesn't make you the same.
You people along with the lowly intellects at www.snpp.com need to get
themselves a life.
The episode capsules and the way each episode is analyzed is laughable.
You people really have no idea about the show, and shouldn't be allowed to
even speak on the subject.
Arthur =o)
--
ericc...@blazeinet.com
--
Somewhere that road forks up ahead
To ignorance and innocence
Three lives drift on different winds
Two lives ruined, one life spent
- "American Triangle" Elton John / Bernie Taupin
The Rack
"CaptainFanatic" <booglebubble@yumblebum> wrote in message
news:t76vb2t...@corp.supernews.com...
> The fact that it goes over the heads of the less intelligent folks that
> are gathered here is wonderful.
Are you familiar with Bloom County or Doonesbury? Much of this humor goes
over people's heads. The same can be said of Monty Python's Flying Circus.
It's smug iconoclasm; it's real satire. Homer picks up the Gary Larson (Far
Side) calendar and says "I don't get it... I don't get it..." as he reads
it... Dr. Hibbert makes the comment "Devilishiously satirical! I wonder if
anyone else got that..." The highest level of humor on the Simpsons is often
missed.
> You people along with the lowly intellects at www.snpp.com need to
> get themselves a life.
There are a few "lowly intellects" in every crowd.
> The episode capsules and the way each episode is analyzed is
> laughable.
I agree. Many levels of the show go over people's heads. How can someone who
doesn't have a full understanding of the show expect to encapsulate it?
I'm writing a paper on the five main levels of the Simpsons, and how to
enjoy each. What do you think about the book "The Simpsons: A Complete
Guide?" Notice how the funniest stuff is skipped, and the dumbest stuff is
highlighted? Do you notice how satirical episodes like 9F01 are given one
page, and crap like 5F20 is given two?
> You people really have no idea about the show, and shouldn't be
> allowed to even speak on the subject.
I wouldn't go that far. Many people choose to enjoy The Simpsons at the
character/story level, instead of enjoying the episodes on the highest
levels. I agree that (especially) satire is "airplane humor" to most people,
even most viewers of The Simpsons.
--
The inflammable Chadderack
CaptainFanatic
Simpsons"
Arthur =o)
--
ericc...@blazeinet.com
--
Somewhere that road forks up ahead
To ignorance and innocence
Three lives drift on different winds
Two lives ruined, one life spent
- "American Triangle" Elton John / Bernie Taupin
"The Rack" <the_...@spammeandhaveastoolrammeddownyourthroat-xmission.com>
wrote in message news:94vvne$g1$1...@news.xmission.com...
Pete
<booglebubble@yumblebum> wrote:
>I wonder how many of you "adults" realize how much time you spend discussing
>an animated television series without realizing the shots you've taken from
>the Simpson's writers.
Do you truly believe that this is_all_ we do? Someone who is willing
to jump onto a ng and troll them such as yourself should think
carefully about the subtext inherent in their statement.
>Remember the Poochie the Dog episode ?.
ummm....yep.
>Obviously the creators of the very show that you go on and on about enjoy
>picking at you with the understanding that you're all not bright enough to
>realize it.
>This is what makes the show brilliant.
>The fact that it goes over the heads of the less intelligent folks that are
>gathered here is wonderful.
do you include yourself? Are you familiar with the existential
argument that goes, "to be part of, or indeed argue against any given
axoim or premise, you need to be emersed in or partake fully of there
universe of discourse". in other words before you can lambast someones
choice of past-time you need to be fully conversant and able to argue
from any standpoint _within_ that past-time.
>I won't even bother commenting about how you welcome someone to the group.
>Obviously you think that the behavior was "intelligent, witty, and sharp".
>But remember watching a television show that is "intelligent, witty and
>sharp" doesn't make you the same.
>You people along with the lowly intellects at www.snpp.com need to get
>themselves a life.
oooh...me smell a unhappy-chappy. Did diddums get a nasty-wasty reply
from someone on this group?
Build a bridge and get over it...that is all part of the ATS
experience! You learn from your mistakes, especially cyber-mistakes.
>The episode capsules and the way each episode is analyzed is laughable.
>You people really have no idea about the show, and shouldn't be allowed to
>even speak on the subject.
big call. We don't supply any official or even authoritative response
to questions or threads, but we do try to carry on a conversation with
other Simpson fans around the world. Would you like to go to a party
where thje only people you talked to were absolutely 100% correct and
officious about a given subject? Sounds boring to me. Much more fun
hearing all osrts of ideas, theories and propositions - that is how we
all learn.
Pete
Steve
>
> THIS is the kind of intelligent discussion i would love to have about "The
> Simpsons"
>
intelligently with you, but now that I have discovered your
mercuriality, I decline to pursue the possibility.
--
_______________________
/O STEVE O\
/OOOOO Simpsons fan OOOOO\
/OOOOOOOOO afmps fan OOOOOOOOO\
/OOOOOOOOOOOOO 70.6% OOOOOOOOOOOOO\
/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
\ diehard fan of NY: O UCLRM UC2CTM UCASGM /
\ YANKEES KNICKS OOOOO UCFMSMTRSHTOAH /
\ RANGERS OOOOOOOOO UCCPAAM /
\ JETS OOOOOOOOOOOOO /
\ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
\ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
The Rack
"Steve" <night...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A739948...@home.com...
> CaptainFanatic wrote:
> >
> > THIS is the kind of intelligent discussion i would love to have about
"The
> > Simpsons"
> >
> Then why come in here and disparage us to begin with? I would converse
> intelligently with you, but now that I have discovered your
> mercuriality, I decline to pursue the possibility.
> --
He asked a question about getting an autographed photograph of Matt Groening
for his pastor's retirement. Naturally, everyone jumped on his back and
offered impertinent quips from the show instead of helping him. That's just
ATS' way. He didn't like it, so he disparaged people.
I would have done the same thing he did, if I wasn't aware of how
self-satisfied "comedians" in this group jump anyone's shit just for being
new.
ATS was a much different place in 1996, when I logged on the first time--not
the episode-quoting wasteland it is today. We did have conversations then.
Maybe I should just give in to Mr. Humphries philosophy; that truly all of
USENET is a waste of bandwidth, and no one message is more important than
the other. So, why not waste bandwidth? Buh? Snuh? Gonorrheauh?
Sorry, I just can't get into it.
--
The inflammable Chadderack
ChaiTheDog
>for his pastor's retirement. Naturally, everyone jumped on his back and
>offered impertinent quips from the show instead of helping him. That's just
>ATS' way. He didn't like it, so he disparaged people.
>I would have done the same thing he did, if I wasn't aware of how
>self-satisfied "comedians" in this group jump anyone's shit just for being
>new.
Damn, I was always afraid that would happen eventually. That someone would say
something sincere, get a bunch of sarcastic answers, and be forgotten. And then
they'd come back as a troll and no one would remember that they tried to be
nice in the first place. That's kinda sad.
