Talk:April Fool 09
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Contents |
[edit] Some random day
So TBC decided to do something about the beginning of April this year. when was the last time they did something for this day? it seems like it's been a while. -
The Knights Who Say Ni 
and quite possibly posted some time around 05:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) o'clock
- It would appear as though the last time they did something for April Fools was in 2006.--97.113.156.64 05:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Mirror
something tells me that we need to create a mirror file, as this probably won't be here forever...
- Fear not, several people (including me) have saved the flash file. — Defender1031*Talk 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
i made sure i saved a copy as well as i knew this was going to happen--Neomew 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a perfect mirror of the flah file if anyone is willing to tell me how to upload it --Jagger88 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Eww...
Am I the only one who sees a clear inuendo in the email song? --Jellote 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Domestic disturbance? Cause that's not innuendo, that's pretty clear. — Defender1031*Talk 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] It has departed
The intro is gone. It is over. We knew it wouldn't last. Someone post the mirror. I never got to see it. Sadness is all up ons. Philip8o 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still works for me. — It's dot com 23:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. I can't watch it. Hmmmmm... Philip8o 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was still seeing it too. Upon seeing your post, I assumed at first that it was my cache at work, but if you never saw it, then it could be your cache that saved the older splash screen. Whatever the case, it really should stay up for at least a full 24 hours. --Jay (Gobble) 23:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd never tried it until just now, so I couldn't have cached it, and it was still there. -132.183.151.241 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was still seeing it too. Upon seeing your post, I assumed at first that it was my cache at work, but if you never saw it, then it could be your cache that saved the older splash screen. Whatever the case, it really should stay up for at least a full 24 hours. --Jay (Gobble) 23:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. I can't watch it. Hmmmmm... Philip8o 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I couldnt watch this in safari but i worked in Firefox and IE.--Luis123 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Works fine for me in Safari. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've still got it. And if you're gonna beat me up, make it quick. i've got a full agenda today.
The Knights Who Say Ni 
03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Worked for me, now I can't see it. --76.120.82.192 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was there last night, but now it's gone. Post the mirror, please! Omnisweater 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please, post the mirror! I have not seen the intro because I needed to rest because I had my wisdom teeth removed! Now I will never be able to see this intro! Oh, the despair! — fuchsiania 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was there last night, but now it's gone. Post the mirror, please! Omnisweater 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] SB's WPM
Is anybody willing to measure Strong Bad's words per minute for that segment of the email where he's typing 'really' fast about a six year old and a domain name? I'm willing to bet it's broken a record of some sort. 71.32.102.155 03:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- So what you really want is for someone to be willing to measure Strong Bad's words per minute for that segment of the email where he's typing 'really' fast about a six year old and a domain name, as well as measure Strong Bad's words per minute for every other time Strong Bad has typed stuff, so that we can find out if it's a broken record of some sort? 'Cause, you know, that's the only way you'll make any such bet, willing or not. --76.200.148.120 07:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the current record-holder is the quadruple bass pedal in death metal. --TimMierz 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fourth wall broken
I don't think this comment is necessary. Strong Bad's knowledge that he is basically a cartoon on a website is the basis for quite a few if not all the SBEmails; I hardly think it's necessary to mention the obvious.--Big Dog 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, That means he broke the fourth wall.--
Record307 Talk/Contribs 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously. But if we're going to mention it here, then we ought to mention it on every SBEmail page. Him breaking the fourth wall in this context is not unusual and doesn't warrant special mention.--Big Dog 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not on every sbemail page, only if he knows that he is being watched and he knows he's on a website called homestarrunner.com.--Record307 Talk/Contribs 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Breaking the fourth wall" means you talk to the audience in some way, or reveal your awareness of them. Even without the obvious fact that answering e-mails from the "real world" is a fourth-wall break, virtually all the sbemails involve breaking the fourth wall in some way. My point is, it's redundant to say that this one is a special instance of fourth-wall breaks when it's the same format as the 200 other instances of which this is a parody.--Big Dog 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between being aware somebody is watching you and being aware that you are not real. Strong Bad here is aware that he is not real, that he is just a cartoon.--72.223.110.143 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Never mind. I think I might have gotten confued.--72.223.110.143 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Breaking the fourth wall" means you talk to the audience in some way, or reveal your awareness of them. Even without the obvious fact that answering e-mails from the "real world" is a fourth-wall break, virtually all the sbemails involve breaking the fourth wall in some way. My point is, it's redundant to say that this one is a special instance of fourth-wall breaks when it's the same format as the 200 other instances of which this is a parody.--Big Dog 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not on every sbemail page, only if he knows that he is being watched and he knows he's on a website called homestarrunner.com.--
