Seinfeld

SEINFELD BLOG

Seinfeld DVD Complete Series Box Set

Seinfeld Script Search:

Off-Topic Forum

All 9 Seasons on DVD



Save $77.96 !!



1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >>
Author Message
Jimmy







PostPosted: September 17, 2005 2:16 PM 

A good while back, Stan asked us if we would like to have an off-topic forum to discuss other things beside Seinfeld. There weren't many positive responses to the idea at that time (including myself), and no response when it was brought up again recently (I think it was in the middle of some other thread and was just overlooked or forgotten).

But I'm starting to feel a little differently lately. Mainly, because I seem to be posting more frequently in the Thread About Nothing and other non-Seinfeld topics (including, and unfortunately, the bashing threads). As has been mentioned before, there are a lot of new people coming here and wanting to talk about things that have been beaten to death over and over, and frankly, I can barely stand to participate. But I remember how fun it was when I started. Everything was new and interesting then. We didn't have any senior members telling us "Sorry, you're a year too late... we already answered that already.. go away." Many newbies get upset when met with smart-ass replies (which seem harmless to us) and soon, the fighting and name-calling begins because they fail to recognize the show's quotes and our humorous intentions.

Anyway, maybe it's time we allow the next generation of StantheCaddy members to discuss, in peace, everything that has been previously discussed, without us senior members being in their way. As it stand now, without an off-topic forum, we're only given the choice of either avoiding a boring thread and not posting anything, or sarcastically disrupting a thread that some poor soul has excitedly started because he or she has just started watching the show. Of course, we'd still have to insert our sarcastic little comments and quotes here and there (let's not not get all crazy...), but at least allow them to get serious answers to their questions, and discuss their favorite episodes, actors, characters, and yes (cringing)... the ever-so dreaded "voting" threads.

So, I'm now in favor of an off-topic forum. We can either post our opinions here for Stan to consider... or just turn this thread, itself, into another off-topic rant and not do the forum altogether... how 'bout that? Smile

Bookman
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3247

Reply: 1



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 3:01 PM 

I second the motion. I spend most of my time here in the Thread About Nothing these days.

J. Chiles


Posts: 5078

Reply: 2



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 3:15 PM 

Who is this? Uncle Leo?


Seriously, though, I don't recall seeing a rule that says "no non-Sein threads allowed" - okay I don't recall much in the way of rules at all.

So, if this is what you hanker, simply start a thread about a topic and let er rip.

How 'bout Woodrow Wilson: His Life and Times? Smile

J. Chiles


Posts: 5078

Reply: 3



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 3:18 PM 

Of course, there are umpteen thousand general forums on countless sites. But, then, there's no place like home.

I guess my only point is that there may be no need for a separate forum - just separate threads. Or not.

Bookman
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3247

Reply: 4



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 3:21 PM 

Actually, I think I need a sabbatical from this. I'm Seinfelded-out, and I have been for a long time. I don't take back my second, though. If you guys want it, make it happen. It'll probably be there when I get back.

Jimmy
Pensky Material

Posts: 4301

Reply: 5



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 4:52 PM 

Well, starting non-Seinfeld threads in the general forum isn't a problem or against any rules. I was addressing the fact that so many Seinfeld-related threads become off-topic.

I just don't think it's realistic to think that any of us will start a new thread about movies as soon as a thread about Elaine starts to drift that way. Maybe a separate forum wouldn't completely solve that. But it might help some of the newbies' threads to develop into the kind of threads that we once had if we (partially) let them be.

Jimmy
Pensky Material

Posts: 4301

Reply: 6



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 4:59 PM 

Woodrow Wilson? Who are we discussing, Mr. Peanut?

cousin jeffrey
Pimple Popper, MD

Posts: 1841

Reply: 7



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 5:42 PM 

Jimmy, i like the idea. I mean, we can continue posting in the thread about nothing if you want. That's fine. If we can get a separate section devoted to non-seinfeld discussion. That's fine too. Until that decision is made, i'll start here.

I recently got a free preview of Fox news (I don't know if it was a direct result of Hurricane Katrina. I know we got a free preview of CNN on the days following 9/11) Anyway, I was totally turned off by the way news is handled in the States. It is just so annoying, and ridiculous the kinds of things they do. I've never seen any news reporter more annoying than Geraldo, and it's come to the point where I believe that they don't even try to disguise the rhetoric that they used to slip through inconspicuously. Now it's just so obvious. And it makes me sick. I've never been a huge follower of the American News broadcasts, and my experience watching Fox News has not helped.
If any of you guys want to see the difference, watch The National (Canada's national news broadcast on CBC). I never knew how good this news show was until i saw Fox. Or an even better broadcast is BBC world news.