On the other hand, it would take a true Homer Simpson to not realize that the
Poochie episode was a slam at us. For one thing, we're reminded of this fact
about twice a week these days by fellow sarcasts who hate people who hate the
Simpsons of late. Also, Comic Book Guy says "Worst ___ Ever" a whole lot these
days, a quote which is recited in these parts on a regular basis.****We
understand what the Poochie episode is about.*** A lot of us may be lowly
intellectuals, but we aren't stupid.
I bet every last one of us here is capable of intelligent discussion. It's just
seems that few people want to start it, not near enough to make the rest of the
people feel like continuing it. Prior to 1998, who started it? I'd say the
writers. But the current episodes don't give you much to talk about, excepting
potty humor and irrelevant mayhem. So no one talks about it. Instead, they
speak the language of Simpsons past, satirizing people in an attempt to sound
clever and bring about a trace of nostalgia, a glimmer of what once was. That's
also kinda sad.
So, we're not stupid. We're just assholes. :-/
Gene Poole, G.D.I.
CaptainFanatic wrote:
>
> I wonder how many of you "adults" realize how much time you spend discussing
> an animated television series without realizing the shots you've taken from
> the Simpson's writers.
> Remember the Poochie the Dog episode ?.
> Obviously the creators of the very show that you go on and on about enjoy
> picking at you with the understanding that you're all not bright enough to
> realize it.
> This is what makes the show brilliant.
> The fact that it goes over the heads of the less intelligent folks that are
> gathered here is wonderful.
> I won't even bother commenting about how you welcome someone to the group.
> Obviously you think that the behavior was "intelligent, witty, and sharp".
> But remember watching a television show that is "intelligent, witty and
> sharp" doesn't make you the same.
> You people along with the lowly intellects at www.snpp.com need to get
> themselves a life.
> The episode capsules and the way each episode is analyzed is laughable.
> You people really have no idea about the show, and shouldn't be allowed to
> even speak on the subject.
wow...did you strain yourself jumping to that conclusion?
>
> Arthur =o)
>
> --
> ericc...@blazeinet.com
> --
> Somewhere that road forks up ahead
> To ignorance and innocence
> Three lives drift on different winds
> Two lives ruined, one life spent
> - "American Triangle" Elton John / Bernie Taupin
--
Ask your ISP to add alt.games.video.fps
please?
CaptainFanatic
And what did i get ?.
Quotes and bullshit
Arthur =o)
--
ericc...@blazeinet.com
--
Somewhere that road forks up ahead
To ignorance and innocence
Three lives drift on different winds
Two lives ruined, one life spent
- "American Triangle" Elton John / Bernie Taupin
"Pete" <pe...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3a73900c...@news.inspire.net.nz...
CaptainFanatic
of a Simpson's episode in the very near future.
Arthur =o)
--
ericc...@blazeinet.com
--
Somewhere that road forks up ahead
To ignorance and innocence
Three lives drift on different winds
Two lives ruined, one life spent
- "American Triangle" Elton John / Bernie Taupin
"Pete" <pe...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3a73900c...@news.inspire.net.nz...
Gene Poole, G.D.I.
CaptainFanatic wrote:
>
> I came here with a legitimate question not to "troll".
> And what did i get ?.
> Quotes and bullshit
I reiterate: what if nobody knows the answer?
I notice The Rack was nice enough to give you the best answer he can;
yet you haven't thanked him and continue to bitch and moan about how
hard done by you are...
--
CaptainFanatic
I did thank Rack.
Arthur =o)
--
ericc...@blazeinet.com
--
Somewhere that road forks up ahead
To ignorance and innocence
Three lives drift on different winds
Two lives ruined, one life spent
- "American Triangle" Elton John / Bernie Taupin
"Gene Poole, G.D.I." <gene-...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A73D115...@home.com...
Steve
> seems that few people want to start it, not near enough to make the rest of the
> people feel like continuing it. Prior to 1998, who started it? I'd say the
> writers. But the current episodes don't give you much to talk about, excepting
> potty humor and irrelevant mayhem. So no one talks about it. Instead, they
> speak the language of Simpsons past, satirizing people in an attempt to sound
> clever and bring about a trace of nostalgia, a glimmer of what once was. That's
> also kinda sad.
>
> So, we're not stupid. We're just assholes. :-/
Personally, I find that simple one-liners take much less time to say
than intelligent discussion. With a newsgroup of such a large volume, I
have to choose between devoting my time to it and pursuing other
activities in my life, and I choose the latter. I refuse to disparage
people unless I have been slighted by them or if many others have been
too (somewhat of a people's advocate, you might say), so my
contributions cannot be said to detract from the group. However, in
this increasingly fast-paced world, there simply exists less time for
all of us to devote to a newsgroup, which explains why more people have
chosen to post more messages rather than fewer substantive messages.
I write this today not to defend myself, nor necessarily to change the
attitude of my posting, but merely to attempt to explain the difference
you might see. WHen I joined this group last summer, I was strangely
attracted by the "snuh" and the "favorite _____ line" threads, despite
my repulsion to their lack of intelligence. In a way, it's the same as
my still enjoying the Simpsons, just on a different level. Perhaps the
intellectuality has diminished in both arenas, but the characters remain
the same, and we all know their potential.
If there exists both the time and the opportunity for an intelligent,
thoughtful discussion, I welcome it with open arms and a ready
keyboard. However, I doubt many, if any, such opportunities will
present themselves, and I face a choice: continue to read and respond to
the whole newsgroup, or select only the intelligent threads or those
asking questions to read, thus in essence diminshing the effective size
of the newsgroup. However, that would be like visiting Queens and
assuming that to be all of New York City. I refuse to limit my reading
of this newsgroup, and I believe many others do too, which is why so few
intelligent threads begin in the first place.
After all that, I realize that the Simpsons has not recently been
conducive to topics for intelligent discussion, which is why we've
evolved into mindless show-bashing and snuhing ad infinitum. The hope
for further intelligence lies in the return of the show to past values,
because we've already endlessly discussed and resolved past issues.
--
My 2 Cents, by Kent Brockman aka
big hungry joe
CaptainFanatic <booglebubble@yumblebum> wrote in message
> Why do i get the feeling that little Petey's post is going to be the
subject
> of a Simpson's episode in the very near future.
id ruther not now
CaptainFanatic
And when they try to expand themselves they get crap ?.
Arthur =o)
--
ericc...@blazeinet.com
--
Somewhere that road forks up ahead
To ignorance and innocence
Three lives drift on different winds
Two lives ruined, one life spent
- "American Triangle" Elton John / Bernie Taupin
"Steve" <night...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A74674F...@home.com...
Pete
<booglebubble@yumblebum> wrote:
>I came here with a legitimate question not to "troll".
>And what did i get ?.
>Quotes and bullshit
>
>Arthur =o)
Don't get me wrong, if you want to have a ligit discussion re the
Simpsons or some other such topic fair enough. If you are disgruntled
about someones actions or reply to your post don't yell at everybody.
Chai The Dog summed it up well enough as did Chadderack (although I
don't share his pessimism - you can weed out the pain in the ass
posts with a little effort) when they said you were flamed and reacted
as you did.
You will note the inherent difficulty in trying to get ones opinion
across via typeset. It is easy to be misunderstood or misrepresented.
