I adore Game Show Garbage.
I am also now starting to fear for Robert Seidelman\'s life.
http://www.gameshowgarbage.com/ind139_thegoldenfanbois.html
I did enjoy GSG when it first came out.
The problem is the novelty, unfortunately, has worn off. And instead of trying to reinvent the site and make it more about actual crappy stuff in game shows, Rob digs up obscure stuff (seriously, was the \"buttah\" answer on MG98 worth an entire induction?) and talks down to his audience assuming that everyone is going to know what he\'s talking about. If you\'re getting to the point where you\'re just pointing out obscurities, I think that you need to stop what you\'re doing and rework the whole thing.
The problem is that no one connected with the site wants to tell him that, and if you dare to it causes an issue. Case in point, his induction of Joe Farago. I watched a few episodes of Break the Bank that he hosted and I honestly saw nothing that could have been considered worthy of being inducted on a hall-of-shame website like GSG. And I told Rob that, only to be dismissed with a snarky reply. As a matter of fact, I thought that Farago actually improved BTB- as much as a Gene Rayburn fan I am, he just did not do a very good job. And his \"April Fools\" Jeopardy induction left me scratching my head, as he has been rather critical of the show in the past- Travis, I don\'t know if you remember this from Tim Connolly\'s old GS forum on loogslair but he claimed Celebrity Blackjack was better at least a couple of times.
If Rob was smart he\'d give more work to his cowriters, such as his \"dumb answer of the week\" compiler (who is far and away the best writer on the site and has better comedic timing than Rob does).
Sigh...I just started a flame war, didn\'t I?
We\'re all supposedly fans of what might be the most innocent form of entertainment under the sun. Why can\'t we ever get along?
Sigh...I just started a flame war, didn\'t I?No you haven\'t. What you\'ve started is people sharing opinions.
Anyone who says I\'m \"right on the money\" gets a pass in my book. The article, however, I found hard to read due to its formatting. Who center aligns things anyway? Yikes.
I kind of view the GSF as a nice collegiate discussion of our hobby, intellectual and well-researched, whilst still being amusing and off-topic when need be. I also view Golden-Road.net as a loud, boisterous middle school playground where ideas and notions run rampant, \"nanna nanna boo boo stick your head in doo-doo\" is an appropriate response when a differing opinion is shared, and no one listens to reason or logic.
Stereotypes, YMMV, etc.
Anyone who says I\'m \"right on the money\" gets a pass in my book.I don\'t think less of you because of what some guy thinks of you; on the other hand I wouldn\'t scream it from the mountaintops that this particular guy agrees with you, either.
I just find it really unsettling that he would have hired someone to beat anyone up...kinda goes against the facade he tries to portray (and that certain people- including his webmaster- try to reinforce whenever anyone dares criticize him).
And I must ask for more info, if possible, because this is a disturbing story.
I don\'t mind people talking s**t about me, but holy cow, if you\'re going to drop my name in your article, at least check and see if using my name is relevant to the story and if I\'ve posted to the place where I\'m apparently a prominent member in the last 18 months. (Spoiler alert: It isn\'t and I haven\'t)
I did enjoy GSG when it first came out.
The problem is the novelty, unfortunately, has worn off. And instead of trying to reinvent the site and make it more about actual crappy stuff in game shows, Rob digs up obscure stuff (seriously, was the \"buttah\" answer on MG98 worth an entire induction?) and talks down to his audience assuming that everyone is going to know what he\'s talking about. If you\'re getting to the point where you\'re just pointing out obscurities, I think that you need to stop what you\'re doing and rework the whole thing.
The problem is that no one connected with the site wants to tell him that, and if you dare to it causes an issue. Case in point, his induction of Joe Farago. I watched a few episodes of Break the Bank that he hosted and I honestly saw nothing that could have been considered worthy of being inducted on a hall-of-shame website like GSG. And I told Rob that, only to be dismissed with a snarky reply. As a matter of fact, I thought that Farago actually improved BTB- as much as a Gene Rayburn fan I am, he just did not do a very good job. And his \"April Fools\" Jeopardy induction left me scratching my head, as he has been rather critical of the show in the past- Travis, I don\'t know if you remember this from Tim Connolly\'s old GS forum on loogslair but he claimed Celebrity Blackjack was better at least a couple of times.
If Rob was smart he\'d give more work to his cowriters, such as his \"dumb answer of the week\" compiler (who is far and away the best writer on the site and has better comedic timing than Rob does).
Sigh...I just started a flame war, didn\'t I?
We\'re all supposedly fans of what might be the most innocent form of entertainment under the sun. Why can\'t we ever get along?
