|
>Two strikes.
You might try to argue that I have a strike against me in being wrong. If I'm actually wrong (which I doubt - but I'll listen to reason), then, yeah, that would count as a strike.
The timing of my response in regards to which show has more successful alumni is irrelevant and has no bearing on the discussion.
Also, we're not playing baseball.
>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.
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."
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
Nice smoke screen.
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.
>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.
Again:
Nice smoke screen.
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.
>>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 we're basically striving for the same thing, where did you get that I'm stating that I'm better than you?
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.
>>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.
Actually, it questioned your basis of evaluation for "success," then accepted it at face value (rather than all of the other factors people have tried to tack on). So, you're wrong there.
>No, J-Lo was consistently on for every single week and
>directlymoved into a being a Janet Jackson Dancer after that which
>shedirectly moved into the Selena film which directly propelled
>her to superstardom.
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.
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.
>Stop being extreme just to prove your retarded point. We're
>smart people. Discuss the shit intellgently.
Who's being extreme?
There are no molotov cocktails being thrown here.
>>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.
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.
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?
>>(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.
Wait, so now precedence doesn't mean anything?
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.
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.
So, precedence either counts or it doesn't.
No one asked you to get emotional and take it back to that "Abraham begat Isaac begat Esau" bullshit.
>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.
Unless you're willing to tattoo that on your face, that's not what Bags said.
Bags merely said that ILC had more successful alumni than SNL.
That brief glimpse of the overblown future at the "In Living Color 50th Anniversary Special" (brought to you by McMicrosoft-Mart), I'd imagine, is in your head right next to your jackoff fantasy of Kim Wayans.
The bottom line is this:
Pick which relevant (to this discussion) 5 seasons of SNL that you'd like to compare (either the first 5 seasons or the 5 seasons during ILC's run) and we'll look at how the alumni stack up.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn 
#/media/File:Firefly.png)