Yes, The Simpsons appeal on many levels to people. Some of it
meta-humour, some of it slapstick and so on. However, I stand by my
earlier reply - don't get pissed off by one (or a few ;)) by replies.
Keep posting, fight the idiots. Maybe we can have interesting
discussions on ATS instead of who can read episode capsule from
SNPP.com the fastest.
Pete
Dan Hinojosa
cartoon for crying out loud. Sheesh. Have we sunk from talking
intelligently about The Bible, The Illiad, Shakespeare, Red Badge of
Courage, so and so forth to the Simpsons? I just come here to have a
silly time.
Perhaps you're right, though. One of these days Meet the Press will be
talking about the "essential trinity of the Powerpuff Girls"
All this reminds me a thought engaging quote by Ralph Wiggum, "It tastes
like burning".
--
Dan Hinojosa
Ronald Reagan
heard this term until tonight; and that twice. Is this humor that is contemporaneous
with something else? Is it some kind of evolutionary humor? Doe sit have something to do
with benzine rings? Is this neologism some newly coined euphamism? Is it even
crommulent?
Shane
Insert witty quote here (but only if it is meta-humorous).
Pete
wrote:
I use the term with no pretense of coin-phrasing. Meta-humour just
sums up (for me) some gags cracked in the Simpsons that are either at
themselves as a cartoon (eg "who would have thought a Simpson would be
on a t-shirt?") or at other parties not part of the Simpsons universe.
It's a way of separating humour. Similar to meta-cognition when we
become aware of our own mental processes. It's useful for talking
about jokes that are outside any frame of reference in the Simpsons.
Dean Humphries
>
> You can't have an intelligent discussion about the Simpsons, it's a
> cartoon for crying out loud. Sheesh. Have we sunk from talking
> intelligently about The Bible, The Illiad, Shakespeare, Red Badge of
> Courage, so and so forth to the Simpsons? I just come here to have a
> silly time.
Well, I disagree with the first part-you *can* have an intelligent
discussion about the Simpsons, but years past, when you saw
conversations like that here, at times it could get over-analytical.
Coming here to have a silly time is OK as well, I think that many of the
people that don't appreciate the one-liners and show refs understand
that the show *is* a comedy and that it's all done in the comic spirit
of the show.
>
> Perhaps you're right, though. One of these days Meet the Press will be
> talking about the "essential trinity of the Powerpuff Girls"
>
> All this reminds me a thought engaging quote by Ralph Wiggum, "It tastes
> like burning".
>
> --
>
> Dan Hinojosa
--
>>>>> Get Snuhy!
>>>>
>>>> news:alt.tv.simpsons.snuh
>>>
>>> news:alt.binaries.snuh
>>
>> news:alt.folklore.snuh
>
> news:alt.snuh
http://www.geocities.com/buhsnuh
THE
____ ___ ___ ____ __ ____ ____
|| ||\\//|| || \\ || || \\ ||
||== || \/ || ||_// || ||_// ||==
||___ || || || || || \\ ||___
OF
___ ___ ___ ___
/\__\ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \
/:/ _/_ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \
/:/ /\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \
/:/ /::\ \ _____\:\ \ ___ \:\ \ ___ /::\ \
/:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /\ \ \:\__\ /\ /:/\:\__\
\:\/:/ /:/ / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\ \ /:/ / \:\/:/ \/__/
\::/ /:/ / \:\ \ \:\ /:/ / \::/__/
\/_/:/ / \:\ \ \:\/:/ / \:\ \
/:/ / \:\__\ \::/ / \:\__\
\/__/ \/__/ \/__/ \/__/
+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
|S|a|y| |D|u|h| |t|o| |S|n|u|h|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
Dr. Richard Silverł SPAMNEENERS CLUB Member
england.chat top poster for July, 2000
Sabu424's The Good Guys List member
From: en_mog <en_...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: Goodbye :-)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 08:05:45 -0500
If I have any integrity at all, I must leave. I welcome others
to do so as well if they refuse to be led by a group of
unthinking drones that are stuck in such a mindnumbingly
predictable pattern of
snuh/attack/snuh/attack/penises/attack/snuh/rectum/attack/.
From: TGOS <tg...@spamcop.net>
Newsgroups: alt.hentai.sailor-moon
Subject: Re: Great Newsgroup!
Date: 27 Nov 2000 02:23:19 -0600
Nobody can control the snuh.
Ready to create a new newsgroup?
Everything you need is here:
http://www.dw.net/~scottzf/hamish_mcsnetter/index.html
pleace add to yuor lits: snuh music
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/49/tinc_project.html
this has been another unique, handcrafted and thoughtful psot from the
Snuh family of fine psoters.
Dean Humphries
Wow-great post and I couldn't have said it better.
When I first came to a.t.s., at arrived at the tail-end of an era where
you had seen much intelligent conversation about the show, at times it
could get over-analytical, and I had felt that many didn't have the
breadth and width of animation history in their backgrounds, I had
thought that those people had made some of the more narrow-minded posts.
I was interested enough in what I had seen here (at the time) to go
search through Deja's a.t.s. archives (back when it reached to 1996). It
was quite an era, I can assure you that it bears no resemblance to the
a.t.s. of today.
I have tried to analyze what happened, and I think that it was a combo
of being all talked out on the subject matter and a new breed of poster
to UseNet.
Before, people were more attracted to the exchange of information,
nowadays, with more people than ever at UseNet and a better
cross-section of society, people tend to get a bit more friendly and
*chatty*, something that before was considered a serious breach of
netiquette, people would be chided for being offtopic.
I don't think it's a Bad Thing, I think that people need to realize that
perhaps nothing in this world changes quicker than the Internet/UseNet,
in fact, that's its strongest point concerning it.
The main idea has switched from information disseminated about group
topic, to people getting to know one another, which I feel is just as
strong a reason to have a newsgroup.
When you see the increasingly rare intelligent UseNet post (and make no
mistake, *all* of UseNet suffers from the same maladies as a.t.s does),
you will notice that the points brought up all usually backed with sound
reasons why the poster felt that way, as opposed to "TEH SIMPSONS ROXERS
ADN YUO ALL SUX IF YUO DONT FEEL TAHT WAY" *or* "The *worst* show
*ever*, and I'm never watching it again".
As Steve discusses above, I find that nowadays the biggest issue to deal
with is the shear volume of posts that one sees (as they open their
newsreader each day), I read many other newsgroups and there's no way I
can read 200 posts a day times every newsgroup I sub to.
So, I decide what I'm going to read by thread title and who is posting.
It's great to see people having fun with "Chief Wiggum's Funniest Lines"
and I don't begrudge them of that, that was what I had first loved the
most about a.t.s., sharing my favorite lines from the show, but after
reading a few hundred Wiggum threads, I have damn near memorized every
line.
I still think that a.t.s. is the best newsgroup in all of UseNet, the
wisest thing I've heard regarding this subject matter came from a
long-time a.t.s'er that still posts here regularly (albeit, less
frequency). He told me that the most important thing is that people get
the correct information they inquire about ("Where is Springfield", etc,
notwithstanding), has tried to make sure that it happens, and that's
what I call a real fan of the show, someone that cares enough to bother.
