The General Discussion Lounge

[Tamaki Suoh]

Send in a request on the form in the user control panel? :silly: Channel Surfer has to approve them but I don't see why he wouldn't approve anyone these days. Actually, given that Channel Surfer doesn't post anymore these days maybe a new person ought to be appointed leader of the group.

<_<
>_>
<_<

Just saying.

Oh, okay; thank you, Neb!

[Kyoya Otori]

I'll join/apply, if only for the Lisa stars. I'll send in a form now.

[Nebuchanezzar]

See, this way everyone will be like, whoa GD must be active and stuff these days, and they'll all be like, coming back, which will be totally awesome and stuff.

Except for H Thompson who will be sitting in a dank corner, rocking back and forth, and Imperciph who is too cool.

[Channel Surfer]

Actually, given that Channel Surfer doesn't post anymore these days maybe a new person ought to be appointed leader of the group.

I appointed Scully before retiring. It's his call about new members.

The benchmark is neb, your allowed in, it's not an exclusive club, if you write the occasional long post that's basically enough now.

Sorta, but I don't agree with your implication here. Keep in mind that not everyone allowed in initially was exactly at this kind of mythical level of discussion awesomeness. Plenty of people, especially back in 03, did little more than promote Chris Pfeiler rhetoric or follow in Jafar/Roger Myers III's lead with reasonably coherent posts, and back then that was enough. Seriously, go back and look up any of the old discussion dork posts from 02 or 03, especially the more obscure members. Some of those people would not be let in under the raw intelligence standards it sounds like you think existed.

The only real deliberate difference between now and then is that I wanted to break that circle-jerk mentality a little bit (while still keeping it slightly elitist), especially since it wasn't even worth preserving considering most of those members had moved on. If Neb wouldn't have been let in then, it would have been for the same reason TerrorK wouldn't have been let in, they pull rhetorical devices that irritate and make stances that wouldn't cohere to our attitudes towards the show then. And I personally disagree with much of what they say, if not outright think some of it is factually wrong, and they both (should) know that too. But their contributions are still mostly positive and productive, and they're still above any minimum standard of intelligence that was held back then, which I think is all that matters for a user group.

[Imperciph]

I ain't too cool for joining the essay dork krew, I always thought I never brought anything that new or original to the table. I'm as generic "intelligent" simpsons fan as they come.

if H Thompson ever made a cynical angry loners krew, that I'd join immediately.

[Dental Plan!]

I appointed Scully before retiring.

Someone has done this in the past, and it was the worst mistake they ever made.

Just sayin'.

[violent jase]

I'm probably not dorky enough to join the essay dorks krew. I can't be bothered to analyze most episodes. I personally believe people analyze too much about characterization and animation and this and that. The show is first and foremost a comedy and I view it as such. Humour is the most important element of the show and people always overlook it and dislike certain episodes because of less important things.

There goes my chance to join the krew

[Kyoya Otori]

Okay, I sent in a request to join. So now it's up to Mike Scully (the user) to decide if I can join?

[Postmaster]

I appointed Scully before retiring. It's his call about new members.



Sorta, but I don't agree with your implication here. Keep in mind that not everyone allowed in initially was exactly at this kind of mythical level of discussion awesomeness. Plenty of people, especially back in 03, did little more than promote Chris Pfeiler rhetoric or follow in Jafar/Roger Myers III's lead with reasonably coherent posts, and back then that was enough. Seriously, go back and look up any of the old discussion dork posts from 02 or 03, especially the more obscure members. Some of those people would not be let in under the raw intelligence standards it sounds like you think existed.
.

ehh not really I just said it to make fun of neb.

Seriously though I don't mean to be implying anything bad, and I'm not pretending that everything was all brilliant in the old days of the board and that everything's gone to shit now or anything like that. And I don't mean to hold up the essay dork krew as anything that's worth getting really protective over, I may have done before in quite a 'sucking up to the essay dork krew way' but that was just stupid of me, it's all fine and good now.

I ain't too cool for joining the essay dork krew, I always thought I never brought anything that new or original to the table. I'm as generic "intelligent" simpsons fan as they come.

if H Thompson ever made a cynical angry loners krew, that I'd join immediately.

But if we made a krew over it, we wouldn't be true loners.

Still I wonder if Adam R would be interested in forming the "wannabe music nerd krew" with me, for people are who are only just starting to build up our music collections" our slogan could be something like "Music is just something to be listened to while downloading more music"

[Stevie V. Scrivello]

I sent in a request to join; however, judging by the quality of some of my posts, I seriously doubt I'll be allowed in.

[Kyoya Otori]

I sent in a request to join; however, judging by the quality of some of my posts, I seriously doubt I'll be allowed in.