As stated, the opinions in that piece were Rob\'s and Rob\'s alone. What really set him off to do it to begin with is that email that\'s shown near the bottom. He\'s not exactly always been the most emotionally stable person as a few of you can attest to (Mike and Palmer moreso).
The response of a \"hypocritical douchenozzle\" (ie: Me)
Anyone who says I\'m \"right on the money\" gets a pass in my book.
I don\'t think less of you because of what some guy thinks of you; on the other hand I wouldn\'t scream it from the mountaintops that this particular guy agrees with you, either.
Very fair point. I don\'t know the GSG people very well, aside from Jim Williams who is very well-spoken and amusing. I have my issues with Golden-Road.net but I think a whole article about it is far from… well, I don\'t know. Necessary? Helpful? I think you could easily replaced the whole article with \"I think Golden-Road.net is the kid\'s table of the Thanksgiving Feast of game show fandom\" and saved everyone the discussion.
I like how an e-mail about two members on the board is supposed to really bring home the point of how terrible the site is and how they have no soul. I don\'t know much about math, but I don\'t think two out of a thousand or so is the greatest sample size.
I think the tone of Game Show Garbage was fairly well-established with its first article, a treatise on Patrick Wayne. It built on a really old joke from our fandom that, IMO, time otherwise washed away. That\'s been my main issue with the site, and the resulting YouTube videos.
Both endeavors frequently go into immature hyperbole about how \"pathetic\" certain game shows are (or sometimes, fewer than 2 minutes of material from one episode of such). I find it hard to throw stones at other \"fanbois\" when said thrower provides a metric ton of detail on some dusty, unexplored corners of the game show world. Just like its inspiration, a website on the worst of pro wrestling, I appreciate that GSG introduces fans to things they might not have otherwise seen. It\'s just not very insightful.
-Jason
I\'m not one to throw stones myself, so here\'s a list of all 13 of my board game reviews as posted on boardgamegeek.com; you\'ll find I\'ve reviewed lots of crappy games but at least two are top drawer.
Well, this is kinda difficult for me, since when I first read it, I will admit I did mentally do a fist pump that a bunch of butt-hole #3s were finally getting what was coming to them, and I reflexively posted a congratulatory post on facebook. But I have had some time to re-read it and do some fact-checking and soul-searching, and I really think Rob crossed a line here by calling out individual members of the community...one of whom happens to be a friend of mine (though I honestly wasn\' aware of it at the time.) I personally believe that Rob made a few good points, but upon further review, he got swallowed up in the bile and vitriol and it made for what I am now seeing as an uncomfortable read.
Now, on to the matter of reviewing crappy media. As a long-time fan of the reviewers on the Channel Awesome (The Nostalgia Critic, Linkara, Obscurus Lupa, et al) I think that it can be done well and entertainingly, as long as the attacks don\'t get personal. For example, I think the movie \"The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies\" (yes that is the name of the movie) is a hilariously bad picture. But, when you watch a review of it (or the hilarious episode of MST3K it inspired), the host or review don\'t call out the director/star Ray Dennis Steckler as a horrible person. They use the bad movie as a canvas to paint a piece of comedy. The best internet reviwers do reviews like this with a wink to the camera, more or less saying \"Yeah these are bad movies/tv shows/comics, but you know we\'re just taking the piss out of them adn having a little fun.\" They are funny because the reviewers are funny people, not just because the content is bad...although that helps. When it gets personal and hateful, well that\'s when the line is crossed, and it become wrong.
Now, this is glass house territory since I did contribute a review to his site, and I must say I count Rob as a member of my somewhat small circle of friends. But while I do think the source material could have been good for a chuckle, after re-reading it, I realize that it was hurtful.
Brian~
This was my first (and probably last) trip to Game Show Garbage. Rob\'s article was amateurishly written and unnecessarily abrasive (although this IS the internet, so maybe that was the point).
That being said, I think there does exist a problem with obnoxious fanbois on GR. In fact, thanks to the thread on the upcoming kids\' special I was able to beef up my ignore list with people whose off-balance ramblings I didn\'t care to ever hear again.
But for the most part the board is decent folk discussing their favorite game show, and I\'m all for that.
The response of a \"hypocritical douchenozzle\" (ie: Me)
I really enjoyed reading this.
As someone who is not a fan of wrestling (nothing against it, just doesn\'t intrest me), I never \"got\" what he was trying to mimic and just looked it as a cheap copy of Angry Video Game Nerd (who I\'ve always interpeted as a parody of the Comic Book Guy \"cynical\" group of the genre). The whole ironic \"THIS SUCKS!!!!111\" thing just wears on me after a while.
a bunch of butt-hole #3s were finally getting what was coming to them
a bunch of butt-hole #3s were finally getting what was coming to them
What\'s a #3?
