> For one character, Homer Simpson is unbeatable. Nobody
>alone in Seinfeld can beat him. However, the core cast of
>Seinfeld is stronger than the Simpson family.

As great as Homer is, to imply George Costanza doesn't approach him one-on-one is a dubious assertion. But I agree the core cast of "Seinfeld" is stronger than the Simpson family on a comedic level, since the latter is mostly just Homer and Bart and all four of "Seinfeld"'s main cast are strong in their own way.

> As for side-characters, nobody beats Frank Costanza. But
>the huge cast of the Simpsons more than makes up for it
>whether it's regulars like Lenny and Carl, Moe or Milhouse, or
>the occasional appearance by Sideshow Bob, Comic Book Guy or
>Duffman. Springfield beats Manhattan in supporting
>characters.

Overall, yes, the supporting cast on "The Simpsons" trumps "Seinfeld," and again I don't think Frank can't be challenged by, say, Troy McClure or Mr. Burns.

> The Simpsons has touched on virtually every subject in
>modern society and it got viewers to care about the
>characters. Seinfeld was nihilistic and anti-sentimental to
>such a degree that it might be the most ground-breaking sitcom
>ever. That's a toss-up for me.

I LOVE the first 10 seasons of "The Simpsons" and life would suck without out, but I gotta give the edge to "Seinfeld" for completely upending the conventions of the sitcom.

>I don't know how other people feel, but Simpsons quotes still
>crack me up while Seinfeld quotes are almost always lame
>(except for "these pretzels are making me thirsty").

Another dubious claim, but I MIGHT agree since a lot of "Seinfeld"'s comedy is comparatively more situational than based on one-liners.