I'm not kidding, I was watching Fox news. And the anchor was talking to two different people about the relieve effort and reaction. And usually, on the National anyway, you'd hear the two people exchange different point of views and have the anchor moderate. These two bozos weren't even debating; they were saying the exact same things!

cousin jeffrey
Pimple Popper, MD

Posts: 1841

Reply: 8



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 5:44 PM 

*relief*

Yev Kassem
Wigmaster

Posts: 896

Reply: 9



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 6:18 PM 

As for the off-topic forum/threads I'm down, mark me down. Dont' get me wrong, I will always enjoy injecting seinfeldism's into off topic discussions (as seen at the beginning of this thread).

I feel Jimmy is correct that people finding this site now should be able to discuss/ask/vote on the actual content that this site was designed for.

I joined stan only a few months ago (never hung out at forum sites) even though I am a long time fan and it was really exciting to discuss "most underrated moments" and such. But it doesn't take too long to get burnt out rehashing the same 180 shows over and over and over ad nauseam.

But I wouldn't want to be wrong to throw seinisms into general discussions either so I have an idea. Instead of having 1 General thread, we can have 2:
General (beninners) and General (advanced).
Or
Everything Seinfeld and General.

J. Chiles


Posts: 5078

Reply: 10



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 6:21 PM 

OK, I’ll bite.

First of all, Jeffery, I doubt there’s much of anything “American”, if we define America as the US (I don’t, personally), that you do like. Well, maybe Seinfeld. You generally take most opportunities to make evident your distaste for what goes on “there” or what “you guys” do. No problem, “we” are used to being generalized poorly by the actions of a few.

Mine is not to defend FoxNews. It is generally a rancid joke hiding behind a “fair and balanced” label. No news shows are fair and balanced. NONE that I’ve ever seen - and that has been literally hundreds over many years. Some at least try to give both sides, but very few don’t leave a residue of their slant. Canadian Broadcasting The National is certainly no exception. Centrists they AIN’T. BBC’s world news even better? Oh, please. I suppose if you go into your news viewing with a predisposed bias against the U.S., one would find it right up their alley.

Just a question. Why do two people reporting on the same story HAVE to have opposing or even different views? Everything isn’t a debate. If two reporters were reporting on the disaster and reaction, there could well have been very similar reports, with the report justified. There are PLENTY of shows and segments on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. etc. (using only U.S. TV news sources) that pit one “bull” against another. In fact, that is often all Fox does for hours on end. Granted, there are many times when the views of each and every one of these jokers are off base, but they are almost always different. And, talk about views being the same. How many The National debates feature one person whose view holds that the U.S. position on something is evil, while the other just finds it wicked. I believe that they don't even try to disguise the rhetoric that they used to slip through inconspicuously. Now it's just so obvious. And it makes me sick.

I think we can all agree on Geraldo, though.

Yev Kassem
Wigmaster

Posts: 896

Reply: 11



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 6:23 PM 

Beginners. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN Rolling Eyes

Jimmy
Pensky Material

Posts: 4301

Reply: 12



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 6:25 PM 

FOX News is entirely Repulican run and biased. Surprisingly, the only two liberals on that network are Geraldo and Greta Van Susteren (that I'm aware of). FOX News is often referred to as FAUX News as it is a bit of joke here.

The media, in general, in both radio and television in this country, is republican owned and operated. Sure, they'll throw in a few liberal personalities such as Howard Stern, and George Stephanopoulos, but the majority of radio and television journalists/broadcasters/DJs are republican scum. Big money, big business, big coruption. The truth is not important to these people... only the ratings.

The News here is often referred to as info-tainment. If Paris Hilton was suddenly missing, there would be no more Hurricane Katrina aftermath story. We'd never hear another word of it.

Jimmy
Pensky Material

Posts: 4301

Reply: 13



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 6:46 PM 

If you want to see two sides really go at it, I'd suggest "Crossfire" on CNN, or "Hannity & Colmes" on FOX. Sean Hannity's a total dickhead moron! Personally, I like Chris Matthews (Hardball on MSNBC), he's about the only REAL fair and balanced political analyst I've ever seen who doesn't seem to take sides on his show (although, if you catch him on Leno, he'll let loose).

I've really lost touch with politics since the election (I refuse to even catch a glimpse of asshole's face or to even hear his voice anymore).

cousin jeffrey
Pimple Popper, MD

Posts: 1841

Reply: 14



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 7:23 PM 

(now this is a conversation!)

No news show can be proven as being completely unbiased. But there's no arguing that there is a lot more of that stuff going on with Fox. Maybe I went a little far saying all American news companies (although i didn't like CNN either).

If something were as cut and dry such that a news company can't find two people with opposing (and subsequently equally valid) views, then what's the point of having the conversation? I mean we all know that what happened on September 11 was terrible. That's why you didn't see two people arguing over it. But when there's a hazy issue, such as where the responsibility lies in regards to the poor relief effort, I'd just like to hear a different perspective. All i heard was, it wasn't the Government's fault (you put two and two together...)

By the way, I hate the "bulls" too. I don't want to see a fight, i want to see a conversation.

BBC world news and The National reports on American casualties in Iraq as well as Civilian casualties. That's just one example of what i'm talking about. I don't think that's specifically Anti-American.

