HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/Fall Float Parade

[edit] Break it down now

From: Fall Float Parade
Posted on: 20:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• It's true.

Arguments against:

• In a marching band, it's common for brass players to dance around to the drums without playing the horn.
• The Hornblower has the horn to his lips only a split second - certainly he's unable to play a note anyway. So, he doesn't really "seem to be playing".
• This is a statement of the blatantly obvious.

Additional comments:

• This has been on the page for three and a half months, if that matters.
  • It shouldn't matter, as even old "facts" can be wrong.
  • Maybe the one who STUFFed this thought it was too obvious? Things like this should probably still be mentioned, though, so viewers don't think it's a glitch on their end.
    • Actually, somebody deleted it because it was "speculation".
      • How is that "speculation"? You can't hear a horn.
• Re: the third argument against. Like I said, it's worth noting if just to let people know it's not a glitch in their soundcard or whatnot.
• This has to be the first fact I saw where there is absolutely nothing in the "argsfor" section to support the majority of voters.
• Yeah. It probably is.
  • Perhaps an accept voter could provide an argument for?
    • Done.
      • Cute, but argument 2 against seems to contradict that.
        • The horn is not to his face very long, but it's long enough to be playing notes.
          • Arg Against 1: I'm IN a band. They do that, yes, but not with the horns to their mouths. The horns are taught to hold the horn down and infront of their chest when they are not playing.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] You say tomater, I zader STUFF'd

From: Fall Float Parade
Posted on: 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The song is the most common reference of the phrase.
• As far as I know It is a common phrase because of the hit song.
  • More to the point, see this article. It explains exactly where the phrase came from.
• Yes, it's a common phrase, but its use is frequently understood as a reference to the song. Since the song is hardly obscure and still active in the public consciousness, the phrase is more connected to its origin than most of the idioms (in answer to comment below) which we don't explain. A comparable usage would be "Yada yada yada"; few would ever use that without the knowledge that it came from Seinfeld, and therefore at least a subconscious and mutually understood reference.
  • Which would suggest that it doesn't need explaining.

Arguments against:

• It's a common phrase and therefore not really a reference.

Additional comments:

• The English language is full of idioms, as are the H*R 'toons. We don't list the origins of the others, so why this one?
• "Yada yada yada" has been around a LOT longer than Seinfeld, btw.
• Fact revised: If someone needs this to be explained, then simply giving the name of the song doesn't explain what it has to do with Coach Z's line (especially after the spelling change). Revised to quote first line of the song.
  • That's slightly less redundant. I'm OK with that, but it still really doesn't need mentioning.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Ouch! Buzz Buzz Buzz

From: Fall Float Parade
Posted on: 15:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• She's very sensitive to birds and trees, but she's especially sensitive to bees.
• Re: the first argument against: she may like animals in general, but according to the song, she really really really likes bees.
• Marzipan has expressed her opinions several times in songs - most notably "Oh yeah yeah."

Arguments against:

• She just likes animals. It isn't necessarily a reference to that song.
• She likes the bee, but since she is doing the commentary, she can't go over and greet the bee herself.
• The reason that TBC had Marzipan say this seems to be much more to have her ignore Homestar, rather than to specifically reference this song.
• Most fans do not own the Strong Bad Sings and Other Type Hits CD, which, although it makes this an interesting connection, probably indicates that this was not an intentional reference.
• "Because" is too strong; it assumes something we can't know. Sure, there's probably a connection of some kind here, but that isn't the only reason (and may not be the main reason) she wants him to say hi.
• Not all that interesting. There might be a fact here, but it's not very fun.