He also told me that after having the same conversation twelve times
over the years gets you into burnout stage, I'm glad that he
acknowledged that, I have to admit that nothing burns me more than
seeing *old-timers* say that *fill-in-the-newsgroup-name-here* sucks
nowadays, nothing like the old days of yore, the real reason that it
*sucks* has more to do with the fact it has become boring after all the
time has passed.
That's my three cents.
btw, Steve, nice sig.
> --
> My 2 Cents, by Kent Brockman aka
> _______________________
> /O STEVE O\
> /OOOOO Simpsons fan OOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOO afmps fan OOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOO 70.6% OOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> \ diehard fan of NY: O UCLRM UC2CTM UCASGM /
> \ YANKEES KNICKS OOOOO UCFMSMTRSHTOAH /
> \ RANGERS OOOOOOOOO UCCPAAM /
> \ JETS OOOOOOOOOOOOO /
> \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
> \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
Internet King
CaptainFanatic wrote:
> I wonder how many of you "adults" realize how much time you spend discussing
> an animated television series without realizing the shots you've taken from
> the Simpson's writers.
> Remember the Poochie the Dog episode ?.
> Obviously the creators of the very show that you go on and on about enjoy
> picking at you with the understanding that you're all not bright enough to
> realize it.
> This is what makes the show brilliant.
> The fact that it goes over the heads of the less intelligent folks that are
> gathered here is wonderful.
> I won't even bother commenting about how you welcome someone to the group.
> Obviously you think that the behavior was "intelligent, witty, and sharp".
> But remember watching a television show that is "intelligent, witty and
> sharp" doesn't make you the same.
> You people along with the lowly intellects at www.snpp.com need to get
> themselves a life.
> The episode capsules and the way each episode is analyzed is laughable.
> You people really have no idea about the show, and shouldn't be allowed to
> even speak on the subject.
Are you the creator of High and Lois? Because you are making me laugh.
Sincerely,
Little Girl
Jimmy Legs
i think it used to be referred to as "self-referential humor". tho i
suppose "meta-humor" may be more correct since it isn't always about
referencing something having to do with the simpsons so much as making
a joke about how jokes are created. whoa, that's clear.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Steve
>
> Dan Hinojosa wrote:
> >
> > You can't have an intelligent discussion about the Simpsons, it's a
> > cartoon for crying out loud. Sheesh. Have we sunk from talking
> > intelligently about The Bible, The Illiad, Shakespeare, Red Badge of
> > Courage, so and so forth to the Simpsons? I just come here to have a
> > silly time.
>
> Well, I disagree with the first part-you *can* have an intelligent
> discussion about the Simpsons, but years past, when you saw
> conversations like that here, at times it could get over-analytical.
>
> Coming here to have a silly time is OK as well, I think that many of the
> people that don't appreciate the one-liners and show refs understand
> that the show *is* a comedy and that it's all done in the comic spirit
> of the show.
analyzing the Simpsons. My high school also attempted one of those
courses one year as an elective. If the Simpsons can't be intelligently
discussed, I fail to see how two institutions of higher learning would
find otherwise. Personally, I would like to bring about a revival of
the old condition of the newsgroup, however it must have been, and even
if there are 1000 messages of snuh, I will gladly spend time on the 50
genuinely content-rich messages. This thread is the first heartening
sign of a willingness to think before typing, and I encourage that trend
wholeheartedly.
Oh and Dean, thanks for the compliment about the sig. I must say, your
sig is very interesting too (in light of what I have heard about
en_mog).
--
Steve
How about this: Meta-humor, as it concerns the Simpsons, is jokes the
family makes about the fact that they're a cartoon, or jokes about
real-life merchandise.
Jokes about things that they wouldn't know about in their cartoon world,
things that only exist in our own frame of reference.
Hopefully that helps.
Dartheodore Maximillian Arada III
> cartoon for crying out loud. Sheesh.
You're right, it's pretty hard to discuss Homer's intestines being exposed, a
Lisa Log crashing throughout the US, Homer getting shot multiple times, "Chew
through my ballsac", and an orgy of fish guts.
~DarthArada~
"Snuh!" Homer Simpson
"We have all the time in the world..." ~George Lazenby/James Bond "On Her
Majesty's Secret Service"
MUSSOLINI TO EMBARK ON CHEST EXPANSION CAMPAIGN ~The Onion
Pete
wrote:
yeah well I believe many different terms can encapsulate one
meaning...that is the beauty and bane of the English langauge.There
was no chance of me trying to be pretentious using Meta-, I just
wanted to be clear in my intent.
I realise,after reading some very eloquent postings here (Dan, Shane)
that there is a chance for discussion above the "Best x Line" or, "You
are all geeeky losers for watching a cartoon" etc. Yes it would appear
that Simpsons can add to the literature pool and have content worthy
of discussion in "higher" institutions (let's not get into that
debate!). That is GOOD. Let us all try to think about that. Yes - post
the funny lines and the best ep. rantings, but....and it is a big
but....we should also include space for serious (well not _too_
serious) discussion about this group of dysfunctional Springfieldians.
I applaude all who have flamed me and responded in kind. It is worthy
of a great show and people who are willing to commit to argument and
discussion.
Pete
The Rack
> Personally, I find that simple one-liners take much less time to say
> than intelligent discussion.
It also allows others to see our level of Simps-anality. We're smart,
because we can quote the show backward and forward.
> With a newsgroup of such a large volume, I have to choose between
> devoting my time to it and pursuing other activities in my life, and I
> choose the latter.
I took one Sunday afternoon several months ago and "caught-up" every thread
in ATS I could get. Now, I just mark everything read and respond to stuff
when I can. Doesn't take much time at all.
> However, in this increasingly fast-paced world, there simply exists
> less time for all of us to devote to a newsgroup
Time for clichés, eh? I'm not being critical here, it just sounds cliché to
say that the world is getting faster, which means we have less time.
> WHen I joined this group last summer, I was strangely
> attracted by the "snuh" and the "favorite _____ line" threads, despite
> my repulsion to their lack of intelligence.
I make one-line Simpsons quote responses, too. I'm not as successful in
getting people to cascade them as others, for some reason...
> In a way, it's the same as my still enjoying the Simpsons, just on a
> different level.
"Levels" on the Simpsons... foreshadowing things to come... (this line
doesn't make sense right now; but it will soon)
> Perhaps the intellectuality has diminished in both arenas, but the
> characters remain the same, and we all know their potential.
You've told us something about yourself: you prefer a "character based"
approach to the show. Many people do that. I, myself, am more detached at
the character level. I prefer to view the show from "overhead" as it were,
as an all-encompassing satire. The character-driven approach to the Simpsons
is very common; but, IMHO it lacks the ability to encompass the show's
entire concept. IOW, there's more to The Simpsons than the characters--much
more.
