Talk:strong badathlon

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Ding! strong badathlon is a featured article, which means it showcases an important part of the Homestar Runner body of work and/or highlights the fine work of this wiki. We also might just think it's cool. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.


[edit] Easter egg: Homestar vs Homestar

I will handle the...getting of the screenshot...of the Easter Egg poster. --Kiwi 21:54, 29 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I figured that Egg out first, you guys just beat me to the point. Derrickee3 02:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the desperate, ruthless life of a wiki in turmoil, when there is a new email/toon waiting to be known... --Addict 2006 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Space

Is there any way we can fix that big space under "Fixed Goofs"? I HATE it. TheYellowDart(t/c)

What big space?Shwoo 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm, must be this monitor... does anybody see it? TheYellowDart(t/c)
Looks normal to me... Trey56 03:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, it has to be my monitor. Pluus I'm editing from my usual computer. All right, don't worry about it, then. TheYellowDart(t/c) I'm telling you, it's the pudding pops!!
Incidentally, your monitor would not cause a space anywhere, unless it was extremely broken. Different browsers might, though. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Screen resolutions might, though. But I see no big space no matter how small I make my browser window. Loafing 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm on my Windows XP again. It looks better. TheYellowDart(t/c)

[edit] Transcript

A couple things I couldn't quite catch, such as Strong Mad's line, and the song Homestar sings. So if anyone else could get that, that'd be great. DBK! 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like "Just take those old glasses off the shelf." Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Shwoo already added that, Q ;-) Loafing 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So I noticed! Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I wasn't sure about the PBTC Strong Bad's line, I'm not sure if I'm hearing 'Iconic'. DBK! 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like it to me. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
To me as well. Loafing 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar's stance

Anyone else think that homestar's foot-to-foot stance as he beats himself up is eerily similar to the dancing headless homestar at the seek bar found end end of mile? just compare it to Image:headlessdance.gif and you'll see what I mean. Dr. Clash 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it eerie (frightening without being actually threatening) but it is similar. However, fighters are often characterized as "dancing" so perhaps this is merely appropriate foot movement to avoid an attack from the... opponent... wow, maybe this is eerie. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camera

When the "whatsit" is thrown after The Cheat lands, it seems that the whatsit lands vertically on a lens of some sort. Where would this information go? --Dacheatbot · Communicate 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it needs to get a special mention at all. It's apparent in the shot, and could be simply mentioned in the transcript. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Hello chocolate cake!" EEW!

[edit] It's the desperate, ruthless life of a wiki in turmoil

Okay, I do NOT want a repeat of last week's events of stress outs. Everything in the transcript is okay as it is unless there's some changes to the display and all. --Heading off to watch Heroes now, Addict 2006 05:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Now come on, if there were no disputes over the transcript, where would all the fun be? :-) Seriously, though, we can't prevent transcript disputes. The closest we could do would be to ask Matt to use really clear diction all the time, and I don't know that he'd feel like implementing that just for us. Heimstern Läufer 05:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency!

People have been referring to it as "badlathon" rather than "badathlon". What's wrong? --Addict 2006 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're simply the first one to notice ;-) Loafing 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, i think all those errors are mine, I'll fix them. My problem is that the first time I used it wrong, and show preview gave a blue link because the redirect existed :\ Whoops. Trey56 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] laconic

the ladies name is Laconic, not iconic.(frame 1870)

  • definition : using or involving the use of a minimum of words : concise to the point of seeming rude or mysterious csours 15:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You say that as if you know for an indisputable fact. I'll have to relisten, but as I noted above I heard it as "Iconic". Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
yup, 90% certain its Laconic. or 88% certain anyway. arent you proud of me for not editing the transcript? csours 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense, but I hear "Lyconic".--H-ko 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also pretty sure PBTC Strong Bad calls the girl "Laconic" and not "Iconic".--Andyroid 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you insist. I'll change it on the subs if they haven't been yet. --Addict 2006 15:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar's points

