(Difference between revisions)
 Revision as of 08:52, 24 May 2019 (edit) (→Homestar's Expenses 2: Electric— waaaaait a minute!)← Older edit Revision as of 12:10, 24 May 2019 (edit) (undo) (→Homestar's Expenses 2: Electric— waaaaait a minute!)Newer edit → Line 117: Line 117: *In 2002, Homestar paid a total of \$18,000 for "protection", as he paid Strong Bad, Strong Mad, and The Cheat \$500 dollars each per month. His other expenditures make up less than 29% of the total \$25227.07. *In 2002, Homestar paid a total of \$18,000 for "protection", as he paid Strong Bad, Strong Mad, and The Cheat \$500 dollars each per month. His other expenditures make up less than 29% of the total \$25227.07. It seems to me that these are both wrong. The page says "Homestar Runner's 2002 Expenditures". Clearly, this is his expenditures for the year, not for a month out of the year. Then we get to the "monthly protection" lines. How exactly do these work? Each of the other entries seems to be for the year, so why are we assuming that 500 gets multiplied by 12 rather than already being the full amount for the year? On the other hand, 41.666666... (500/12) is a weird amount to be charged each month. Basically, it's not clear to me why some entries on this list would be for the year and some would be for each month of the year. Then again, the entire list makes no sense at all to begin with. At face value though, I'd say that it looks like Homestar spent a total of \$8727.07 for the year. (I wish I could get by with a yearly budget of under \$9000...) {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 08:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC) It seems to me that these are both wrong. The page says "Homestar Runner's 2002 Expenditures". Clearly, this is his expenditures for the year, not for a month out of the year. Then we get to the "monthly protection" lines. How exactly do these work? Each of the other entries seems to be for the year, so why are we assuming that 500 gets multiplied by 12 rather than already being the full amount for the year? On the other hand, 41.666666... (500/12) is a weird amount to be charged each month. Basically, it's not clear to me why some entries on this list would be for the year and some would be for each month of the year. Then again, the entire list makes no sense at all to begin with. At face value though, I'd say that it looks like Homestar spent a total of \$8727.07 for the year. (I wish I could get by with a yearly budget of under \$9000...) {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 08:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC) + :I agree.  They are both wrong and the total expenditures for 2002 is \$8727.07. -[[Special:Contributions/174.62.238.201|174.62.238.201]] 12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

## Contrast Dial

Why did TBC not make the contrast dial work on the compy 386 in this toon? -No_Loafing

Hey, how come everybody in the world thinks this is an actual Strong Bad Email? - Kilroy

Huh? Who thinks that? We certainly don't here on the Wiki. It isn't a subpage of Strong Bad Email and it is listed on the Toons page. The only reason it appears on the Strong Bad Email page is for continuity. Who else in the "world" thinks that it is an actual Strong Bad Email? -- Tom
I thought that since it was on the Strong Bad Email page I assumed that everybody on the wiki thought it was an email. Now I understand. Thanks. -Kilroy

## Homestar's Expenses

Under Homestar's Expenses: "It comes out to \$8727.07." This isn't on the sheet in the Easter Egg. If this is included, the 'Monthly' protection fees probably should be added in 12 times each, right? 61.51.67.117 06:17, 24 Feb 2005 (MST)

It looks like someone just simply added the numbers together. Your idea sounds good, we'd just need to make sure that it is labeled as a yearly total. -- Tom 10:15, 24 Feb 2005 (MST)

## The Cheat

Is this the only time we see his back? I don't remember seeing it in other toons... --DMurphy 03:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope, what 'bout Strong Bad Sings? Or any time The Cheat is at his computer showing SB his work?

## Legal page

When Homestar says "Bo-ring!" it sounds exactly like it does on the Legal Page.

I once added something similar to this except it was for a sweetie cuppin' cakes episode and it was a sound off bronco trolleys, but the fact got delted, so why is this here? --Sultn 04:45, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone care?--Sultn 23:57, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

That's it I'm deleting it. If you guys bring it back then I'm putting back my fact. Sultn 00:48, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

## fonzie?

when the cheat slaps the machine and it says "trogdor", could it be a reference to arthur fonzirelli, the character from happy days who could slap a jukebox and make it play music? --ik.cybi?