- Obviously. But if we're going to mention it here, then we ought to mention it on every SBEmail page. Him breaking the fourth wall in this context is not unusual and doesn't warrant special mention.--Big Dog 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, That means he broke the fourth wall.--
[edit] strongbad.com
I don't feel that the bullet about strongbad.com being owned by a domain seller is necessary. Many nonexistant websites on the internet lead to pages like that. It's not necessarily an exact url owned by the seller. CloneWarrior 03:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I added it because Strong Bad, in his response makes a specific reference to who owns the domain. Also, this is not without precedent as things like virtualpizz.biz and whatthepfargl.egg have researched and commented upon. Moreover, if you follow the second link, it shows who owns the domain, and it a person or company that owns 350 other domains. I could've called him a squatter, but I wanted to use more diplomatic language. wbwolf (t | ed) 04:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Virtually any time a URL is listed in one of the cartoons, we include a fact on it. First Time Here? has about four. --DorianGray 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] mainNaN
Could someone check this toon's ActionScript to see what causes the redirect to sometimes return a "NaN" (Not a Number)? Please and thanks. --75.28.91.38 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I tried to say that it was done on purpose given the date, and moved it to remarks, but that got reverted. In my mind, a glitch is only a glitch if something unexpected is causing it. Seems the burden of proof is on those who say it's unintentional. Yes, someone needs to check the actionscript and see if there's some borked math, or if it really does link to mainNaN. — Defender1031*Talk 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could it have been deliberate? Maybe, but I don't think so. The April Fool prank was the intro itself. Additionally, there have been other glitches that inadvertently linked to "mainNaN" that weren't April Fool-related. Besides, were it deliberate, I would think it would always happen. --Jay (Gobble) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Really? The only other one i found was virus, which WAS deliberate. I also don't think it would always happen if it were deliberate. Like I said, the proof is to track down what's causing the "glitch". If there turns out to be an inadvertent error, I'd be convinced. Otherwise, like i said, there's no proof it's unintentional. — Defender1031*Talk 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- In virus, it happens before the virus actually does anything. I could swear that it's been other places too, but I haven't yet found them. Maybe sbemailNaN too... Anyway, there's no evidence it was intentional, either, besides your circumstantial evidence regarding that it's coming out of an April Fool toon. And the burden of proof usually goes on the person making a positive claim (this IS true, this DOES exist, etc.), not the negative (this ISN'T NECESSARILY true, this DOESN'T NECESSARILY exist, etc.) Don't throw the burden of proof onto the wrong person. (That said, there's at least a chance this can be proved by looking at the ActionScript one way or another.) --Jay (Gobble) 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- PS. One glitch in Stinkoman 20X6 causes "NaN" to replace the number of lives. I hope you're not claiming that one is deliberate. So, clearly, it's possible for the ActionScript code to replace a number with "NaN". Not proof, no, but evidence that this wasn't necessarily deliberate. --Jay (Gobble) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno, I think the fact that the two times when "mainNaN" has happened are both times when one would expect mayhem is pretty compelling. Further, you're the one with a positive claim. I'm saying there's no glitch. You're saying that there is one. Burden of proof goes to you. This can be settled easily. All we need is for someone to decompile it and see if there IS a glitch. But until then, there's no proof there is, and it shouldn't be in glitches. — Defender1031*Talk 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the biggest piece of evidence is that it doesn't always go to "NaN." If it always went there, you might have a case, but it seems to pretty clearly be in error as it stands. There's nothing about a broken link that's related to Sbemailiarization or that's even funny, in my opinion. --TimMierz 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- To DeFender: Saying "it's a glitch" is the same as saying "it's not deliberate", which is how you've been wording it up until now, and is really the question anyway. That said, I'm not even sure it was deliberate in virus, and I could still swear it happened somewhere else (besides the NaN glitch in Stinkoman 20X6, I mean.) Haven't found it yet though. --Jay (Gobble) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the biggest piece of evidence is that it doesn't always go to "NaN." If it always went there, you might have a case, but it seems to pretty clearly be in error as it stands. There's nothing about a broken link that's related to Sbemailiarization or that's even funny, in my opinion. --TimMierz 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno, I think the fact that the two times when "mainNaN" has happened are both times when one would expect mayhem is pretty compelling. Further, you're the one with a positive claim. I'm saying there's no glitch. You're saying that there is one. Burden of proof goes to you. This can be settled easily. All we need is for someone to decompile it and see if there IS a glitch. But until then, there's no proof there is, and it shouldn't be in glitches. — Defender1031*Talk 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Really? The only other one i found was virus, which WAS deliberate. I also don't think it would always happen if it were deliberate. Like I said, the proof is to track down what's causing the "glitch". If there turns out to be an inadvertent error, I'd be convinced. Otherwise, like i said, there's no proof it's unintentional. — Defender1031*Talk 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could it have been deliberate? Maybe, but I don't think so. The April Fool prank was the intro itself. Additionally, there have been other glitches that inadvertently linked to "mainNaN" that weren't April Fool-related. Besides, were it deliberate, I would think it would always happen. --Jay (Gobble) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Replacing Intro
I thought it replaced the main page. Flicky1991 21:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