> If there exists both the time and the opportunity for an intelligent,
> thoughtful discussion, I welcome it with open arms and a ready
> keyboard. However, I doubt many, if any, such opportunities will
> present themselves
(Chadderack clears his throat; Mercury, Venus, and Earth line up; a meteor
flashes by; Eric Idle elbows Steve in the ribs and says "Nudge, nudge")
> select only the intelligent threads or those asking questions to read,
> thus in essence diminshing the effective size of the newsgroup.
Either I've been "plonked" by an inordinate number of posters, or my posts
haven't made it out into USENET, or people just ignore the ol' Chadderack. I
think I've posted some very intelligent stuff here.
> After all that, I realize that the Simpsons has not recently been
> conducive to topics for intelligent discussion, which is why we've
> evolved into mindless show-bashing and snuhing ad infinitum.
The show itself has declined, but it has rarely been broken down (or fully
explained) to anyone's satisfaction. The Simpsons refuses to be defined;
this is the last great frontier, and it alone is the reason all of us could
have intelligent discussion here.
They have college courses on the Simpsons; proof positive that there's more
to this show than meets the eye.
> The hope for further intelligence lies in the return of the show to past
> values, because we've already endlessly discussed and resolved past
> issues.
Not only "past values," but "original concept." The original concept used to
be well defined. It seems like the writers aren't even sure what they're
doing anymore; there's no clearly defined concept. One week, it's wacky
adventure. The next week, a poor attempt at satire. The following? A decent
story-episode, without much humor.
I'm almost finished with a paper, in which I'm attempting to break the
Simpsons down by levels. I'll welcome "intelligent discussion", if I am to
come by it, at that time.
--
The inflammable Chadderack
The Rack
"Dan Hinojosa" <digita...@digitalpriest.com> wrote in message
news:3A7513AA...@digitalpriest.com...
> You can't have an intelligent discussion about the Simpsons, it's a
> cartoon for crying out loud. Sheesh. Have we sunk from talking
> intelligently about The Bible, The Illiad, Shakespeare, Red Badge of
> Courage, so and so forth to the Simpsons? I just come here to have
> a silly time.
And, a silly time you may have. There are a few of us that recognize the
Simpsons on more levels than just "Me lose brain? Uh-oh". It's plain as the
nose on my face that many people don't understand the show, simply by all
the "continuity-error" questions we get every day (Why is Flanders 60 years
old?) I maintain there is one satisfactory answer to ALL continuity
questions, for example, but most people still don't understand.
On the one hand, there are people who understand; on the other, people who
don't. That indicates need for discussion, does it not?
> All this reminds me a thought engaging quote by Ralph Wiggum, "It
> tastes like burning".
"Quotes" from the show are hardly the highest level. Hidden references alone
show the Simpsons is made up of more than just animation paint and buttock
humor. We haven't even discussed the essentially undiscovered territory of
hidden satire and iconoclasm on the show.
--
The inflammable Chadderack
The Rack
"Dean Humphries" <snu...@NOSPAMPLEACEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A756CCB...@NOSPAMPLEACEhotmail.com...
> Wow-great post and I couldn't have said it better.
It was OK ;)
> When I first came to a.t.s., at arrived at the tail-end of an era where
> you had seen much intelligent conversation about the show, at times
> it could get over-analytical, and I had felt that many didn't have the
> breadth and width of animation history in their backgrounds, I had
> thought that those people had made some of the more narrow-
> minded posts.
I've seen this "narrow-minded" approach to The Simpsons since I lurked in 96
and started posting in 97. The simple concept of "continuity error" seemed
easily explainable to me; yet, every single day, there'd be a post asking
"why the hell doesn't X jibe with Y?"
As far as "over-analytical" goes--IMO I think this translates into "I know
what I'm trying to say, but I can't say it." Posts would get long and
bloated, without ever appearing to resolve <any> issue.
I think I've recently come upon a satisfactory explanation of the show; I've
been waiting for the thoughts to gel for a while (11 years) and I'm finally
writing a paper that seems to "explain it" for me. Heaven knows my huge
Dennis-Wilson plagued website didn't encapsulate the Simpsons any more than
the book "The Simpsons: A Complete Guide" or SNPP.COM does.
> I was interested enough in what I had seen here (at the time) to go
> search through Deja's a.t.s. archives (back when it reached to
> 1996). It was quite an era, I can assure you that it bears no
> resemblance to the a.t.s. of today.
Lots of well-educated people were here, and even many of THEM made
narrow-minded posts IMO.
>I have tried to analyze what happened, and I think that it was a
> combo of being all talked out on the subject matter and a new breed
> of poster to UseNet.
>
> Before, people were more attracted to the exchange of information,
> nowadays, with more people than ever at UseNet and a better
> cross-section of society, people tend to get a bit more friendly and
> *chatty*, something that before was considered a serious breach of
> netiquette, people would be chided for being offtopic.
Great point. "The internet: it's not just for losers, anymore!"
> The main idea has switched from information disseminated about
> group topic, to people getting to know one another, which I feel is
> just as strong a reason to have a newsgroup.
I thought you were more pessimistic about USENET than this. I thought the
whole idea of "snuh" was to push the idea of "each and every post is as
important as another" in people's face. I was actually starting to agree
with this.
Don't get me wrong; getting to know people, and having friends is O.K.
too... Sure, we'd all like some REAL friends Marge, but what are the chances
of THAT happening?
> So, I decide what I'm going to read by thread title and who is
> posting.
Could it be I've been plonked by the great Dean Humphries? Or, heaven
forbid, Dean Humphries' penis? (which made the occasional pertinent post, or
two)
Speaking of "penis", where is Conan's W. (western?) Penis? It's way overdue
for posting.
> I still think that a.t.s. is the best newsgroup in all of UseNet, the
> wisest thing I've heard regarding this subject matter came from a
> long-time a.t.s'er that still posts here regularly (albeit, less
> frequency). He told me that the most important thing is that people
> get the correct information they inquire about ("Where is Springfield",
> etc, notwithstanding), has tried to make sure that it happens, and
> that's what I call a real fan of the show, someone that cares enough
> to bother.
Ironic, in light of what prompted the original post in this thread, no?
> He also told me that after having the same conversation twelve times
> over the years gets you into burnout stage, I'm glad that he
> acknowledged that,
I burned out on ATS in about 8 months. I went off to make a website. It got
shut down, so here I am--waiting for the next burnout.
> I have to admit that nothing burns me more than seeing *old-timers*
> say that *fill-in-the-newsgroup-name-here* sucks nowadays,
> nothing like the old days of yore, the real reason that it *sucks* has
> more to do with the fact it has become boring after all the time has
> passed.
It's more an arrogance thing, as if they own USENET. I'd just like to come
and find some like-minded individuals here occasionally. In the past there
was Nathan Mulac DeHoff, Andrew Gill, Solon Boomer-Jenks, and even Eric
Sansoni (when we weren't at each other's throat about Futurama). If I could
persuade even one other person to approach the Simpsons from the satirical
level, and thus increase their enjoyment of the show, I'd feel successful.
> btw, Steve, nice sig.
I'm guessing because it's a bandwidth waster. As Ol' Velma might say... "I
like that".