Additional comments:

• What does the second argument against have to do with whether we link to the song or not?
• I wonder if this Fun Fact should be rewritten to better convey the reference between this Toon and the song.
  • What else is there to say? You've got a description of the action in the toon followed by a link to the song.
• What connection is there, other than the fact this is Marzipan's second mention of bees?
  • What more connection does there need to be? If you told me you liked skyscrapers, and then you proceeded to point out a skyscraper in a city, I would assume it's because you like them.
• This fun fact isn't explained very well. By sensitive does it mean "scared?" Does it mean "protective?"
  • Um, offhand, I would go with definition 1 in my dictionary: "Capable of perceiving with a sense or senses," or possibly definition 3: "Susceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others." Either way, that's not the point. She likes bees. She wants Homestar to say hi to the bee because, as the song goes, she really really really likes bees. How is this complicated? I feel like I'm repeating things that are already on this page.
• If the connection is there, then the reason it needs to be explained in a fun fact is because new users to the wiki probably wouldn't make the connection. Hence, this item.
• Although I don't think this was an intentional reference, it's an interesting connection. I would reword the fact as "Marzipan's request for Homestar to say hi to the bee for her is consistent with her sensitivity to bees."
  • This is a good revision. The weakness of the Fun Fact as proposed lies in the alleged causality; the problem is the word "because". But really, if the creature on the float had been a butterfly or a seal or an elephant or a weasel, Marzipan would still have asked Homestar to say hi to it. The essence of the joke is that she's more interested in greeting a fake animal — one that she may not realize can't even hear the greeting — than she is in the fact that her boyfriend is being devoured by a rodent.
    • I disagree. The causality was intentional, much like when Strong Bad said "Hey, I'm the bee" during Marzipan's song. Her likeness of bees in particular (above other things) has been established, and so we should expect that Marzipan will react in some way every time she sees a bee. It is possible that she would have made a similar comment even if it hadn't been a bee specifically, but that's really beside the point. Moreover, TBC themselves got to choose whatever they wanted for the float, and they chose a bee. This is important because they are aware of their own inside references and probably would have chosen something else—anything else—if they hadn't intended the connection.
      • I believe you are missing the point. Yes, it's a reference. Yes, TBC probably chose a bee specifically because she is sensitive to bees. Yes, she will react to a bee. This is not an argument against any of that. But she will also react to many other kinds of animals. This objection is only to the strong causality implied by the word "because". If you say the reason she asked Homestar to say hi is because of her sensitivity, then this implies she would not have asked Homestar to say hi to, say, a butterfly, because she is not sensitive to butterflies. Does anybody else get the distinction here (which I'm clearly doing a poor job of explaining)?
        
        Consider this hypothetical example: "Strong Bad had Cheatcakes for breakfast because he really loves Cheatcakes." Suppose it is 100% true that SB had Cheatcakes for breakfast, and also 100% true that he loves them. It is not necessarily true that this is why he had them for breakfast. Perhaps that's all that was available, perhaps that's what Strong Mad got up and fixed that morning, or whatever. The eating is consistent with the loving, and is probably a deliberate reference by the writers, but sound reasoning does not permit us to claim that this is why he happened to eat them today. There exists a relationship, but not causality. Otherwise you are implying that Strong Bad eats only those foods he loves, and that Marzipan greets only those animals that she is particularly sensitive to. It's not logically unsupportable.
        
