Seinfeld

SEINFELD BLOG

Seinfeld DVD Complete Series Box Set

Seinfeld Script Search:

Regarding The Quote Thread...

1 | 2 Next
Author Message
Jimmy







PostPosted: May 13, 2005 12:15 AM 

Jimmy is posting this here as a new thread because the Quote Thread is about to change pages soon and Jimmy didn't want anyone missing this.

First of all, Jimmy's NEVER corrected anyone for posting a reply from the same episode. That was an amendment by Ramon awhile back. He felt it was too easy, or a cop-out, to simply use the same reply that a character used in response to another character. For example, when talking about "boobs," one should reply with a line from a totally different script about "boobs" Although Jimmy somewhat agreed for the most part, he has stayed out of it and just let others do whatever they wanted to. Every now and then, Jimmy will post a "whatEVAH!" or a Confused face when guidelines are not being followed... or long streams of random, inapplicable quotes are posted simply for the hell of it... but that's about it.

In fact, Jimmy's always felt that a quote from the same episode was acceptable as long as it's from a different "part" or from an entirely different "conversation or storyline" within that episode. But Jimmy failed to mention it at the beginning of the original thread. The "guidelines" (not 'rules') already seemed extensive enough at that time.

For instance, If a quote about "Keith Hernadez" is posted, then it wouldn't be all that inappropriate to reply with another quote from George's unemployment story (from the same episode), which would "fit" as something someone would say in response (does that make sense?) Maybe Jimmy has quoted from the same episode... but Jimmy doesn't really know or really care, because none were ever intentional or an obvious dialogue followup line within a story. Also, keep in mind that many people don't realize which stories are from the same episodes. Jimmy's never bothered saying anything regarding this in the past because it just never seemed necessary until now.

Secondly, It's not Jimmy's thread, it's everyone's. So Jimmy doesn't really want to deviate from the original guidelines. Whether or not Jackie's reply was correct or incorrect, it at least kept the flow going and was better than some of the clashing, impeding replies Jimmy's seen lately. On the other hand, Gendison's reminder seemed harmless. Maybe in the future, we should just refrain from 'policing' others quotes until they become habitual, and require mentioning. What does anyone else think? Is that too passive? Or a good way to keep the peace?

Thoughts?

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 1



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 6:44 AM 

Nah, the thread has worked fine for about 3,000,000 posts. There was a little misunderstanding and someone lost it. I apologise for posting off-topic in there. I thought one of your rules was no 2 quotes from the same episode. I didn't realise it was an amendment made later. It's hard to keep track of who amended what. But, I'm glad you confirmed to me that it was amended, I knew that "rule" wasn't my imagination, so I wasn't totally wrong. But heaven forbid I point it out in what I thought was a harmless way to someone who was dying to jump on me for a while now. Anyway, I think we should just continue the thread, it's the best thing going here...and keep our harmless little comments to ourselves. Have a good one.

Jimmy


Posts: 5505

Reply: 2



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 7:23 AM 

Well, when Ramon first posted the new suggestion, Jimmy was going to mention the points above, but it just didn't seem important at the time. It was kinda like "well, if everyone agrees no two post from the same episodes, then fine, why argue it." Jimmy also thought it might eliminate some of the offbeat comebacks that were making no sense, but obviously those have continued.

Anyway, in hindsight, Jimmy should've been specific about what we were going to do one way or another. It just seemed a little silly to be all serious about rules for such a simple, and supposedly fun and unimportant part of our day.

This is the very reasoning behind Jimmy naming the thread READ FIRST POST BEFORE REPLYING... in case it became a few pages long (ha,ha) new people wouldn't be coming in and jumping to the recent page and not knowing what's going on (a problem the Seinfeld/Movie thread will have if it grows). That's why Jimmy thought that it was too late for any new rules... people might not even see them. Technically, Jackie didn't break any original guidelines, and it was clever to take what one character said at different times in a conversation, and still make them work together... but maybe we should stop assuming that everyone knows about the same episode issue (whether Chiles did or didn't). Those that know about it, can stick to it, but those who come in new and read the original posts won't know any better.

Should we vote on this, or is that making too big of a deal out of it? You say to keep it the same, but we haven't really determined what "the same" is yet. Jimmy assumes you mean no two post from same episodes no matter what, and reminding people of errors?

Anyone else?

Gendison
Low-Talker

Posts: 2

Reply: 3



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 7:45 AM 

Well, it would seem it's being taken too seriously, but that hppened before you posted this. Like I said, I thought it was one of the original rules, and I was wrong. I just remeber it being mentioned. We can decide that it CAN be 2 quotes from the same episode, but not 2 from the same conversation. For example, if someone says "Are we done" (jerry), you can't answer "........done." (kramer) because that's exactly how it went in the show. Jackie's quote was actually cool for the reason you mentioned. I just thought it was breaking the "rules" (I know that sounds stupid) and couldn't have tried any harder to be light-hearted about it. It's not as if I would have tried to "ENFORCE" the "RULE" if the thread just kept going. But now I know who can take criticism form who, so I obviously should not have even made a mention of it. I don't think putting 25 smileys would have even helped. So, as far as I'm concerned, my vote would be: No problem same episode, but not same conversation. In which case, no rules were broken.