--
The inflammable Chadderack
Dean Humphries
>
> "Dean Humphries" <snu...@NOSPAMPLEACEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A756CCB...@NOSPAMPLEACEhotmail.com...
> > Wow-great post and I couldn't have said it better.
>
> It was OK ;)
>
> > When I first came to a.t.s., at arrived at the tail-end of an era where
> > you had seen much intelligent conversation about the show, at times
> > it could get over-analytical, and I had felt that many didn't have the
> > breadth and width of animation history in their backgrounds, I had
> > thought that those people had made some of the more narrow-
> > minded posts.
>
> I've seen this "narrow-minded" approach to The Simpsons since I lurked in 96
> and started posting in 97. The simple concept of "continuity error" seemed
> easily explainable to me; yet, every single day, there'd be a post asking
> "why the hell doesn't X jibe with Y?"
Every era has its sins, that certainly was a problem back then.
My favorite posts are the ones that people have dug out from the early
90's-where people already started saying that season four was the worst
*ever*, that it had lost its charm.
The last couple of years, season ten has taken a whipping, I think it
was just as good as any other.
The thing to keep in mind is not that the show has ever sucked, but that
it has changed.
Whether or not that's a good thing, is purely subjective.
> As far as "over-analytical" goes--IMO I think this translates into "I know
> what I'm trying to say, but I can't say it." Posts would get long and
> bloated, without ever appearing to resolve <any> issue.
They even had a name for it-subjects that go nowhere.
I feel that many UseNetters translate words-per-post to meaning that the
more words they wrote were directly proportional to their smarts.
Orson Welles once gave advice to a screen writer-he told them that they
needed to edit their works to the bare bones, after that, when they had
absolutely had only the essentials left-cut it in half.
> I think I've recently come upon a satisfactory explanation of the show; I've
> been waiting for the thoughts to gel for a while (11 years) and I'm finally
> writing a paper that seems to "explain it" for me. Heaven knows my huge
> Dennis-Wilson plagued website didn't encapsulate the Simpsons any more than
> the book "The Simpsons: A Complete Guide" or SNPP.COM does.
That was a great site, I was sorry to see it go.
I clearly remember your posts about how it all happened.
> > I was interested enough in what I had seen here (at the time) to go
> > search through Deja's a.t.s. archives (back when it reached to
> > 1996). It was quite an era, I can assure you that it bears no
> > resemblance to the a.t.s. of today.
>
> Lots of well-educated people were here, and even many of THEM made
> narrow-minded posts IMO.
Yep.
In fact, the infamous Salon story about a.t.s. was written by a former
reg here, and their posting history wasn't anything to write home about.
> >I have tried to analyze what happened, and I think that it was a
> > combo of being all talked out on the subject matter and a new breed
> > of poster to UseNet.
> >
> > Before, people were more attracted to the exchange of information,
> > nowadays, with more people than ever at UseNet and a better
> > cross-section of society, people tend to get a bit more friendly and
> > *chatty*, something that before was considered a serious breach of
> > netiquette, people would be chided for being offtopic.
>
> Great point. "The internet: it's not just for losers, anymore!"
>
> > The main idea has switched from information disseminated about
> > group topic, to people getting to know one another, which I feel is
> > just as strong a reason to have a newsgroup.
>
> I thought you were more pessimistic about USENET than this. I thought the
> whole idea of "snuh" was to push the idea of "each and every post is as
> important as another" in people's face. I was actually starting to agree
> with this.
No, I think communication is good-think on this:
Today, with the Internet and satellite dishes, a 14 year old child
living in Zaire with access to them has more in common with another
similarly equipped teenager in Iceland than they do with their own
established cultures.
I believe that prejudices and wars are based on the unfamiliarity, the
more people get to know one another, the better off we all are, and
UseNet facilitates this.
From UseNet, I now know people in the UK, Australia, Israel, Spain,
Germany (among other places) that have all invited me to visit them, I
find that truly amazing.
I can answer Snuh with more relevance down below.
> Don't get me wrong; getting to know people, and having friends is O.K.
> too... Sure, we'd all like some REAL friends Marge, but what are the chances
> of THAT happening?
True.
I have been lucky enough to meet quite a few people that I've first got
to know through UseNet, and *real life* personas are quite different
than a persons text personality.
> > So, I decide what I'm going to read by thread title and who is
> > posting.
>
> Could it be I've been plonked by the great Dean Humphries? Or, heaven
> forbid, Dean Humphries' penis? (which made the occasional pertinent post, or
> two)
Nah, I've never plonked anyone, I'm curious what people have to say,
maybe even more so people that are critical of me.
I used to read every single post to a.t.s., it's just not possible to do
so now, I actually have a life, as hard as it may be to believe.
I guess the best thing to do (to get read by *anyone*-I'm not the only
person here that takes this approach) is to not be boring, or as sports
d00d, Jim Rome says, have a take.
I guess you can give Ondre that much, he wasn't boring.
As far as my penis is concerned, I am not responsible for what it posts,
as with most men, it has a mind of its own.
> Speaking of "penis", where is Conan's W. (western?) Penis? It's way overdue
> for posting.
Weeeeellll, he is attending a university in northern California, maybe
he's been hit by the rolling blackouts?
I talk to him semi-regularly, I'm sure that he'll be around again very
soon.
> > I still think that a.t.s. is the best newsgroup in all of UseNet, the
> > wisest thing I've heard regarding this subject matter came from a
> > long-time a.t.s'er that still posts here regularly (albeit, less
> > frequency). He told me that the most important thing is that people
> > get the correct information they inquire about ("Where is Springfield",
> > etc, notwithstanding), has tried to make sure that it happens, and
> > that's what I call a real fan of the show, someone that cares enough
> > to bother.
>
> Ironic, in light of what prompted the original post in this thread, no?
Heheheh, you got me on this one, I didn't read the original post, though
I know in general what it's about.
I have to admit, my blood boils a bit when I see people *seriously*
trying to figure out where it is-IT'S A GODDAMN CARTOON, IT'S IN CARTOON
WORLD!!!.
The movie is another one, even as a newbie, before I'd ask something
*anywhere* at UseNet, I use Deja first.
I used to troll people about it, now I read one post and hit *read* when
I'm sure what it's about.
> > He also told me that after having the same conversation twelve times
> > over the years gets you into burnout stage, I'm glad that he
> > acknowledged that,
>
> I burned out on ATS in about 8 months. I went off to make a website. It got
> shut down, so here I am--waiting for the next burnout.
When I get tired, I check out other newsgroups.
I'd say that short termers here last about 8 months, mid terms around a
year and a half, old timers usually can make it to 3-4 years, then we
have people like Mr. Benjamin Robertson :) -now, that was a joke,
Benjamin is what I consider to be the model UseNet poster,
well-thoughtout posts and more importantly, a sense of humor.
What I like best about his posts is that, even when I don't agree with
him, he has ideas on how the show can improve.
> > I have to admit that nothing burns me more than seeing *old-timers*
> > say that *fill-in-the-newsgroup-name-here* sucks nowadays,
> > nothing like the old days of yore, the real reason that it *sucks* has
> > more to do with the fact it has become boring after all the time has
> > passed.
