Two strikes.

>I'm pretty damn confident, though, that SNL smashes ILC in
>whatever metric you guys cook up (and you guys stay in the
>kitchen because you know that you're reaching like the Digable
>Planets).

No, we're intelligent people trying to come up with a fair
way to compare two completely different shows, whose
alum have succeeded in a variety of ways.

The people who opposed the original point did it in flippant,
retarded manner, by merely listing the alum, which is completely
unfair. I tried to introduce some metric. There are others.

The truth is, this debate isn't easier to solve than the
"Which nation is more wealthy" debate, which is why I came up
with the Sudan/Luxemborg example.

Creating different measures to control for confounding
factors is something that smart people do all the time.


I'm not going to apologize for being smart.


>Once that premise was blown out of the water straight up, you
>guys started adding qualifiers and the like to try to tweak it
>to your favor. All of that irrelevant shit basically moved
>things into debating which was the more successful show (in
>addition to tacking on more irrelevant shit to get things
>going your way). Regardless, I'm pretty sure that SNL
>destroys ILC in those regards, too.

Again:

Creating different measures to control for confounding
factors is something that smart people do all the time.


I'm not going to apologize for being smart.



>As I see it, nothing can really move forward in this
>discussion until parameters in evaluating either show are
>defined and set.

So basically, you are doing what I did, that is, try to
set some sort of fair measure.

So what makes you any better than me?

>If you want "success" to mean box office receipts (which seems
>a little off to me, considering all the factors that go into
>what makes a successful movie -- and a movie career, which
>also happens to ignore success on television -- but it is
>EXTRA!'s world, after all, and you're living in it) and
>awards, then by all means go for that.

This paragraph contributed nothing.

>It seems that alumni should be definied as cast members. Your
>guys' inclusion of J.Lo (really?), while in the pretty obvious
>interest of putting some $$$ in the success column for ILC,
>also brings up the problem of finding a cutoff line in
>including SNL's writing staff and short filmmakers (should
>Albert Brooks be included?). I don't know - that's pretty
>messy. Unless you want to start looking up stats for other
>Fly Girls and do an audit on the income that Shawn Wayans
>brought in doing wedding receptions as DJ SW1, you probably
>need to fall back.

No, J-Lo was consistently on for every single week and directly
moved into a being a Janet Jackson Dancer after that which she
directly moved into the Selena film which directly propelled
her to superstardom.

I'm not here to say that ILC can claim Grand Puba because
he performed on the show.

Stop being extreme just to prove your retarded point. We're smart
people. Discuss the shit intellgently.


>Also, it seems fair to either compare all of the seasons of
>ILC to either the first five seasons of SNL or the five
>seasons of SNL that were on the air during the same time
>period as ILC. You do realize, though, that that's an effort
>to make things fair for ILC to even have its foot in the
>door.

This didn't make sense.

>(Sidenote: I think it might be valid to consider the weight of
>SNL's headstart. If you want to knock SNL down a few notches
>for its headstart, how many points do you subtract from ILC,
>considering that it probably wouldn't have existed without
>SNL's precedence.)

Motherfucker, Fox Network might not have existed without
NBC first.

Neither would have existed without the invention of the
Cathode Ray Tube.

Electricity wouldn't have existed without Michael Faraday.


I mean, please, shut that shit up.


>Everything else (influence on hip hop?) seems pretty dumb to
>consider if you guys want to evaluate things in terms of being
>successful, as narrowly as you've defined success. Plus, all
>those considerations have this discussion slipping into merely
>being about people's preferences in relation to which was the
>better show. We might as well be debating the comparative
>merits of "The Completely Mad Misadventures of Ed Grimley"
>against "Waynehead."


That didn't contribute anything.


The bottom line is this:

Everyone FLEW UP IN HERE all FLIPPANT and DIRESPECTFUL
OF THE TOPIC when CLEARLY this is a LEGIT DEBATE that
warrants some REAL SCRUTINY.
'
The fact that this whole debate began with:

"Bags, you're retarded"

and has come to:

"Well, OE, you need to consider that ILC wouldn't have
existed without SNL"

is proof that this debate is a lot closer than people originally
though,t and that everyone who came up in here hating
off cuff was horrifyingly WRONG because Basaglia
had an LEGIT ORIGINAL POINT.

SNL has put out far more mediocre/bad talents than
ILC has, and given its short run and smaller cast, ILC's
accomplishments and contributions to modern entertainment
in various arenas are nothing short of breath-taking.





----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop