Talk:monster truck

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Fun Facts

"The "Sunday Sunday Someday" may be a reference to the tv show "The Simpsons". In the episode Bart the Daredevil, the main characters go to a monster truck rally and stunt show much like in this email. It's advertised as being on "Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!" in a manner similar to that of the sundays in this."

Since the "Sunday Sunday" thing is a common thing in monster truck commericals, can you call it a Simpsons ref?--Hysterical Woman 16:28, 8 Nov 2004 (MST)
There was a reference to it in a Dodge Ram commercial recently as well, though I'm not sure that's the source. --Southpaw018 19:36, 8 Nov 2004 (MST)
This isn't a Simpsons reference -- the episode of The Simpsons is making reference to the same phenomenon that this email does. — InterruptorJones[[]]

[edit] Closed STUFF

[edit] Get Back Loretta! (DECLINED)

The sender of the e-mail "Stan and Loretta" is a nod to "Monty Python's The Life of Brian" where a character named Stan, played by Eric Idle, says he wants to be a woman and he wants to be called "Loretta."

  • Wave of Decline! I really... have to say decline. Interesting, but TBC didn't do this, the sender did.--MrsCommanderson 01:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept I posted this one earlier today, realizing it would probably get STUFF'd and I came back to check on it, only to notice that in two previous batches of edits, it was added and promptly removed (without STUFFing, I might add). I decided to STUFF it so a consensus could be reached on it. I don't think this is mere speculation here - although the reference is not made on the part of TBC, I still believe it's a valid reference and if at least two other people thought so (enough to try to add it to the page), then apparently I'm not the only one thinks so. --TheEggman 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Second. --TROGGA! 00:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Decline Not enough to go on, we simply do not know the intentions of the e-mail's authors. Donny vs Universe
  • Decline --AnarchyBalsac
  • Comment Do references by senders count? --Lappy Lappy 486 02:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • We did use one in band names (though that was a reference to another H*R cartoon). This one is all too likely a coincidence... not as though that seems to matter any more *coughchangeofpacecoughcough* Ahem. Need to have that looked at. Anyway, Decline. --Jay (Talk) 02:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
      • You know Jay, I think that if enough of an argument can be made against a Fun Fact then it should be deleted no matter what the outcome of the voting. Donny vs Universe
      • Enough of an arguement can be made against any fun fact if you want to. Being a big baby about this will only raise the bitterness meter. I've casted losing votes before(both accept and decline) but I got over it. --AnarchyBalsac
      • If I were a big baby I'd post veiled insults disguised as a reply. Jay is right, some revision is in order. Donny vs Universe
      • Or you'd just try to get it removed when the majority of people(overwhelming majority) want it to pass. That's how spoiled a brat does things, not a mature adult. You can't have your way all the time, get over it. --AnarchyBalsac
      • I think theres enough evidence that democracy is not 100% infallible. And guy, you're the one doing the insulting for no reason whatsoever. I don't think you're in a position to call anyone a brat. Donny vs Universe
      • I'm not calling you a spoiled brat just yet, just pointing out what one acts like. If you see similarity with your own behavior to that, then stop. --AnarchyBalsac
      • Its implied bro, thus my "veiled insults" comment earlier. Donny vs Universe
  • 16 Ton'd! -- tomstiff 02:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • We are the Knights who say Decline The Pardack
  • A nice and non-hurtful decline I just say let this one rest, and cease and desist arguing over such silly things. Silly silly silly I say -- Tony Stony 22:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Decline. Once again, this is stretching it big time. SaikoRoxi 8:19 PM, 23 May 2005
  • DECLINING... Until I e-mail the Brothers Chaps if they watch Monty Python. Which probably they will. -MK and/or BurnBox 02:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Burninating crappy Fun Facts, AND THEIR STRETCHABILITY! STRETCHABILITY! I'll just call over my friends, non-Stan and Lorreta, since obviously, there are no other Stans and Lorretas in the world, to see what they think of this. Cheatachu72 20:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. I have actually seen the movie unlike at least one person on this page. It seems to be more or less correct. -Walking Armless
  • Decline. There are a lot of real couples out there named Stan and Loretta—too many for us to look at this as more than a coincidence without anything else to go on. — It's dot com 01:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Notice how HRWIKI comes up first?
      • comment You know, there are a lot of people named "mike and matt" as well...but if you see a cartoon with those names in it, you bet your britches its a reference to TBC, right?
        • Um, actually, no. Not automatically. Not without something else to tie it in. Otherwise, it's just a coincidence.
  • Major Decline. James Craven 2:55 PM EDT 05/27/05.
  • Decline. Even if the senders DID have MP in mind, it's not at all relevant. GG Crono
  • Accept. If we speculate on TBC's intentions all the time, what's wrong with speculating about other people's intentions as well? Yes, if the names were more common, it could easily be a coincidence. But how many people do you know named Stan? How many named Loretta? How many people do you know that co-author 2-sentence e-mails together? Other pairs of 1st names that immediately conjure a reference, most with more common names: Jack and Bobby, George and Gracie, Bud and Lou, Jessica and Ashley.--rsl12 18:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Because this is a Homestar Runner Wiki, and the use of "Stan and Loretta" had nothing to do with what TBC intended.
    • I assume that the point of Fun Facts and Inside References is to give readers insight to strange references, allowing them to enjoy at a higher level whatever humor is presented in these cartoons. Doesn't this fact help accomplish this goal?
    • Comment.I'd also like to point out the fact that if you do a search on Google for stan and loretta, nearly all of the first 50 hits or so refer to the movie. Here is the main scene, for those of you who haven't seen it. It's pretty memorable.--rsl12 01:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • World's biggest DECLINE I didn't know that trying to read the minds of e-mailers was fodder for a Fun Fact.--Big Dog 00:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How is trying to read the mind of e-mailers that much different from trying to read the minds of TBC?
    • Seconded with a Heavy Lourde dropped on it! James Craven 3:30 AM EDT June 6 2005.