But then again, deciding what's biased and what unbiased involves a bit of bias Wink

And i'm just curious, not angry, but i want to know when i made any Anti-American generalizations? So i can try to work on that.

(i'm loving this)

Jimmy, my only issue with your last post is that you continually choose to call them republican scum. Can't you just say republican? We all know you hate republicans, but if we want to have an open forum here, it might discourage any republican supporter (yes, some of them are normal) from rebutting. But I agree with you on the subject of making news for the ratings and not for the information. I don't see the value in telephoning an 80 year old woman who's stuck in her attic with limited supplies and a flooded house and asking questions like "Can you please tell us what it's like for you?" They pull on the emotions of the viewers and exploit the personal tragedies of individuals. Not that every news show does not do that.


Second thing: I don't know very much about why the US had decided to support Israel. Can someone fill me in as to why the US backs Israel? Wouldn't that ease the hatred that Muslims have for the US? I actually don't know much about the whole Palestine-Israel issue...I just should let you know Jackie that probably the biggest problem that the rest of the world has with the US foreign policy is they're eagerness to "save the world". It contributes to this percieved "arrogance" that you always hear about.


WE NEED A SEPARATE FORUM! THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS TO TALK ABOUTl: POLITICS, SPORTS, MUSIC, MOVIES, ETC.

J. Chiles


Posts: 5078

Reply: 15



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 7:44 PM 

Funny, though, about the "blame" game. All I have hear is that it IS the government's fault (on every level and for a vairety of reasons) that there was not a quicker response. At the same time, every effort (in most circles) has been to absolve Bush from individual blame. Look, I came back for MY vacation early! Smile

Jimmy, your Republican-owned theory would seem to directly refute the left-wing bias of the media. No? Wink

cousin jeffrey
Pimple Popper, MD

Posts: 1841

Reply: 16



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 7:59 PM 

ouch.

You know what else is funny? Most people agree that the best kind of government is usually somewhere in the middle, taking from each side the best parts. Yet there all you ever hear from (for the most part)are the extremists. I guess the empty can rattles the most.

cousin jeffrey
Pimple Popper, MD

Posts: 1841

Reply: 17



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 8:07 PM 

Who's more annoying: Geraldo or Sally Weaver?

Jimmy
Pensky Material

Posts: 4301

Reply: 18



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 8:36 PM 

Paliestine-Israel conflict.

The history is very complicated and has differing sides to the story depending on which side's telling it. The whole dislike between them began after World War I, and the details are long and complicated. But jumping ahead... to WWII... when Hitler was trying to exterminate the Jews, many flooded Palistine but (like most other countries) they didn't want them either, and rebelled. After WWII ended, the United Nations was formed and split Palistine into two separate states. They gave away one part to the Jewish people to finally call home (probably thinking the Arabs were just a bunch of backward nobody's who wouldn't put up a fight). The Palistinians blew a gasket and have been fighting to get it back ever since, and extremely violently, I might add. Jimmy Carter dedicated his entire presidency to trying to resolve it, which is why some don't consider him to have been a very accomplished President (but that's up for debate). He's the only one to have truely ever tried, and is still involed to this day.

In my opinion, The U.S will always want everyone to be like, think like, act like, and believe in everything whitey does. They did it to the natives, they did it to the blacks, and they'll continue to do it until they're wipe out... and I don't want to be here when it happens. This country's only 230 years-old... that's nothing! It won't last.

I'm not anti-American... this is a good country. it's just naive and brainwashed by it's leaders who lie to us. Don't think of the American people as being representative of what's going on... it's our politicians (on both sides) who are bullying the world.
________________________________________

Left-wing bias in what media? Al Franken's AirAmerica? CBS? Those are the only one's I'm aware of (not speaking of newspapers and news magazines, just TV & radio).

I've always liked the Sally Weaver character... and Kathy (Bush Bashin') Griffin. Very Happy

Never have been a Geraldo fan, but he doesn't bother me either. Yeah, he's an overdramatic alarmist, but he's never pissed me off about anything. He's ignorable.

VegetableLasagna
Bubble Boy

Posts: 365

Reply: 19



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 10:41 PM 

There is way too much in here for me to read it, and I'm tired.

But awhile ago I asked for one, and liek Jimmy said, there wasn't much support for it. Then awhile later Stan said he that it was simple for him to add another forum, and that was when he asked if we wanted it, and again it wasn't something anyone seeemed to like. The response was a lot of "This is a Seinfeld forum" kind of thing.

I think it might be good, I'd like an off-topic forum where every thread doesn't turn into us quoting the show.

Jimmy
Pensky Material

Posts: 4301

Reply: 20



PostPosted: September 17, 2005 10:56 PM 

Wow! Jimmy needs a spell check bad! Or needs to slow down and proofread before posting. Embarassed

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >>

Join the discussion:














Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys
Check to Subscribe to this Comment:
(email field must be filled in)



Subscribe Without Commenting







Copyright ©2003, Mark Carey.  










OtherResources