Also, since Homestar is beating himself up, shouldnt he have an even number of points? (score * 2)? I assume thats where his advantage comes from. csours 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure? He gets the same number of points for beating himself up and subsequently being beaten up? I doubt it works that way, and even if it does, that's reading pretty far into it. He wins because he has an intimate knowledge of Homestar's weak points. --Jay (Talk) 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
because the general assumption in sports is that there is more than one party, and each party is awarded points. In this case each party would be Homestar. So when Homestar is awarded his points, he gets them as the party of the first part, and as the party of the second part. in a cartoon world, obviously rules need not apply. also, because its funny. csours 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The Olympics, what this is based on, is more of a "who does it better" thing, though. They just put person after person to one thing, and whoever does it best wins. Like here. --DorianGray
Also, a competition does not necessarily mean that the total of both people's points will be even. We simply do not know enough about the nature of the contest to make such an assumption. I can cite many cases where two people have competed and the point total was odd. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
since it has come to that, how are these events scored with points anyway. olympic style events are scored by the stats (time, distance, etc) unless the underlying game is scored with points. csours 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Another point, in this case it's not really a competition of Homestar vs. Homestar. Homestar, in this event, (at least when he's not playing), is presumably closer to a piece of equipment. So Homstar would only get the points from beating himself up. Exhibit A (talk · edits) 06:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Or possibly, both Homestars would get the same number of points, resulting in a perfect tie. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Germans

The "Check the East Germans' pants" is obviously referencing the common urban legend that the East Germans used to put men in the womens' events. This was also referenced in the simpsons talking about the 1984 olympics. --JamesDean 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it's cause steroids make...stuff...shrink. I mean, if I read correctly, they did tons of steroids back then. Bluebry 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with JamesDean. Anyone remember the movie "Top Secret", and the scene with the East German women's Olympic award ceremony, and they were all played by big, hairy, butch guys? That's what it makes me think of.--H-ko 03:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm, it looks it could be a clear reference to either one. Bluebry, you are funny. "stuff"? Ha ha. Anyway, I am leaning towards JamesDean and H-ko, since it makes more sense. TheYellowDart(t/c)
Strong Bad is not gonna say "Check the East Germans' Pants" meaning that you should be able to see the guys' packages. Thats stupid. That wouldnt mean they were on steroids if you couldnt see their packages through their pants. Someone be bold and make my suggestion a reality. --JamesDean 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that East Germany put men in women's events? I wasn't aware of that. With respect to Top Secret (awesome movie, by the way), I always thought that the joke was that those were women on steroids, not that they were actually men pretending to be women. Steroids have the effect of masculinizing women just as they have the effect of feminizing men, hormonally speaking. Trey56 04:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know the steroids are true and the men dressed as women are not. I think the myth that the East German women were really man was probably due to the masculinizing effects of the steroids, but I think perhaps those were not as commonly known then as they are now. But I think it was the urban myth that was being referenced, not the actual use of steroids.--H-ko 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lordy Lordy

Was this the first ever usage of "Lord" like, in vain? They've said Lord before like Lord Quackingstick, and Lord of england and whatever, but I don't think they've ever said anything like "THANK THE LORD" like they have here --JamesDean 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What 'bout that one TGS (Can't remember issue number, maybe 11) where they sang the song and replied "Lord no." with whatever stupid thing the bear sold. Also, I don't think it's too important to mention. I mean, I know it's a sin in Christianity, but many modern Christians say it. I mean, we're not gonna mention everytime some word is used in some certain way commonly used. Bluebry 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, saying "Thank the Lord" is in no way using it "in vain."