Ramon
Bubble Boy

Posts: 360

Reply: 4



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:02 AM 

... i think you know how i feel

Very Happy

so when SHOULD you be allowed to park head first?

my answer? a resounding "NEVER!"

(except if you have ten car lengths, like on sundays and holidays)...

my feelings on the "no two quotes from the same episode" quote-unquote RULE were, at the root of it, coming from a self criticism. I was noticing that when i read someone else's quote, I was automatically searching my brain for the episode it was from. the result was that i was reminding myself of a whole series of other quotes from that episode. Hence, i was really trying to force myself to be MORE creative (a stretch for me), and take a step away from the obvious pool of quotes surrounding the original that were already in my head..... i just feel that it's usually more challenging to come up with a good, relevant quote that is from a different episode, than one that is from the same episode.

i want what we all want: an intelligent, fun, never dying tribute to the seinfeld legacy.

again, just my two cents, and i'm happy to go along with whatever.... (although i still won't post a follow up quote from the same episode as the original! Wink )

stay outta the deep end

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 5



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:14 AM 

So in a way...this is all your fault, Ramon.

The fact that people need to enforce rules on this game is funny. The guidelines Jimmy mentions are fine. And i suggest that if someone strays from those guidelines, just let it go until it really becomes an obvious and tiresome issue.

Marcelino
Wealthy Industrialist

Posts: 473

Reply: 6



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:37 AM 

like now?

you know, i've seen amendments so big they have their own amendments. i guess we're agreeing to unamend the quotes thread 'rules' and revert back to the original guidelines, with the general understanding that quotes shouldnt follow episode dialogue sequentially...my question though, it when might we be allowed to berate a poster? that really spices up my daily news reading.

i'm perfectly comfortable blaming Ramon for anything here, including, but limited to, this whole 'rule' issue. i this his draing is clogged.

anyhoo... this thread is very reminicient of the discussion that takes place after Jerry tests Bob's hearing in the washroom...

So, you don't know anything? Alright, good job.

Marcelino
Wealthy Industrialist

Posts: 473

Reply: 7



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:39 AM 

crap... that should've read:

i think his drain is clogged...

stupid. stupid. i gotta go to the park.

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 8



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:40 AM 

Marcelino is quickly becoming one of my favorites. So we all agree? Ramon is the scapegoat? Works for me.

J. Chiles


Posts: 5139

Reply: 9



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:53 AM 

Jimmy, I have no problem with the construct of your thread. Its longevity speaks to its popularity. Reasonable parameters, lots of responses, it moves along quickly. No real problem with Ramon’s suggested revision, either. A decent idea for a modification and, while not something I’d have added, if all else agree, I’m pleased to abide. I just must have missed the introduction of that particular enjoiner. So, the thread itself is fine, which I think is your interest in starting this thread.

I also have no issue whatsoever in being “called out” for violating the established norm in any thread. Of course, the guidelines of the thread are skirted and ignored on many occasions, especially with respect to the following post relating to the previous. Some are just out there, like Frank’s Festivus, and very rarely does anyone make note. Actually, I sometimes find myself wondering if a response DOES relate to the previous one and that I just don’t get the connection. Fair enough.

It is obvious from my response on that thread that my issue was specific and, moreover, poster-specific. I found it ironic that one who rails against the issue minor corrections or “rules” reminders is one who does it with significant frequency them self. And, my all-caps response to the “correction” was in reference and in jest (OK, in half-jest) to the recent general dust ups on the site in which most participated with respect to political and other post fodder which is objectionable to some – with a few posters subsequently coming back STRONGLY that there are no rules and that they, basically, would post whatever they damned well pleased. In that sense, my “rant” was not directed at anyone in particular, and really wasn’t a rant in the angry sense. Perhaps the placement of a smilie would have been advised. One could note, however, that I followed up with a quote to keep the ball rolling. At that point, I assumed business as usual.

However, I was not surprised that I was met with subsequent sarcasm “I wouldn’t want you to leave, too” and “valium might help” and the rolling of eyes (like Jerry rolling his eyes at Elaine). You don’t have to be a marine biologist to understand the meaning behind those comments, no matter how innocent one might later claim them to be (and even after castigating “people” for later claiming something said in seriousness was in jest. Typical). Yes, I blew up. The comments to me were without foundation, were disrespectful, and unacceptable. I responded in kind and, while not one of my proudest moments (mostly for dragging others through it), I stand behind every word. Further, it is no surprise to me that one would now want to make it appear that Jackie is the egregious, preposterous, outrageous one - and they the innocent lamb of the flock. Please. If anyone wants to waste their time, I would openly invite any and all of my past posts to be reviewed and let my general “demeanor” speak for itself. Again, I will not engage in a back-and-forth diatribe as others are wont to do. Regardless, of what is said after this post, I will not respond in kind, here. But, if anyone, at anytime, wants to spar with me in a separate thread, off-line, or face-to-face, so as not to embroil others, just let me know.