        I really don't care about this particular fun fact (which has become anything but fun at this point), but we should care about logic and accuracy. The strength of a wiki is in refining everything in the furnace until all the incorrectness is burned away. Let's just find a different wording that notes the connection without drawing unsupportable conclusions.
        • Hence the revision below (is consistent with), which almost everyone seems to think is worse than this one.
          • That's true... but it does not address my argument.  ;-) The fact that the first revision was not liked is no reason to give up and live with one that's incorrect.
        • I'm not missing your point at all. I have evaluated your statements, I understand them, and I have decided that I do not agree with them. It's as simple as that. ... Recently, I happened to be in a computer lab full of young students. The teacher had given them free time, and one of the students just happened to open our favorite website. Now, there's a good chance I might have walked over and struck up a conversation with the kid if the site he had chosen had been any number of things, but in that particular case, the reason I went over to him is because I am especially sensitive to homestarrunner.com.
          • I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me. It just seemed that my central point was not refuted, addressed, or acknowledged, and in such cases I usually conclude that the point has been missed (probably because I have failed to state it clearly). Somebody wrote "It is possible that she would have made a similar comment even if it hadn't been a bee specifically, but that's really beside the point" — but it's not beside the point at all; that is my point exactly. The very fact that she might have made the comment anyway means it is inappropriate to claim causality with the word "because". If you really are hearing my point, then could you please either confirm or refute this statement? Thanks.
            • Each one of these revisions has causality in it. Some of them are more implied than others, but it's still there. I don't see why we're beating ourselves up to try and reword it when a straightforward statement will do. If we truly believe there's a connection between the song and Marzipan's statement, then the word because is completely appropriate. In fact, if she didn't make her remark because of the song, then it should be left out altogether. Yes, deciding whether to include this item requires a judgment call, but it's a call I'm prepared to live with. ... Also, it is possible that she would have made a similar comment about something else. Just listen to the song: "I'm very sensitive to birds. I'm very sensitive to trees." She's sensitive to a lot of things. But those things don't matter because they were not on the float. What was on the float was a bee, which she is "especially sensitive" to.
              • A straightforward statement will do when the statement is correct. You seem to be stating that all relationships are causal; that (to use your words) all "connections" are appropriately expressed by the word "because". I say that logic is flawed, which is why I'm looking for either a confirmation or refutation of my premise. But I don't think I'm going to get either one, so I will withdraw from the conversation and y'all can get on with business. Sorry I've created so much work for such an inconsequential fun fact.
          • By the way, once this is accepted, if the specific wording still really really bothers you, you can still propose rewordings on the talk page, so long as the essense of the item as decided in STUFF stays intact.
• Re: The fourth argument against: What does CD ownership have to do with whether this was intentional? TBC are the ones who would have had it in mind, not users. If anything, the fact that not everyone owns the disc is a reason to make them aware of the song via the link.
  • One of the interviews (I forget which) includes them saying that they intentionally include references and allusions that might be gotten by very few viewers (or maybe just one), just for their benefit. Although this was in the context of Real World Ref.s, the principle would mean they wouldn't shy away from referencing a fan material that not everyone had.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• This version points out the consistency without explicitly stating that TBC were making a direct reference to the song.

Arguments against:

• This is moving in the right direction, but "is consistent with" is a bit weak for a fun fact.
• The original version is straightforward and simple, and it is offered as an explanation, not so much a reference.

Additional comments:

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• Trying to make it a little stronger than "is consistent with", which could apply to a lot of things.
• Restores the original part of speech for the page title (sensitive vs. sensitivity).

Arguments against:

• The sensitivity to bees isn't a particularly interesting fact to begin with - her "sensitivity to bees" is basically just a character trait that the song is the first to mention.
• Okay, I withdraw the revision. This "Fun Fact" just plain isn't very interesting, unless we assume too much and claim causality ... which isn't supported by the evidence.

Additional comments:

• The person who proposed the revision voted against it?!
• Yeah, upon further reflection I decided my revision sucked. Sorry.

• Oh well, it's ok. I actually meant to put this comment in the first revision above, but too late. Would it be too much to alter the template so that revisions also have their own edit button? I think it would be much helpful and less confusing. EVEN BETTER: have each vote section (for and against) have their own edit buttons so that people can be sure to be voting in the right section.) I know this belongs in some talk page somewhere, but I don't know where and I do not feel like looking for it right now. Thanks!

• Don't feel like looking for it right now? What? That would be like my saying that this discussion has been moved to the correct place, but I don't feel like telling you where it is right now.

• You guys are way overthinking this one.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• Another attempt to point out the reference without overstating causality. This version asserts that the joke lies not in Marzipan asking Homestar to say hi to the bee, but rather in her ignorance of the fact that he is being devoured by vermin.