>
> It's more an arrogance thing, as if they own USENET.
Ahhhh, that's what Snuh is all about.
I have to admit that I bought into the whole 60's ideal *of the people*
and I love how free-form UseNet can be, how ideas can flow and be
exchanged.
The one thing I'd quickly noticed about newsgroups is that they reflect
real life quite well, hierarchies are usually well in place and *regs*
make sure that newbies pass the entrance tests.
People that don't buy into that are quickly ostracized, shunned and
ignored, I feel strongly that *everyone* has a valid viewpoint and
shouldn't be bullied out of a group.
That's sort of why I have en_mog's statement in my sig, he should have
never left, he didn't get that I agreed with what he had to say, I just
didn't agree in how he said it and I'd try to get him to understand
that, not that it really mattered what I had thought.
I had thought he was as thick-skined as he seemed, but in the end, he
could have been trolling all of a.t.s.
Snuh is absurd, it was born out of boredom and it didn't take long to
see that a section of UseNet society just acted like it had the power of
twelve armies and felt it to be a threat and wanted it stopped.
It's liken rudely telling a kid to shut-up-the more of a big deal it
gets to be, the more they'll do it.
Yet if you ignore them, they usually get quiet.
Snuh has grown to the point that it has become a adjective, people have
lost their UseNet accounts for "Snuhing and Buhing", it's against the
AUP/TOS of many servers.
So, it's like this-you don't like certain posters, ignore 'em, you don't
like Snuh, do the same.
> I'd just like to come
> and find some like-minded individuals here occasionally. In the past there
> was Nathan Mulac DeHoff, Andrew Gill, Solon Boomer-Jenks, and even Eric
> Sansoni (when we weren't at each other's throat about Futurama). If I could
> persuade even one other person to approach the Simpsons from the satirical
> level, and thus increase their enjoyment of the show, I'd feel successful.
What I like about the majority of a.t.s. people is their sense of humor,
I guess to understand the show and realize what a cultural gem it is,
you have to have a real appreciation of intelligent humor.
I find most a.t.s'ers the type of people that don't take themselves
seriously and have a light approach to life, the type I'd like to have a
drink with.
I think a quote from the fifties James Stewart movie-Harvey, sums it up
best. In it, Stewart's character-Elwood P. Dowd, has this to say:
"Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, 'In this world,
Elwood, you must be' -- she always called me Elwood -- 'In this world,
you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant. And you may quote me."
> > btw, Steve, nice sig.
>
> I'm guessing because it's a bandwidth waster. As Ol' Velma might say... "I
> like that".
Nah, he has created some art there.
Dean Humphries
>
> Dean Humphries wrote:
> >
> > Dan Hinojosa wrote:
> > >
> > > You can't have an intelligent discussion about the Simpsons, it's a
> > > cartoon for crying out loud. Sheesh. Have we sunk from talking
> > > intelligently about The Bible, The Illiad, Shakespeare, Red Badge of
> > > Courage, so and so forth to the Simpsons? I just come here to have a
> > > silly time.
> >
> > Well, I disagree with the first part-you *can* have an intelligent
> > discussion about the Simpsons, but years past, when you saw
> > conversations like that here, at times it could get over-analytical.
> >
> > Coming here to have a silly time is OK as well, I think that many of the
> > people that don't appreciate the one-liners and show refs understand
> > that the show *is* a comedy and that it's all done in the comic spirit
> > of the show.
> When I was at Harvard over the summer, there was a full-credit course
> analyzing the Simpsons. My high school also attempted one of those
> courses one year as an elective. If the Simpsons can't be intelligently
> discussed, I fail to see how two institutions of higher learning would
> find otherwise.
The show is multi-leveled, to really appreciate the thought that goes
into it, you need to tape it and watch it a few times.
I was lucky enough to have met people associated with the show, a few
expressed angst that so many people at a.t.s would dismiss the show, one
even made mention of putting *so* much work into it, and that reading
a.t.s. was an exercise in masochism, he felt reading here at times
caused him to feel that his heart was being ripped out.
One of my pet peeves is the talk about Jerk Ass Homer-he was that way
from the begining.
> Personally, I would like to bring about a revival of
> the old condition of the newsgroup, however it must have been, and even
> if there are 1000 messages of snuh, I will gladly spend time on the 50
> genuinely content-rich messages. This thread is the first heartening
> sign of a willingness to think before typing, and I encourage that trend
> wholeheartedly.
Every once in a while I'll throw something out there, but usually no one
bites.
I think the show changed greatly when James L. Brooks stopped working on
it from day to day.
> Oh and Dean, thanks for the compliment about the sig. I must say, your
> sig is very interesting too (in light of what I have heard about
> en_mog).
Maybe someone can email him and ask him what's up.
>
> --
> _______________________
> /O STEVE O\
> /OOOOO Simpsons fan OOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOO afmps fan OOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOO 70.6% OOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> \ diehard fan of NY: O UCLRM UC2CTM UCASGM /
> \ YANKEES KNICKS OOOOO UCFMSMTRSHTOAH /
> \ RANGERS OOOOOOOOO UCCPAAM /
> \ JETS OOOOOOOOOOOOO /
> \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
> \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
Dean Humphries
>
> "Steve" <night...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A74674F...@home.com...
>
> > Personally, I find that simple one-liners take much less time to say
> > than intelligent discussion.
>
> It also allows others to see our level of Simps-anality. We're smart,
> because we can quote the show backward and forward.
But..it shouldn't translate to that you have more insight into the show
than someone that either doesn't have a photographic memory, or snpp
bookmarked.
> > With a newsgroup of such a large volume, I have to choose between
> > devoting my time to it and pursuing other activities in my life, and I
> > choose the latter.
>
> I took one Sunday afternoon several months ago and "caught-up" every thread
> in ATS I could get. Now, I just mark everything read and respond to stuff
> when I can. Doesn't take much time at all.
Ahhh, the truth finally comes out! :)
> > WHen I joined this group last summer, I was strangely
> > attracted by the "snuh" and the "favorite _____ line" threads, despite
> > my repulsion to their lack of intelligence.
>
> I make one-line Simpsons quote responses, too. I'm not as successful in
> getting people to cascade them as others, for some reason...
That shouldn't bother you.
> > Perhaps the intellectuality has diminished in both arenas, but the
> > characters remain the same, and we all know their potential.
>
> You've told us something about yourself: you prefer a "character based"
> approach to the show. Many people do that. I, myself, am more detached at
> the character level. I prefer to view the show from "overhead" as it were,
> as an all-encompassing satire. The character-driven approach to the Simpsons
> is very common; but, IMHO it lacks the ability to encompass the show's
> entire concept. IOW, there's more to The Simpsons than the characters--much
> more.
I'd like to see Springfield and its denizens fleshed out more, which can
be taken either way.
I think that perhaps one of the most fully conceived episodes is 22
Short Films About Springfield.