In short (if there can be a short at this point), there is nothing wrong with your thread. You needn’t change it for me or anyone.

Wanna get some pizza?

Ramon
Bubble Boy

Posts: 360

Reply: 10



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:53 AM 

i think i just found my lex luthor.

Ramon
Bubble Boy

Posts: 360

Reply: 11



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 10:59 AM 

?

i don't remember who my last quote was directed at.... (probably marcelino, cousin jeffrey's summer me) ...and if you are undead, i'll find out about that too.

Marcelino
Wealthy Industrialist

Posts: 473

Reply: 12



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 11:02 AM 

more importantly Jackie, you get those mukluks yet?

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 13



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 11:15 AM 

Nice try, Jackie. But I never tried to claim that my eye rolling, etc...was in jest, I'm not that much of a coward. That was your move. You can have it.

I know why you're so frustrated'and upset over all this. And I can feel the rage in your comments. You're disappointed...in yourself. Because you thought that once you get a chance to attack me (which was totally unfounded), you'd "shut me up" or "put me in my place"...Why you felt a need for that, only you and your imagination can answer that. And when you saw that you didn't come close to accomplishing that, you became very frustrated....with yourself. I guess you expected everyone to rally around you and jump on me too. See, I don't need a posse to feel I'm right about something, and I can certainly admit I'm wrong about something, which I have done...instead of cowardly claiming I was "just joking".
To be honest, I'm a little disappointed. when you started with me (for no reason), I thought I might be in for a good argument and I'd be forced to stay on my toes. But it turns out that you've been a total disappointment in all this, and alot more immature than I ever could have imagined.
I mean, for the love of God, the best you can come up with is the fact that I lack originality because some of what I post has already been said by someone else 3 days earlier. First of all, I can't even remember what anyone said 5 minutes ago, let alone 3 days. And, in case you haven't noticed, 90% of what's posted here is UN ORIGINAL because it's directed lifted from the show. So not only is your point totally moot, it's actually rather stupid. I now realise that the best way to win an argument with you is to just let you talk...you win it for me. So than k you...though I'm a little disappointed at you, I thought you were clever.

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 14



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 11:16 AM 

I was thinking the same thing. Very Happy

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 15



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 11:18 AM 

whoa, my post is in a dangerous position. It was in response to Marcelino.

(AIRING OF GRIEVANCES, guys. Just a suggestion)

J. Chiles


Posts: 5139

Reply: 16



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 11:23 AM 

Marcelino, you know I saw a very nice pair of those on a Cigar Store Indian, of all places, but the guy wanted a full box of Coronas for 'em - just for the mukluks. I passed, but I continue to seek! Wink

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 17



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 2:01 PM 

Hehe...are we having fun yet...I'm loving this place lately.

Jimmy


Posts: 5505

Reply: 18



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 9:56 PM 

Well it's been mention several times that there is no problem with the thread as is. Meaning, how it wasoriginally was created.

So sticking to the original guidelines, it will NOT be a violation to quote from the same episode. But be creative and avoid the same subject matter. For example, If one posts a reply about "sponge worthiness," use a quote from a different topic from that show. However, if the same topic exists in different episodes (boobs, monkeys, Nazis...) then obviously, there are no boundries. We'll use our judgement, and if there are close calls, let's just let them go. If anyone becomes habitual in taking the easy way out, and posting lines which seem contrary to what we've talked about, someone jump in and mention it to them with the understanding that they may not even be aware of the whole issue. But like Ramon, Jimmy will stick with other episodes... or at least intend to. It's just more interesting.

Also, a point that needs mentioning... When posting something other than a quote (a comment, or explanation), please try to put it in parenthesis, as some of you already do. It's just easier on the eye to distinguish them from the quotes.

This matter is closed

Jimmy


Posts: 5505

Reply: 19



PostPosted: May 13, 2005 9:59 PM 

Damn, only the first sentence was supposed to be bold... Jimmy's got a headache now.

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 20



PostPosted: May 14, 2005 12:40 PM 

Hehe...that's why an "edit" feature would be nice. Not a spell-checker, I'd never use it. Don't need it. My spelling and grammar are usually perfect. But my poblem is that I type way too fast and then send out a message without going back and reading it first. At least if there was an edit button, I could go back and correct my mistakes. No big deal, but it would give some people less ammo when they're trying to nit-pick.

1 | 2 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








Copyright ©2003, Mark Carey.