>Also, we're not playing baseball.

Well, we aren't inteillgently discussing this either.

At least I'm clear about which side I'm taking. You're
putting forward this pathetic veil of objectivity, which
is why you began your first post with the whole:

"I'm a fan of both" shtick.

Nobody gives a fuck. It doesn't mean you don't
have an agenda. Reading your post, you do have
one, just like me, and just like Bags.


>Well, the shows aren't completely different. They're two
>television shows of the sketch comedy/variety lineage. If you
>wanted to compare two completely different shows, how about
>shooting for a comparison of "The Andy Griffith Show" and the
>second season of "Survivor."

Jesus Christ.

We are trying to compare the success of different sketch comedy
show alumni after their stint on said sketch show.

Just because the shows we are comparing are both
sketch comedy shows does not mean that the comparison
is not riddled with confounding factors that
need to be taken into account before a helpful
comparison is made.

That is what MY measures have done BETTER than the
ones any of YOU provided to flippantly dismiss Basaglia
up front.

Now,

MY MEASURES aren't perfect.

What they are, undoubtedly, is BETTER than MERELY
looking at the TOTAL NUMBER OF SUCCESSFUL ALUM
from each show.

That is where I delivered my first strike, and Bags'
opponents took their first powerful L.


>So, besides you being wrong in that assertion, the problem is
>that you keep shifting metrics, as you call it, for the way to
>fairly compare the two shows. That seems pretty inherently
>unfair, and a sign that you're not open to the result of a
>fair evaluation being that SNL has more successful alumni.

Lol. Cute.

Mothafucka, I'm the only one here who has even attempted
anything close to a fair comparison.

It was Bags' OPPONENTS who suggested we MERELY
COMPARE THE TOTAL # of successful alum, which is
terrifyingly wrong and biased for reasons I've beaten
you over the head with.


>I don't remember your metric off the top of my head. I'll go
>back and check it out. Or you can copy-and-paste it in your
>reply to this. Either or.

I've actually proposed several, and can propose more.

Look your damn self.



>I actually appealed for those different measures (to control
>for the confounding, i.e. irrelevant, factors) to be defined,
>kept (meaning not adding qualifiers once you've lost on those
>measures), and applied.

What exactly do YOU propose?

How can you control for the 25 year head start?

How about the fact that ILC had to start from
SCRATCH.

How about that ILC had a predominantly
minority cast, which automatically places
its stars at a disadvantage in regards to securing
a place in Hollywood?

How about that?


>The only thing different is that I'm asking that you come up
>with a final form of evaluation instead of layering on other
>(mostly garbage) factors to spin things your way.

Lol.

How exactly is controlling for the obvious confounding
factors spinning things "my way?"

I could easily say the same thing for you, who suggests
that J-Lo shouldn't count.

Why not?

The FLY GIRLS were an INTEGRAL PART to 'In Living Color'.


I could easilly say the same for the people above who suggest
Chris Rock shouldn't count because he was only on one season.

Are they not "spinning" things in their favor?

How about the people who suggest Jaime Foxx's oscar
shouldn't count?

That ain't "spinning?"


Oh...


No...


I see.

Its only "spinning" when I do it and the resulting arguments
favor my original point.


I mean, if you're going to be outright biased, I can dig that.


Otherwise you are lying, and have been exposed.



>Well, as I mentioned above, J.Lo was essentially an extra on
>ILC. While the Fly Girls can be considered featured talent on
>ILC, they were featured as a collective, not as individuals.
>Take that fact, plus the limited amount of screentime and
>you're essentially looking at an extra.

LMMFAO!!!!!

That isn't "spinning?"

The Fly Girls were an ESSENTIAL FEATURE of the
original In Living Color. Shit, my little sister used
to watch ILC JUST TO SEE THE FLY GIRLS DANCE,
and notably, J-Lo was one of her favorites along
with Josie(the dime with the long braids).

They used to get their OWN TIME on the show and
actually, had several episodes where their overall
screen time approached some of the actual cast
members.

For you to suggest that Jennifer Lopez shouldnt
count because "they were a collective, and not
individuals" has absolutely no logical basis, whatsoever.

It is, however, rooted in the fact that you are
"spinning" the facts to avoid taking an L
with your friends.


>So, you're taking a point of trivia (that she was on the show
>as Fly Girl) as if she were a significant part of the show.
>J.Lo, on her lonely, wasn't.


"Spinning."

Lol.

Exposed. Pure comedy.


>There are no molotov cocktails being thrown here.

No, but you are harlem-shaking with the institution
of "collectivism" and "individuality" for the purpose
of making sure ILC can't claim Jennifer Lopez.

I mean, its baseless and comedic at this point.

You're right, its not a molotov cocktail, because that'd be
giving you too much credit.

Its more like doo-doo on a stick.


>Compare ILC alumni (from its 5 seasons) with SNL alumni from
>SNL's first 5 years or for the 5 season of SNL that were on
>when ILC was on.

Looking at SNL:

I don't see any Oscars, I don't see the best stand-up
comedian of our generation(ILC clearly
claims Rock before SNL does), nor one of the 5 biggest pop
stars of our generation.


>To do so, is to attempt to make it fair for ILC, in the face
>of the juggernaut that is SNL. If ILC were as superior as you
>think it was, maybe it would've run for a more comparable
>amount of years to SNL. It wasn't (as superior as you think
>it was), so now we have to handicap SNL. Get it?

Now you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Call it Anything just provided stats AGAINST one of my
measures that actually showed that ILC had HIGHER
ratings than SNL.

ILC got pulled because Fox was on some bullshit. Not
because of ratings.



>Wait, so now precedence doesn't mean anything?

Not when you're using it solely to "spin" things
in your favor.

>First off, I only brought it up in the face of you bringing up
>SNL's headstart (basically penalizing SNL for that advantage),
>which is only fair.

No, you're "spinning" the argument in your favor and
have been caught red handed.

>Secondly, you're arguing for the inclusion of J.Lo as ILC
>alumni on the basis that her work as a Fly Girl set PRECEDENCE
>for her future (and countable toward ILC) success.

You don't even know what "precedence" means. You're conflating
the usages, and it looks bad. I already had to give a math lesson
in this post. I'm not inclined to give a vocabulary one either.

Just shush.