Um, I'm a Christian, and "thank the lord" isn't a sin at all. Some people take it like a religion. But it's not. You can make it one, but for me it's a relationship. And it isn't in vain at all, either. TheYellowDart(t/c) EDIT: I agree with what Lapper said below, encyclopedias don't have religions.
With all due respect, whether or not it is "in vain" is immaterial. It's a common phrase, and is as such not notable. TBC's religious beliefs are not part of the show. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't have to say it every time. But if it is the first occurrence, I think it deserves a mention - everything else does. And no, its not a hard/fast Christianity rule, but it seems to me that you're not supposed to use the Lord's name unless you're praying, and saying "Thank the Lord" that strong bad isnt going to give you a wedgie, is not actually praying. --JamesDean 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's quite a subjective thing; lookup "vain" and "vanity" in your favorite dictionary. It boils down to something like "empty; shallow", (though there are specific usages related to pride or self-importance). Bottom line, we can't know one way or another because we are not Strong Mad; for a Christian it is comes down to thier personal relationship with God; some may be thankful for a sweet parking spot at the mall while others consider that vanity. Both are valid relationships. For a non-christian -- the discussion doesn't even make sense. I agree with Qermaq, leave it out.
JamesDean (and others), the assumption that Strong Mad (or even TBC) are Christians who are observant of the idea that "Thank the Lord" is taking the Lord's name in vain is, frankly, speculative. Even if they happened to be Christian, I submit it would still be unnotable. Again, the discussion is immaterial - it being a common phrase, it's not notable, no more than "This is the first time a character says insert any other common phrase here" is notable. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 10:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember once a fun fact was included in one toon for "This is the first time Marzipan has said 'crap'." I mean, really. This is a lot like that. --DorianGray
Your tone implies you agree that it is not notable, but your citation implies you do not. Which did you mean? (Personally, I think that fun fact is absolutely unnotable as well. But this one, as it's not referring to a running gag at all, is even more so.) Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 10:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Q: both fun facts are not notable. Marzipan's "crap fact" should definitely be deleted. Loafing 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But this may be the only time that Missy's mouth was ever defiled by uttering such an obscene scatology! Just kidding, I agree on both fronts — neither of these facts is notable. Trey56 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is getting pretty off-topic. — Lapper (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Qermaq. There's no way that this is notable, not to mention how speculative it is. Encyclopedias don't have speculation, and they don't have religion. — Lapper (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vulgarism?

as in dysphemism? I think "number 2" is definitely a euphemism. A dysphemism would be a purposely vulgar word, rather than a set of normal words (like 'number' and 'two') that say something vulgar without saying it.

Now, are you talking about The Poopsmith being "number 2", because that's already mentioned. If not, then I apologize. Bluebry 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Athlon?

That's a processor, right? Athlon processor? It's obviously based on "-athon" and "-athalon" but distinct enough that I think it was spelled that way on purpose.

Athlons are awesome. Anyway, yeah, I see three spellings with Athlon. I think it's totally a reference. Bluebry 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh? No... It's a pun on "biathlon", "triathlon", "decathlon" et al... The word is reasonably relevant too, since the Greek "athlon" just means "contest", so the Strong Badathlon is a contest to find out who's the best at being Strong Bad. --phlip TC 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely a reference to "-athlon" sporting events, not AMD processors, considering this is about a sports event and not computers.--H-ko 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But the sporting events are not 'athlon' they're athalon, aren't they? They're either athon or athalon. Athlon is only a processor.
No, just -athlon for the sporting type events. In fact, The name "Athlon" was chosen by AMD as short for "decathlon". -- Tom 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
May be a cultural spelling difference, like "color" vs. "colour". But here in the States, it's "biathlon", etc. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh crap, you're right! Well, people PRONOUNCE IT ath-a-lon. @_@

[edit] Missing/Potentially Debatable Stuff

I noticed that the part where Strong Bad's laser gun hands can be seen through the dress of the "hot girl" walking across the screen appeared in the e-mails transcript, but not in either the "goofs" or "remarks" section. It seems like it should be in one of those. Also, in "Inside References," it says that the laser gun hands appeared in one of the e-mail's easter eggs, but no such easter egg is listed in the e-mail's article. Besides that, I think that calling the "Someteen days of glory!" an inside reference to Teen Girl Squad Issue 10 is debatable, but maybe that's just me. Oh well. There's my two cents. --Lux Acerbus 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't list PbTC goofs in the Goofs section, 'cause they're intentional... we list them in Remarks if there's a lot of them, but when there's only one or two the Transcript is enough. The Inside Reference you mention is talking about an Easter egg in new hands, not in this email. As for the "Sweet Someteen" ref... well, maybe it's debatable, but I'd vote for it if it was in STUFF. --phlip TC 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. I figured it had something to do with the fact that it was PbTC, since that seemed like an obvious thing to overlook to me. As for the whole new hands e-mail thing, I guess I just forgot that it mentioned the new hands e-mail in there. Sorry. Anyway, I don't know anything about STUFFing items, so maybe someone else should do it. --Lux Acerbus 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenyans

Does anyone else think that Strong Bad's "accidentally" (?) referring to the Kenyans dominating the Cheat Chuck (before correction himself to the Poopsmith) refers to the Kenya's excellence at track & field events? Or is this so super-obvious it doesn't even warrant a mention?--H-ko 04:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Under Explanations: "Kenyan athletes are noted for dominating the sport of distance running.". Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks--missed it there. I was looking under real-world refs.--H-ko 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That's Real World References - but this isn't a reference to something so much as it is an actual mention, so we're explaining it. A common mix-up. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriotic Little Girl

Any ideas which cute little girl from sit-com is being referenced? Or is it just generic?--H-ko 04:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say any guess would be by necessity TTATOT. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean & Jerk

The clean and jerk is a part of weightlifting. Retromaniac 04:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheaties

Temporarios is a reference to Wheaties due to the athlete endorsement. Retromaniac 04:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this one — that is, I think that there were a lot of cereals that featured olympic athletes on their boxes, not just Wheaties (here's one example). Trey56 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the different one listed in explanations fits better, in my opinion. --DorianGray

[edit] Fosbury Slop

Gee, didn't know I'd be resoundingly defeated in STUFF. I would have hoped that people would have seen the fact for the coincidence it is. But hey, I'll live to STUFF another day. --ISlayedTheKerrek 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To prove to me that it was a coincidence, you'd basically have to have proved to me it was TTATOT. You did no such thing. Thus, given the rhyme, the context, and the way Strong Bad describes it, I can't say I thought it was a coincidence at all. But hey, I do understand the sentiment. --Jay (Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, that one. Well, Jay, can't win 'em all, I suppose. --ISlayedTheKerrek 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

--There is no doubt in my mind that it is an intentional reference. The 'bury-buried' similarity coupled with the 'slop-flop' rhyme in the context of an Olympic technique is just too much to be a coincidence. There's no logical reason to use that term if it's not a reference. Were you personally familiar with the term "Fosbury Flop" before seeing this e-mail? If it's not something you've heard before it might be harder to recognize it.

I agree completely. Honestly, saying that "Whatsitburied Slop" is not a reference to the "Fosbury Flop" (especially considering that they're both techniques designed to win athletic competitions) is about the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen put on this website. --Lux Acerbus 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cableman Jorge

Why is the cableman jorge reference in the Inside References section? I know who he is, I just can't find any other mention of him in this sbemail.

He's mentioned on the Homestar VS. Homestar poster, I believe. --DorianGray

[edit] "Streisand"

I'm confused. What does Streisand have to do with guitars? Danny Lilithborne 05:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just the usual Powered By The Cheat randomness, I think. Trey56 05:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently something, according to Google. --DorianGray
I was also wondering if the new hot girl (not Cynthentia/Baby Styles) is supposed to be Steisand... -Cyndentia
mebbe look at this a bit? . . . but prolly not... try this one: csours 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation Marks/Apostrophes

Normally, since this is a grammar issue, I would just edit this myself, but I can't really remember the rules, so I thought I'd run it by you guys first. Someone went through and changed all of the 's to "s, which would be fine, except the context was that what were originally 's were inside brackets which were inside "s, so I would think that the ' would be the right punctuation, right? Also, someone removed the ' from 1980's, but since it's referring to a decade I believe the rule is that the apostrophe stays even though it's a plural. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Lux Acerbus 05:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the last one, "1980s" is preferred. Trey56 05:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first question, you would normally be right, but what you see as double quotation marks around entire lines in this edit is actually markup for italics — if you type ''this phrase is in italics'', you get this phrase is in italics, as opposed to "this phrase is in double quotes". In the first case you have two single quotation marks on each side of the text, in the second case you have a single character (") on each side. So, there's no grammar violation there. Trey56 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
We prefer " to ' for quotations, for style and technical reasons. --phlip TC 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't see that until I looked over the page again. Sorry about that. Also, someone said I should STUFF the inside reference about "someteen" and TGS #10. Is this a good idea? I don't even know how to STUFF something. --Lux Acerbus 06:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you should, as it seems a waste of time to me: it is almost certainly a reference. --DorianGray
There's some good info about when to STUFF facts, when to delete them, and when to discuss them on the talk page here. For a fact like this (one that's not patently false), I would try to discuss it on the talk page (like you did) first, and if a person or two agrees with you and you still feel strongly about it, then remove it and begin the STUFF process. Hope that helps, Trey56 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closimony song

I heard "Together now" not "Togetherness". Retromaniac 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. At least from Marzipan (who is a little more understandable). I also heard "We're Circling the world", but that doesn't make that much sense. Zephiel On April 2, 2007
I'm definitely hearing "togetherness". Heimstern Läufer 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar's lack of visible arms

Why is it noteworthy that Homestar can hit himself even though his arms are invisible? He can still use them for any other purpose!