> > If there exists both the time and the opportunity for an intelligent,
> > thoughtful discussion, I welcome it with open arms and a ready
> > keyboard. However, I doubt many, if any, such opportunities will
> > present themselves
>
> (Chadderack clears his throat; Mercury, Venus, and Earth line up; a meteor
> flashes by; Eric Idle elbows Steve in the ribs and says "Nudge, nudge")
>
> > select only the intelligent threads or those asking questions to read,
> > thus in essence diminshing the effective size of the newsgroup.
>
> Either I've been "plonked" by an inordinate number of posters, or my posts
> haven't made it out into USENET, or people just ignore the ol' Chadderack. I
> think I've posted some very intelligent stuff here.
What I have felt have been some of my more rather insightful UseNet
posts seemed to be ignored.
Then, later on I had seen others refer to it, just because no one
responds doesn't mean it isn't being read-maybe you are so succinct that
there's nothing to add.
*I* read your posts, so there.
> > After all that, I realize that the Simpsons has not recently been
> > conducive to topics for intelligent discussion, which is why we've
> > evolved into mindless show-bashing and snuhing ad infinitum.
>
> The show itself has declined, but it has rarely been broken down (or fully
> explained) to anyone's satisfaction. The Simpsons refuses to be defined;
> this is the last great frontier, and it alone is the reason all of us could
> have intelligent discussion here.
Maybe some of the earlier shows where more satisfying, but that doesn't
mean the show has declined, it's taken off to other levels.
> They have college courses on the Simpsons; proof positive that there's more
> to this show than meets the eye.
>
> > The hope for further intelligence lies in the return of the show to past
> > values, because we've already endlessly discussed and resolved past
> > issues.
>
> Not only "past values," but "original concept." The original concept used to
> be well defined. It seems like the writers aren't even sure what they're
> doing anymore; there's no clearly defined concept. One week, it's wacky
> adventure. The next week, a poor attempt at satire. The following? A decent
> story-episode, without much humor.
I can agree on this-they need a strong hand-like James L. Brooks. :)
> I'm almost finished with a paper, in which I'm attempting to break the
> Simpsons down by levels. I'll welcome "intelligent discussion", if I am to
> come by it, at that time.
Post it.
> --
> The inflammable Chadderack
Michael Nusair
> > Oh and Dean, thanks for the compliment about the sig. I must say, your
> > sig is very interesting too (in light of what I have heard about
> > en_mog).
>
> Maybe someone can email him and ask him what's up.
That's a good idea. En_mog may have been annoying, and he may have been
a troll, but he *did* bring quite a bit of discussion to A.T.S.
I nominate Dean to email en_mog!
*-----------------------------------*
| Michael Nusair | mnu...@home.com |
|------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Burns: Oh, quit cogitating, Steinmetz, and use an open-faced |
| club. The sand wedge! |
| Homer: Mmm... Open-faced club sandwich. |
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Sydney Assbasket
>You people really have no idea about the show, and shouldn't be allowed to
>even speak on the subject.
>
Haha, good one. No really, what do you think of us?
________________________________________________________________
The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd
I'm trying to quit chewing gum so I started smoking.
"Gay" is not a synonym for "bad."
Remove "bination" to reply.
Sydney Assbasket
>over people's heads. The same can be said of Monty Python's Flying Circus.
>It's smug iconoclasm; it's real satire. Homer picks up the Gary Larson (Far
>Side) calendar and says "I don't get it... I don't get it..." as he reads
>it... Dr. Hibbert makes the comment "Devilishiously satirical! I wonder if
>anyone else got that..." The highest level of humor on the Simpsons is often
>missed.
I love "Bloom County" and Monty Python! I haven't read Doonesbury as it is on
the editorial page, and I'm not really in "comic strip mode" while reading that
page. BTW, did anyone besides me get the "Rashomon" joke in the ep where they
go to Japan?
Sydney Assbasket
>So what you want is the writers to only write for you ?.
>And when they try to expand themselves they get crap ?.
>
On the next "Simpsons": Homer and Carl discuss "The Great Gatsby" in detail.
Caviar will be served, black tie.
Sydney Assbasket
intelligent discussion. There are episodes from past seasons that I watch over
and over in syndication, yet, I changed the channel when I saw that the episode
this week was the one where Lisa lives in the tree, I changed it because I
remembered not liking it. I've been doing that a lot lately. The face of the
show has changed from a witty, "under-the-radar" satire to a weird,
dysfunctional, one-liner ridden sitcom.
BTW, I saw a month or two ago a reference to "The Seventh Seal" in a short
'toon on Cartoon Network. That proves that even if your target audience is
children, the writing still can be intelligent.
Sydney Assbasket
>cartoon for crying out loud. Sheesh. Have we sunk from talking
>intelligently about The Bible, The Illiad, Shakespeare, Red Badge of
>Courage, so and so forth to the Simpsons? I just come here to have a
>silly time.
Shakespeare, what has HE ever done?
Sydney Assbasket
>Lisa Log crashing throughout the US, Homer getting shot multiple times, "Chew
>through my ballsac", and an orgy of fish guts.
I knew it was the beginning of the end when I heard a Simpsons character use
such an obvious joke about genitalia. A better use of the word was done
earlier in the following:
Homer: Name one succesful person who lived without air conditioning.
Marge: Balzac.
Homer: No need for profanity.
Marge: But Balzac is the name of the guy!
Steve
>
> >You're right, it's pretty hard to discuss Homer's intestines being exposed, a
> >Lisa Log crashing throughout the US, Homer getting shot multiple times, "Chew
> >through my ballsac", and an orgy of fish guts.
>
> I knew it was the beginning of the end when I heard a Simpsons character use
> such an obvious joke about genitalia. A better use of the word was done
> earlier in the following:
>
> Homer: Name one succesful person who lived without air conditioning.
>
> Marge: Balzac.
>
> Homer: No need for profanity.
>
> Marge: But Balzac is the name of the guy!
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then...
How does the rest of that go?
--
How DOES it go?
Gene Poole, G.D.I.
Steve wrote:
>
> Sydney Assbasket wrote:
> >
> > >You're right, it's pretty hard to discuss Homer's intestines being exposed, a
> > >Lisa Log crashing throughout the US, Homer getting shot multiple times, "Chew
> > >through my ballsac", and an orgy of fish guts.
> >
> > I knew it was the beginning of the end when I heard a Simpsons character use
> > such an obvious joke about genitalia. A better use of the word was done
> > earlier in the following:
> >
> > Homer: Name one succesful person who lived without air conditioning.
> >
> > Marge: Balzac.
> >
> > Homer: No need for profanity.
> >
> > Marge: But Balzac is the name of the guy!
>
> If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then...
> How does the rest of that go?
;) I think you got it right on, actually :)
>
> --
>
> How DOES it go?
> _______________________
> /O STEVE O\
> /OOOOO Simpsons fan OOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOO afmps fan OOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOO 70.6% OOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> /OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> \ diehard fan of NY: O UCLRM UC2CTM UCASGM /
> \ YANKEES KNICKS OOOOO UCFMSMTRSHTOAH /
> \ RANGERS OOOOOOOOO UCCPAAM /
> \ JETS OOOOOOOOOOOOO /
> \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
> \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /
--
Ask your ISP to add alt.games.video.fps
please?