Arguments against:

• These two things aren't even related. Marzipan is oblivious to Homestar's predicament because the two of them don't have a very strong relationship. The bee reference is completely secondary to that fact; that is, she would have mentioned the bee whether or not Homestar was even on the float at all, never mind whether he was being bitten by rats.
  • The rewording I suggested to this revision attempted to form a relationship between Marzipan's ignorance of Homestar and her interest in the bee on his float. Without that relationship expressed in the revision, I don't feel comfortable voting for it.
    • Yes, I am trying to form the same relationship. The problem I had with your revision to the proposed revision was that it implied she cared about Homestar's predicament to some degree (just less than about the bee)... whereas it seems that she actually cares not at all about his predicament. I think we have the same goal, but this whole fun fact is so troublesome that everyone is trying to patch up the problems in slightly different ways. Maybe something like "Marzipan is sensitive to bees, and thus is so interested in the bee on Homestar's float that she seems oblivious to his predicament."

Additional comments:

• You seem to be introducing causuality into an area where it wasn't before. It seems like a valid way to reword this revision would be "Marzipan seems oblivious to Homestar's predicament, and the explanation is that she is sensitive to bees."
  • Which causality is more likely: (a) Marzipan normally would not have cared about an animal, but in this case cares about it because of her sensitivity; or (b) Marzipan normally would recognize that being eaten by a rat is a negative thing, but in this case disregards Homestar entirely because she is distracted by an animal she is particularly sensitive to? The latter seems more likely to me.

• No, I think it's the former. Look at the dialogue:

HOMESTAR: And I'm pretty sure a rat just bit my knee.
MARZIPAN: Oh, that's great, sweetie. Say hi to that bee for me.

I see a full break in thought between Marzipan's two sentences. I believe that anything (related to Homestar or not) could have come before her "Say hi" comment and her last line would have been exactly what it is.

• By the same token, you could reword the original, using this revision as a model: "Marzipan is sensitive to bees, which may explain why she requested that Homestar say hi to the bee for her."

• That rewording would be an improvement. The whole fun fact is still boring, but at least that rewording is not incorrect.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] The One Where Marshie Gets Away

From: Fall Float Parade
Posted on: 19:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The two incidents are strikingly similar to one another.
  • In both, the balloon goes out of control and crashes into an object, affecting the people around it.
• Unlike most examples where balloons simply get away, the '97 parade (and this Toon) have balloons that actually crash into things and cause damage, and possibly injury. The Friends episode only mentions a balloon that presumably gets lost.
• Since Coach Z and Marzi are commentating, it is clear that the events are referencing the Macy's Day Parade and not friends.

Arguments against:

• There are lots of examples of balloons getting away, for instance the Friends episode where Underdog gets away.

Additional comments:

• The cartoon appears to be deliberately vague on whether Coach Z and Marzipan were injured in the accident.
• "Specific reference" is pretty strong language. While we don't want "maybe"s or the like, it warrants toning down.
  • Removed from fact.
    • The phrase "is a reference" still conveys the sense of specificity.
      • Would this be better as "may be a reference" then? I realize that starts getting into TTATOT territory - I still think it's pretty specific, though.
        • You could try it, if you want. We do have a handful of "may be" facts out there.
• Even though no one is known to be injured in the Friends episode (which dates from 1994), I used it as an argument to illustrate that the idea of a balloon getting away is a common theme. I think the crashing into the podium is just a humorous effect that coincidentally is reminiscent of the incident.
• There was a Sonic The Hedgehog ballon that did the same thing.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• This version of the comment acknowledges that there are plenty of cases where balloons have gotten away, calls attention to this specific event. Should be more well-rounded.
• (in response to below) It is similar as the reason why the winds were able to carry the balloon is because there were not enough people manning the balloon, similar to TC not being able to handle his balloon.
  • Additionally, if you listen closely during the Marshie segment, you can hear wind blowing in the background, emphasizing that the balloon is being blown out of control. (Listen between the two sections of ominous music.)