[edit] The debate, continued

In January, 2006, this half-year-old debate was revived as someone tried to add the above fact. I'd like to throw in my two cents by noting that a lot depends on whether it's placed in Real-World Ref.s or in Remarks (or even Trivia). Of course it has no place in R-W Rs because it's not TBCs reference at all. The arguments against noting it elsewhere, though, seem to rely on the premise that this is an H*R wiki, and an un-H*R-related allusion (not authored by TBC) has no place. I'd venture to disagree; although I can't hunt down an example, I'd like to think that if some element of the sender's email needed explanation we would provide one. I find the idea that we're helpless to comment on anything not originating with TBC shaky, and the fact that the email has passed through the filter of sbemail creation lends some TBC-ship to it. Bottom line: I vote put it in Trivia (in the wording submitted by FireBird). —AbdiViklas 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in the email, other than the two names, that connects it to Life of Brian? Not that I can see. Click on the link in my decline vote above to see actual people named Stan and Loretta. Without some kind of proof—or even circumstancial evidence—I don't see why we should list it in the article. Note that it is at least mentioned on this talk page, for those who care to read it. — It's dot com 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
True. My suggestion stands (to preferably word it in a way that doesn't claim connection, but makes the possibility of it known). By the way, I wonder whether the Rev. Stan Scott and his wife Loretta have gotten jokes about Brian often! —AbdiViklas 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If we don't count this as a funfact/RWR/etc. will we have to do the same for Yami Yugi, author of island? -Marth 99 18:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there's a comparable example. In fact, that should be moved out of Real-World References pronto. —AbdiViklas 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they're quite comparable (although I support moving the mention from RWR to remarks). How prevalent is the name "Yami Yugi" outside of the reference? If monster truck had been signed "Charlie Brown and Linus", for example, I would say without a doubt that it was an intentional reference, but "Stan and Loretta" just seems like a coincidence. — It's dot com 18:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
People are arguing two points: 1. Stan and Loretta are common names and their use doesn't necessarily mean a movie reference. 2. Trying to explain references that originate from sources other than TBC is outside the scope of the wiki. I answered both a long time ago, but will reiterate here. Point one: "if you do a search on Google for Stan and Loretta, nearly all of the first 50 hits or so refer to the movie." Even using the It's Dot Com's phrasing without the quotes (searching for "Stan and Loretta" instead of "Stan Loretta") you get a very very high number of hits referring to the movie. Very high. Point two: "I assume that the point of Fun Facts and Inside References is to give readers insight to strange references, allowing them to enjoy at a higher level whatever humor is presented in these cartoons. Doesn't this fact help accomplish this goal?" Are you going to let short-sighted rules deter you from the original goal? -rsl12 01:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Monty Python's Life of Brian is one of the most popular (and controversial) comedies of all time. The movie is the source of an absolutely huge number of one-liners, from the well-known cries of "He's not the messiah!" and "I'm [name] and so's my wife!", to the more subtle references like Stan and Loretta here. Perhaps only one guy sent this email and, being a big Monty Python fan, thought it would be witty for him to make this reference. To me, it just seems more than a coincidence. So I think that this should be mentioned in Remarks, but not RWR since that section is only for TBC's references. Isn't the Wiki allowed to change its standards slightly or to bend the rules once in a while, if necessary? – The Chort 20:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan and Linda

I know this is off-topic, but those are the names of my parents! 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is off-topic, perhaps the forum would be a better place for this? — Defender1031*Talk 14:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goofs

There is a serious goof, but I'm not confident enough in my editing abilities to add another section for it.

During the 'smashing Marzipan's guitar' scene, the shadow from the fence is out a fair distance from the fence itself. Also, throughout the toon, the shadow has a strangely jagged edge on the left side.

[edit] "For me"?

I was pretty sure it was "or me." But I have been wrong before. So is it "for me"? For me? For MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! You think you can stone me and spit in my eyee... but, a buttdanceNeox ONION BUBS!YOU WILL RESPECT MAH AUTHORI-TAH!!! 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

it was clearly for meeeeeeeee!-Record307 Talk/Contribs 01:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Awexomecross easter egg

Hey, I noticed that for the easter egg to the game, Sunday is clickable, but now it doesn't do anything. Is it like this for other people? It probably is, but I just want to make sure, you know, before I go around editing this to say that it doesn't work anymore. 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Just realized I forgot to sign it :P)

Disable your pop-up blocker. — Defender1031*Talk 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

O thanks, I never disable that thing, also why I dont get the Homestar Pop-up in virus, Tanks a lot User:McArbys 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Or that IP thingamacallit)

[edit] Stan and Loretta

Aren't those the names of the couple on Lockhorns? Wolf O'Donnel 23:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the Lockhorns are Leroy and Loretta. --DorianGray 23:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Personal tools