I agree, hasn't he used his arms before. If we know he has arms (just invisible) why should we point out that its surprising that he can hit himself? — (Talk | contribs) {{{2}}} (left unsigned)

[edit] Closed STUFF

[edit] One of the few

This is one of the few post Tandy 400 Era Strong Bad Emails not to have an Easter egg at the end. The last was #134, record book.

Posted on: 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Closed: 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

VERDICT: This item was declined, 19–5. A proposed revision was also declined, 19-13. The votes and arguments have been moved to HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/strong badathlon.

[edit] The Slop Flop

The Whatsitburied Slop is a reference to the Fosbury Flop, a technique used in high jumping.

Posted on: 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Closed: 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

VERDICT: This item was swiftly and overwhelmingly accepted, 18–1. The votes and arguments have been moved to HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/strong badathlon.

[edit] Projectile motion

When the Poopsmith flings The Cheat into the air, The Cheat apparently seems to defy the concept of projectile motion. He is thrown at an initial velocity of at least 5 m/s, but as he flies over Coach Z, he appears to be traveling at about 0.5 m/s. Also, before landing on the tea table, The Cheat seems to reach two high heights (one above Coach Z and one in the background with the tea table).

Moved here per precedent of putting math and physics on the talk page. — It's dot com 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ding!

Could the good medal be a reference to Strong Mad's "good prize" from Pumpkin Carve-nival? Bad Bad Guy 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Pants

Homestar's short athletic pants only match when he walks into the ring and when he is knocked into the air by himself. It looks like the pants face front (on walk direction) and when he adopts the sparring stance, his legs face the "camera" while his upper body and pants face the same direction as before (except his face). If this is a legit goof, can I edit it in? Thanks for your time. Stinkoblade 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna add it and let the continuity guys argue over it, I don't think anybody comes to this discussion page anymore. Stinkoblade 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First, being bold and adding it is the right move. Second, as you've brought up talk comment on it, I wonder what exactly is the issue. The legs change their facing while the pants remain stationery? I... I don't know. Is this possibly a result of "swively hips"? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. If it isn't a goof (H*R never really wears pants), than maybe it could be explained that they were attached to his shirt... except they do not move with his shirt. I was just randomizing some sbemail when it landed on this one and I noticed that Homestar had odd pants. Also, I don't think he will see it, but thanks to Has Matt? for correcting the name of the event. Stinkoblade 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Exact Same

Since this other "homestar" has been named and noted as a seperate character, should this still be labled as an instance of duplicate characters? - Opus the Penguin 23:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be a scrapped Homstar Runner puppet, and he's had three appearances so far. You are right, though, almost all of his appearances have Homestar in his presence, and it could be considered as instances of duplicate characters. -- 23:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Not quite what I meant. There was a page just created about this "The Exact Same" character and I figured the reference to duplicate characters (which is already there) should be removed. - Opus the Penguin 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I misread that. You're right with that, then. But I think we should now consider The Exact Same a duplicate-pseudo character himself, though I'm probably taking that too far. -- 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If he has his own page as a seperate "homestar impersonator", he should be considered his own character. - Opus the Penguin 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So and So

Homstar's line "Come on you little so and so" could be a reference to so and so from TGS, don't you think? -I should really consider getting an account right now.

[edit] Olympic-Style Competitions

It's written under Explanations that "Though the next Summer Olympics weren't until 2008, many Olympic-style competitions had been held around the time this email came out." Since this is Strong Badathlon 2007, I've got to ask if anyone remembers any examples of vehement Olympery going on back then. My memory of ten years ago is very unphotographic. 03:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools