Talk:All Things Considered Interview - 8 May 2005
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Drhaggis, I noticed in the history you posted this: "quoted in an interview != filmography addition". That's certainly apt, but I wonder what to do about the fact that at the very end of the interview, Strong Bad has an original line? ("This just in: Strong Bad is still awesome. You're listening to All Things Considered from NPR News.") Any opinions, anybody? — InterruptorJones 03:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Is this still a stub/would be consitered one? --AndrewNeo 18:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Uh?!
Are all the "uh"s really neccesary? They make the whole thing kinda stupid. I think it would be better to clean up the text, do you agree? - someone who loathes the show preview button (SWLTSPB)
[edit] 2D or 1D
It says that Strong bad lives in a one-dimensional land. Wouldn't that just be like a point or a dot or something?
- yep, or a line.
- A line, yes. A point, no - that's zero-dimensional. 66.222.39.60
It wouldn't be a line. Even lines have two dimensions. No Smorking 12:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
In one-dimensional land, Strong Bad would be represented as a point or line segment on an infinite line. In two-dimensional land, Strong Bad is represented by a flat figure on a plane. In three-dimensional land, we are represented by objects with height, width, and depth in space. Perhaps what Nosmorking is referring to is that multiple distinct lines can only be represented in two dimensions or higher. I actually noticed the error while listening to the interview-- it should be 2-D, not 1-D. 141.161.122.58
- "One-dimensional" could certainly be meant metaphorically, as in "one-sided." The world has no depth to it. Nothing ever changes. It's only got one dimension. Seems perfectly logical to me. —
Joey (talk·edits) 19:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Another NPR story from on Homestar Runner
Talk of the Nation also did a story on Homestar Runner from the context of the flash animation fad. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1753401
[edit] What, No Censored Version?
During the interview, Matt uses the p-word to describe how Homestar felt when he realised that Strong Bad was more popular than him. Seeing as this word has been censored here and here, shall we create a censored version of this article? – The Chort 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since it's hypocritical to censor this word in the articles linked to above but not here, I have taken the liberty of creating said censored version. – The Chort 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion was moved here from Talk:All Things Considered Interview - 8 May 2005 (censored) when it was decided that a censored version of this article was unnecessary.
[edit] Censoring necessary?
A deletion tag was placed on this article with the explanation, "I don't think we really need a censored version of this when the only bad work is 'pissed'". The censored page for NYU Talk - 1 Mar 2005 was recently deleted because there was a clear consensus that "hell" wasn't a serious enough swear to warrant an entire censored version of the page (also, note that this word is used in a Homestar Runner cartoon, Teen Girl Squad Issue 3). The discussion for deletion of this page can be found here: Talk:NYU Talk - 1 Mar 2005#Censoring.
So, is the word "pissed" mild enough that this censored page be deleted? Just as a couple brief notes, "pissed", unlike "hell", doesn't seem to appear in any Homestar Runner cartoons (though it does appear in a commentary), and different users take different levels of offense to "pissed": see Talk:Swears#TBC/Others Swearing?. Personally, I'm pretty ambivalent, though I lean toward a censored version being unnecessary.
Trey56 05:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please, when did we start become like this? I really don't think that's a swear, I don't think even Strong Bad would say it, it is pretty...petty, but it hardly constitutes an actual swear, and we sure don't need a censored article to hide one word that perhaps your parents wouldn't want you to say when your ten years old. DELETE.--~ SlipStream 06:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I completely aggreed that hell was hardly noteworthy. Pissed is more serious enough to incur a rude or vulgar language warning, but not bad enough for a censored page. I tend to think that only the major league swears (the ones that rhyme with duck, fit, witch, and pod hammit) warrant censorship. And even then, ONLY a censored page. The two seperate pages one censored and one not is a bit silly, i think--.
Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 06:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- You forgot one, you silly bunt. I think "pissed" does not rise to the level of extemity to merit censoring the page., personally. - Qermaq - (T/C)
07:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, "pissed" shouldn't need to be censored. Loafing
10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean we uncensor "pissed/piss" here, here, here, here and here to avoid hypocrisy? It was that double standard which made me create this muddy article in the first place! – The Chort 13:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Some might consider it bad, therefore i say keep. Then again, some consider "crap" to be bad... — Defender1031*Talk 13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Chort: Hypocrisy? I don't think so. Hypocrisy implies some kind of ulterior thought process. This is more of an inconsistency. Furthermore, I don't think "piss" should be censored. — It's dot com 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's also a matter of frequency. That first interview is full of censorable language, so naturally it's going to tend to hit all bases because you need a censored version anyway, why not censor piss too? But in this case it's the only word censorable, and it's a weak one. If we were in a position to censor more extreme language here, I would not be opposed to putting "piss" in censor-code, but to make a censored page just for it? Not necessary. - Qermaq - (T/C)
- It sounds like there's another discussion going on here: what words should and should not be censored in an article we decide to censor. Perhaps such a discussion should take place, but it's beyond the scope of the current discussion, in which the consensus is that having a censored version for a single swear is unnecessary. Trey56 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a good clarification. Trey56 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a good clarification.