• Spelling out the similarities between the two events:
  • Both balloons are of mascots (The Cat In The Hat is Dr. Seuss' mascot, Marshie is the Fluffy-Puff Marshmallows mascot)
  • Both balloons go out of control due to not having enough people manning the balloon
  • Both balloons are blown by high winds (indicated in the Toon by the wind-blowing sound effect, hinted at by the ominous music)
  • Both balloons crash into their respective objects and cause damage
  • In the RW incident, a woman was seriously hurt. The Toon hints (but doesn't specify) that Coach Z and/or Marzipan may have gotten hurt in the accident.
  • It is (or at least used to be) a widespread practice to put up a "technical difficulties" screen when an accident occurs during a televised event, so that the producer of the show can attempt to save face.

Arguments against:

• In response to above: The Cat in the Hat is not Dr. Seuss' mascot. The Cat in the Hat is a character devised for one of his books.
• This isn't necessarily a reference to anything. Balloons getting away is just funny. It's a comical device.
• From Wikipedia: "In 1997, high winds pushed the Cat in the Hat balloon into a lamppost. The falling debris put a parade-goer in a coma for a month after her skull was fractured." That really isn't that similar to what happened in the toon.
• The cartoon makes me think of the Thanksgiving Day parade in Detroit a few years ago where the Chilly Willy balloon escaped for several hours. But I'm certain that TBC aren't referring to this incident either.
• I think the joke here is that every year, a balloon is BOUND to blow out of control and crash.
• The current version of the page gets this information in easily in a far less debatable way.

Additional comments:

• Comment on revision of revision: I took out the specific mention of the Cat In The Hat balloon (made it more generic) because, as someone pointed out above, the fact that it was a Cat In The Hat balloon isn't really relevant. People who follow the link to the news article about the incident can read about the identity of the balloon there.
• Comment on Arg against: They're not exactly the same, but the point is that in both incidents, a balloon crashed into something and caused damage.
  • And the Toon does not show whether Coach Z and Marzipan were injured by the crash, so we don't know.
    • If the similarities essentially boil down to "a balloon crashed into something and caused damage," then that really doesn't sound very specific to me.
• Even "there are many instances of" is so understated as to be misleading, since Wikipedia:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade reveals that it used to be traditional to release all the floats after the parade to drift.
• In response to the response to the comment, the Cat in the Hat both was and wasn't a "mascot" of sorts for Dr. Seuss. I wouldn't use the word mascot per se, but he was the character used in the logo for the series of beginning books written by Dr. Seuss and others in the 1950s and 1960s.
• Guess what! They had another accident this year in the Macy's parade with a balloon and a lightpole near Times Square.
  • Just as a note, I believe the current Trivia Fun Fact about the irony of the most recent accident is a good place to mention the '97 accident as well, so that we don't have to make it be a reference, but still an event worthy of note.
    • Please note the final comment under arguments against. It has been added there, and this Fun Fact is no longer needed.
      • Note: this new second revision that you're talking about has been posted here on this page (see below) so that we can demonstrate that there is support for it.

Proposed revision:

NOTE: The only part of this revision being voted on is the bold last sentence. The rest of the item is already on the page, and is included here for context.

Arguments for:

• This solves a couple of problems: it combines the two real-world occurances into one item, and it notes the 1997 incident without explicitly stating that TBC had it specifically in mind when they made the toon.

Arguments against:

• Still not liking the reference to a specific incedent. It's just a common big balloon gag.

Additional comments:

• This would be a sub-fact under the initial Real-World Reference about the Macy's Day Parade. This gives the 97 mention more of an excuse for being there than the other various float accidents mentioned above; without it the reader would know only that (1) the parade exists, and (2) a float got away only after the 'toon was released.

[ Back to STUFF index ]