That's the way I felt about the chances of me getting in, too. But I think you have a better chance than me!

[Drumstick]

Still I wonder if Adam R would be interested in forming the "wannabe music nerd krew" with me, for people are who are only just starting to build up our music collections" our slogan could be something like "Music is just something to be listened to while downloading more music"

I'd join that as i'd like to have a big selection of music taste but don't and there was once a point when all I did was download music whilst listening to music.

[HOMR]

The Simpsons (the half-hour show) turned 18 two days ago, and no one made thread about it? Shame on us. Or did I just miss the thread.

[Postmaster]

We're nerds we only celebrate from the birth of the tracy ullman show short premiere although if you're hardcore like me, you made investigations into the exact date that Matt Groening had that meeting with James.L.Brooks and celebrate that day.

[Starman]

I sent in a request...still waiting on a response. I guess I'm too uncool for it.

[Charlie]

Sometimes it takes a while for a response.

Am I the only one that is sort of trouble by a bit of a plothole in "A Milhouse Divided"? It's a great episode and all, but some things don't make sense.

- Luann says that Kirk's father in law (Luann's father) gave him a job as manager of the cracker factory; yet the guy that fires Kirk looks nothing like Luann (if her dad looks like her)...or would it be a totally different person that would fire him?
- It's also mentioned he worked there for 20 years, meaning he and Luann would have to have been together for at least that long...and yet their only child is ten years old. Surely if they only stayed together for the sake of their son they would have separated long before he was even born? Or am I missing the whole point?

[Starman]

Heh, I never noticed that before. Well they definitely don't make any sense.

[Kyoya Otori]

I sent in a request...still waiting on a response. I guess I'm too uncool for it.

Harleen and I sent in a request eight days ago and are still waiting, so I'm guessing that it just takes a while to get a response sometimes.

And Ivan, about the Milhouse Divided thing, I think that it was just a different guy who fired Kirk. And for the second thing, perhaps it was that there problems didn't happen until after Milhouse was born, or that they weren't able to see their problems until after he was born.

[Tamaki Suoh]

Recently, someone reviewed "Incurable" and part of their review was this: "You got some facts wrong. Waylon was not adopted he was raised by Mr.Burns himself. His father Waylon senior worked for Mr.Burns. He was trying to save Springfield from a disaster of some sort and by doing so got killed. He was in retrospect a hero. Mr.Burns lied to Waylon by saying that his father had been killed by a pack of savage women which I believe is what turned him gay in the first place. I don't know what happened to his mom though."

Now I have always thought that Mr. Burns did not raise Waylon himself for several reasons:

1.) There was no indication that he did.
2.) If he was like his father, Waylon would probably not be romantically interested in him.
3.) In "Bart After Dark", Waylon says that his parents insisted he give the Maison Derriere a try, indicating that he had some type of parental figures.

So, what do you all think? Did Burns raise Smithers or not?

[Kyoya Otori]

I don't think Burns raised Smithers, because of reasons that you said, Harleen. I think it would be really weird if he had feelings for Mr. Burns after he raised him, and as you said Smithers talks about his parents in Bart After Dark.

[violent jase]

Yeah, I don't think Burns raised Smithers either. The writers like to screw with continuity for an episode as demonstrated in many other episodes and I think the Burns raising Smithers plotline in...whatever episode it was counts as one of those. Well as far as I know they only mentioned it in one episode didn't they?

[Tamaki Suoh]

Well, they never in any episode actually even said that he did...

[violent jase]

I thought it was implied in that episode... agh I can't remember what it was. The episode which showed how Smithers father died. It was season 11 or something

Simpsons knowledge = fail

[Tamaki Suoh]

Well, that episode was "The Blunder Years" from season 13. And they never actually said Burns raised him; he was just seen holding Smithers as a baby and then said he never told Smithers how his father really died.

[violent jase]

Ah ok. My memory of that episode is a little hazy. I wonder who else would've raised him then. It definitely wasn't Burns, unless Smithers is really screwed up

[Tamaki Suoh]

That's why I don't think it was Burns. Yes, Smithers is kind of screwed up (like everyone in Springfield) but I always think he seems to be one of the most sane people there, and I doubt he would be incestuous like that. I figure that Burns got him foster parents but maybe took care of him for a short time before he found any, thus then telling him the lie about how his father died?

[violent jase]

Yeah, that makes sense. I doubt Burns could raise a kid anyway, he'd be a terrible father!

[Tamaki Suoh]

Haha, I know. And if he did raise Smithers, Smithers probably would have turned out much differently. For one, he would have been trained to have a hunched back (as Burns tried to do to Bart in "Burns' Heir") and probably would have no morality.

[Robbie]