Ehhhh.... See, this is a good example of why, even before I was active in the Wiki, I used to read the Talk and Stuff pages. Something like that would never in a million years make it onto the front page, as a fact, but it's good to find out about if you didn't know. Whether it was a coincidence or not, it piques your curiosity. --notstrongorbad 05:59, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think this is to much of a strech. — talk Bubsty edits 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

## Kewpie Dan similarity

Am I the only one that has noticed the extreme similarity between the baseball card Easter egg and Kewpie Dan? 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) no, and i think it is him getting on with his life or it's set after the first picture--near going loco - and crushing those eggs 11:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

## The cheat joining in with the song

I'm sure the cheat joins Strong Bad and Strong Mad when they sing "TROGDOR!!!"

I disagree with the recent removal from this page and from Trogador of the statement that the machine says "Trogador" when Strong Bad kicks it. I most definitely hear the machine say "Trogador". I'm not going to revert, since we've already had enough reversions on this topic today, but I do think we should discuss this change. Heimstern Läufer 03:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was a little confused as to why all the edits were being reverted too, as I had always been hearing "trog-a-d-or", and it had seemed like a perfectly fine referance. - The Joe(Talk) 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You guys. It says TROG-A-DOR!! I know it does. I can hear it. The arcade machine is supposed to sound off BECAUSE it's making fun of how it doesn't sound like what it SHOULD SOUND LIKE. Don't you get that? It's supposed to sound like trog-a-dor even though it's spelled Trogdor. These reverts are stupid. IMO.-- »Bleed0range« 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) The machine definately says "Trogdor" when hit. There's a slight pause in there, maybe "Trog·dor", but not enough that you'd be able to fit a vowel into. However, if I listen hard enough, I can kinda hear how the emphasis at the start of the "o" in "-dor" could be mistaken for a consonant, in which case the /d/ before it could be mistaken for /ə/. Have a look at this image. The curvy red line up the top is the extra emphasis added by the slow vibrato (added to make it sound more low quality). The top line of text is what I hear. The bottom line is what I can almost hear if I try really hard and then think "ehh... it almost sounds like something close to that". Basically, the vibrato makes it emphasised in 3 points along the sound... the words go "TROG-doOOooOOor", but could be heard as "TROG-a-DOooOOor". So, in short: it's definately "Trogdor". The intentional low-qualityness of the recording can make it sound like "Trogador" if you listen in a certain way... but it's still "Trogdor". --phlip TC 04:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah well I still think your wrong. I mean just listen to it....by clicking here Because I have an ear for sound, music, etc. And I know there is a syllable in there. -- »Bleed0range« 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds more like "TEReh-BUH-dor" to me. --Trogga 04:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Just listen to it"? Do you think I haven't heard it yet? Did I somehow make that graph charting out all the phonemes without allowing the sound to reach my speakers? I also have an "ear for sound, music, etc", and yet mine disagrees with yours. And there's no way it's "TER-eh-BAH-dor"... I have no idea how you could hear that. It's either "Trog-dor" or possibly "Trog-a-dor". However, based on the fact that this discussion is happening at all, I'm willing to let the reference stay on "Trogador", referring the fact that this could be heard as "Trogador" (as opposed to the "is" it was before)... --phlip TC 04:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to insult you. I said "Just listen to it," as in listen to it at a slower speed. You may disagree with me, but I do not see HOW it is/can be just Trogdor. I think TBC MEANT for it to sound like "Trog-a-dor" and when I hear it (especially at a slower speed) I can very much hear the "A"... there are three syllables Trog.. a... dor.. The 20x6 version of Trogdor is called Trogador for a reason. They didn't just happen to make it up so it sounds like what people think they are hearing. They named him that because they intentionally made it sound that way. That's what I think. Can't we all vote on this... like STUFF it or something?-- »Bleed0range« 04:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
(This is not a STUFF question, by the way.) Despite every effort to hear three syllables, I cannot. I hear "Trogdor" every time. — It's dot com 04:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
When it's a case of trying to figure out the facts, rather than just opinion (such as opinion about what qualifies as a "Fun Fact") we try to avoid voting as long as possible... like on Wikipedia, Don't vote on everything. As for slowing it down, I did, and I still heard "Trogdor". I just tried it again just now, and still hear "Trogdor", though it could possibly be "Trogd·or", there's a very slight break in there caused by the aformentioned vibrato. But it's still "Trogdor". --phlip TC 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok ok ok. I understand how STUFF works, thanks for explaining that for me. Yes, this is more opinion than anything, so your right it's not STUFF-able. But at least hear it how I am by listening to this. this is how i hear it I say it with three syllables and then with the just two against the slowed recording. If you still don't hear it than I don't know what I can do. I hear it one way you guys another. But I just asked three of my friends here with me and they all think they hear Trog-a-dor too. *shrug*-- »Bleed0range« 04:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, well in the one you say just "Trogdor", the "dor" is still later, making it like "trog-{pause}-dor"... get rid of that pause, starting the "dor" where you would normally say the "a". Something like this... --phlip TC 05:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't hear "Trogdor". I still think it's "TEReh-BUH-dor", seeing that the first syllable is pronounced oddly. --Trogga 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

