Talk:Strong Bad Email By Name of Sender
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Changed "Unfortunitly" to "Unfortunately". I thought Thunderbird was a stickler for grammar!) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
That is one way to interpret the FAQ, yes. But by their being fake, I belive they are referring to the actual idea of a complete cinimatic animation as a whole, not the specific e-mail sent to them. The first question on the FAQ also reinforces our reasoning, where it affirms the recival of thousands of e-mails. So why not just use one or two of them? Unfortunately, however, the only way to get a definite answer from them is to actually ask them, an ability we both lack. So until they specifically answer that question, we don't really have a way of knowing exactly what is fake, and what isn't. It's fair to say that at least some of the un-featured e-mails come from real people, so for the time being, since a clear line cannot be drawn, I belive it is also safe to leave them on, using the old reasoning of 'better safe than sorry'. I don't really see a problem with it. And I'm sure that [[User:Upsilon|Upsilon]], among others, will agree with my case and cause. -- [[User:Thunderbird L17|Thunderbird]] 01:45, 12 Nov 2004 (MST) | That is one way to interpret the FAQ, yes. But by their being fake, I belive they are referring to the actual idea of a complete cinimatic animation as a whole, not the specific e-mail sent to them. The first question on the FAQ also reinforces our reasoning, where it affirms the recival of thousands of e-mails. So why not just use one or two of them? Unfortunately, however, the only way to get a definite answer from them is to actually ask them, an ability we both lack. So until they specifically answer that question, we don't really have a way of knowing exactly what is fake, and what isn't. It's fair to say that at least some of the un-featured e-mails come from real people, so for the time being, since a clear line cannot be drawn, I belive it is also safe to leave them on, using the old reasoning of 'better safe than sorry'. I don't really see a problem with it. And I'm sure that [[User:Upsilon|Upsilon]], among others, will agree with my case and cause. -- [[User:Thunderbird L17|Thunderbird]] 01:45, 12 Nov 2004 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I fixed your spelling of "unfortunately", Thunderbird. I thought you were a stickler for grammar! :D | ||
| + | Just kidding. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Homsar999|Homsar999]] 1:17, 14 Nov 2004 | ||
Revision as of 07:17, 14 November 2004
Count fake e-mails?
FIRST COMMENT!
Anyway, my question. Should fake e-mails count in the list (example: Zebbadee from personal favorites)? I don't think they should. But, that's just my opinion.
Homsar999 20:51 9 Nov 2004 (CST)
I don't think any of the emails which have been shown are fake. --Upsilon
Nor do I. TBC chose to answer real e-mails, and since they have a plethara of e-mails to choose from, (1000's in their inbox), why wouldn't they use real ones all the time? If they ever did use fake ones, I betcha anything they would use one of their characters as the author, not some real-sounding person. -- Thunderbird 14:03, 11 Nov 2004 (MST)
Read the FAQ question on the site about all their emails being real. You'll see what I mean by fake emails (the ones from personal favorites).
Homsar999 21:18, 11 Nov 2004
That is one way to interpret the FAQ, yes. But by their being fake, I belive they are referring to the actual idea of a complete cinimatic animation as a whole, not the specific e-mail sent to them. The first question on the FAQ also reinforces our reasoning, where it affirms the recival of thousands of e-mails. So why not just use one or two of them? Unfortunately, however, the only way to get a definite answer from them is to actually ask them, an ability we both lack. So until they specifically answer that question, we don't really have a way of knowing exactly what is fake, and what isn't. It's fair to say that at least some of the un-featured e-mails come from real people, so for the time being, since a clear line cannot be drawn, I belive it is also safe to leave them on, using the old reasoning of 'better safe than sorry'. I don't really see a problem with it. And I'm sure that Upsilon, among others, will agree with my case and cause. -- Thunderbird 01:45, 12 Nov 2004 (MST)
I fixed your spelling of "unfortunately", Thunderbird. I thought you were a stickler for grammar! :D Just kidding.
Homsar999 1:17, 14 Nov 2004