lol. I don't see how your seeing TEReh-BUH-dor. Anyway. Here it is again like you suggested (i believe) Phlip. i still here it as trog-a-dor. -- »Bleed0range« 05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like "Trogador" to me; however, I don't think it's a reference, just a stuttery way of saying "Trogdor". Danny Lilithborne 05:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Trogador most definitely. Qermaq - (T/C)  14:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I hear Troga-dora-dor. Please don't stone me. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 15:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya I hear a TROGADOR definately and I agree with BleedOrange it's probably just making fun of video games. Flamer8965 16:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Definately not, it's Trogdor. The only thing that comes remotely close is the echo from "trog." I also have excellent hearing and Phlip has science on his side, I said scieance again! 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It's Trog-A-Dor'. Play the actual game and put the speaker in your ear. Then push "K" on the keyboard. TROGADOR!! It's probably there on purpose like "Your head a splode. TheYellowDart(t/c)
I don't think there's ever been any consnsus on this, and I personally believe it's Trogador. The only other option in my mind is Trog-(pause)-dor. Which makes less logical sense than Trogador. Either way, unless someone gets a transcript or an original script, or a direct answer from TBC, we can't say 'definately or definately not. - ISTC 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Very well said. But, eh, really. It's Trogador. TheYellowDart(t/c)

I hear Trogador. 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also definitely hear Trogador, but this clearly was not intentional. My theory is that Trogador came about as a character name when TBC realized that the low-quality sound recording sounds like it has the extra syllable. I'm sure there's some logic in thinking that a Japanese version of an American character might be misspelled or otherwise skewed due to the way it sounds phonetically (in 8-bit sound), and that TBC played on that. In any case, it's not a reference until we get a real answer. This'll have to stay at/be added to HRWiki:Questions. — 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite what you think you hear, I seriously doubt that the sound of the machine has anything to do with the character Trogador. Trogador mixes a little bit of Engrish with the fact that most Japanese word alternate consonant and vowel so and native Japense person would naturally add an "a" sound after a consonant. This trait is exagerated by anyone that tries to do an impression of an Asian speaking English. The sound that this machine makes is more of a reference to antiquated technology. I've listened to this many many times now. I agree with dot com, there are only two syllables here so there can't be an "A" in between. The sound is very close to how it would sound it you tried to say Trogdor without opening your mouth (like a vantriliquist does). It muffles the sound and all but eliminates the "d" sound since your tongue isn't hitting the top of your mouth but there is no "ah" sound in between the Trog and Ooor" sound, so if anything other Trogdor, I think Trog·or should go here. 02:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, no need to make a science about this. Let's just go one way or the other. I say we put "Trog or!" TheYellowDart(t/c)
Actually YD we need to do what it takes to make this as close to right as we can. As far as your view IRF, I disagree, looking at a wave graph created by a recording (albeit on old technology) from the toon I can't see how it can be just strait Trogdor. I think until we get a real answer from somewhere the best option is to transcribe it (and subtitle it) as "Trog_Dor." The inflection just doesn't mesh with Trogdor as a solid word, there is definately a raised inflection in the middle. I can not agree on any level that it's just saying Trogdor as we would say it (even through outdated technology). Yet while I head Trogador, I don't think it has to be one or the other. So as long as we're conflicted about the actual word, so lets find something that can hold the place that admits that it's not Trogdor as we would say it, but may or may not be Trogador as some of us think. - ISTC 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, the last time this came around, the "raised inflection in the middle" is an artefact of the vibrato TBC added to the sound, as one of the many things they did to it to make it sound really shoddy quality. The "do-" in "Trogdor" falls at the bottom of the first cycle of the vibrato, then when the vibrato picks up again, it sounds like a raised inflection, but it's just an artefact. --phlip TC 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the raise in inflection I speak of is with the OG not the DO. So your theory doesn't answer the question for me. The fact is it does not sound like Trogdor and we would be amiss to not note that. But I've done what research I am easily capable of doing on the subject. So, I'll conclude with what I said before: We don't know what it actually says, so we can just go on what we hear. Obviously, that's different for many (scientifically all) of us and there are a number of people who do hear Trogador (myself included) and that experience cannot be just discounted and tossed aside, for intentional or not there's something there in the minds of many. I will continue to contend that both versions are valid (at least until someone with first hand knowledge gives us the full story, if that ever happens). - ISTC 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be the weirdest of the bunch, but I've always heard "gungalor."-LordQuackingstick 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ISTC said I will continue to contend that both versions are valid ...so now we have Schrödinger's cat dragon? 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
ooooh, many worlds theory and quantum physics, I love this subject! LOL. I guess to some extent IRF you're right, but really if you have 2 significant portions of a population experience the same thing in two consistantly different ways, both do hold an equal degree of validity. (at least until some first party reveals the actual "meaning".) - ISTC 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Naw, you just have to figure out which half of the population is the wrong half ;) Totally kidding, 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I hear "trogahogahar" or "trogahargaharg" or something. --206.116.143.157 23:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I hear the fact that this conversation is 4 years old. 23:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

## Getting my practice strapsened

I noticed that one of the songs in the Thorax Corporation directory TNY/Remote Controlled Air Conditioning is titled "Straps and Practice". Is this worth noting in any way? DEI DAT VM 22:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

## Basement ID

I think this toon is the first time the main basement room with the TV & couch is ID'd as such. Is it worth noting on page? Guybrush20X6 00:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

## Homestar's Expenses 2: Electric— waaaaait a minute!

Okay, so we have two different fun facts:

• Homestar's total expenditures for one month (as listed) add up to \$8727.07.
• In 2002, Homestar paid a total of \$18,000 for "protection", as he paid Strong Bad, Strong Mad, and The Cheat \$500 dollars each per month. His other expenditures make up less than 29% of the total \$25227.07.

It seems to me that these are both wrong. The page says "Homestar Runner's 2002 Expenditures". Clearly, this is his expenditures for the year, not for a month out of the year. Then we get to the "monthly protection" lines. How exactly do these work? Each of the other entries seems to be for the year, so why are we assuming that 500 gets multiplied by 12 rather than already being the full amount for the year? On the other hand, 41.666666... (500/12) is a weird amount to be charged each month. Basically, it's not clear to me why some entries on this list would be for the year and some would be for each month of the year. Then again, the entire list makes no sense at all to begin with. At face value though, I'd say that it looks like Homestar spent a total of \$8727.07 for the year. (I wish I could get by with a yearly budget of under \$9000...) — Defender1031*Talk 08:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. They are both wrong and the total expenditures for 2002 is \$8727.07. -174.62.238.201 12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)