-Jason
According to Rob, the third category of fan(boy)s (either in game shows or wrestling): incredibly obnoxious and extremely clueless, and oftentimes belligerent with their thoughts. He uses the term to unfairly paint G-R.net. I\'ve shaken my head at quite a few posts there, but to completely write the site off is narrow-minded, esp. given how \"outsiders\" think of our fanbase the same way.
As someone else noted, some of his blog posts make him look a bit like a \"#3\", to use his own phrase.
As far as I\'m concerned, there\'s nothing wrong with criticism. Hell, Wrestlecrap.com (GSG\'s inspiration) can still keep things fresh because for all the good that there\'s been in the business over the years, there\'s just as much stuff that either a) made no sense, b) was just laughable, or c) was so poorly misexecuted that you can\'t help but say something about it.
And yes, there\'s a lot of stuff in the game show world I could critique as not having liked. But the point is that I don\'t have enough material to last over two and a half years, nor should I. If it was simply bad shows and Jim\'s dumb answer of the week, it\'s okay. But when you start digging up things that nobody either saw (some of the Canadian shows he profiled such as Baloney) or are way too obscure for their own good (the \"buttah\" answer, a bonus round on Nick Arcade that maybe two people in the universe besides Rob remembers), that lose their luster after two seconds (the High Rollers monkey facepalm), do things that other people riffed on and did better (his Faux Pause criticism, which was better when Kris Lane did it), and induct things that simply don\'t need to be inducted (such as ESPN Trivial Pursuit, Joe Farago, and Carnie Wilson- which he had already tabbed for an induction WITHOUT WATCHING AN EPISODE OF THE NEWLYWED GAME, mind you), you\'re wasting effort that could be put towards different things.
And yes, Carl, I know all about Rob\'s issues. And yes, you and I aren\'t on the best of terms right now due to some of the things I may have said or done (among at least one or two other things I won\'t get into here). But this is a point I raised to you three years ago with him and I still think it\'s apropos- you\'re his web host, you\'re one of his confidantes, his friends. And I understand you don\'t want to risk losing him as a friend (a consideration that perhaps should be extended), but you\'re just making excuses for him.
You weren\'t scared to come after me when I did a lot less to stir pots (some of you know what I\'m talking about), and I\'m not the most emotionally sound person either. I don\'t understand why you\'re afraid to, for lack of a better term, tell Rob what he needs to hear.
And I hate that I had to bring it here publically like this (I apologize to Chris and Matt and anyone who may have been off-put), but it had to be said at some point. If not by me by someone else.
For what it\'s Worth, Rob just posted an updated version of the induction
As far as I\'m concerned, there\'s nothing wrong with criticism. Hell, Wrestlecrap.com (GSG\'s inspiration) can still keep things fresh because for all the good that there\'s been in the business over the years, there\'s just as much stuff that either a) made no sense, b) was just laughable, or c) was so poorly misexecuted that you can\'t help but say something about it.
And yes, there\'s a lot of stuff in the game show world I could critique as not having liked. But the point is that I don\'t have enough material to last over two and a half years, nor should I. If it was simply bad shows and Jim\'s dumb answer of the week, it\'s okay. But when you start digging up things that nobody either saw (some of the Canadian shows he profiled such as Baloney) or are way too obscure for their own good (the \"buttah\" answer, a bonus round on Nick Arcade that maybe two people in the universe besides Rob remembers), that lose their luster after two seconds (the High Rollers monkey facepalm), do things that other people riffed on and did better (his Faux Pause criticism, which was better when Kris Lane did it), and induct things that simply don\'t need to be inducted (such as ESPN Trivial Pursuit, Joe Farago, and Carnie Wilson- which he had already tabbed for an induction WITHOUT WATCHING AN EPISODE OF THE NEWLYWED GAME, mind you), you\'re wasting effort that could be put towards different things.
And yes, Carl, I know all about Rob\'s issues. And yes, you and I aren\'t on the best of terms right now due to some of the things I may have said or done (among at least one or two other things I won\'t get into here). But this is a point I raised to you three years ago with him and I still think it\'s apropos- you\'re his web host, you\'re one of his confidantes, his friends. And I understand you don\'t want to risk losing him as a friend (a consideration that perhaps should be extended), but you\'re just making excuses for him.
You weren\'t scared to come after me when I did a lot less to stir pots (some of you know what I\'m talking about), and I\'m not the most emotionally sound person either. I don\'t understand why you\'re afraid to, for lack of a better term, tell Rob what he needs to hear.
And I hate that I had to bring it here publically like this (I apologize to Chris and Matt and anyone who may have been off-put), but it had to be said at some point. If not by me by someone else.
Yeah, those \"one or two things\" are a private matter and will not be discussed here, definitely. And while you have decided to even mention it in public to begin with, gotta say that you and I \"not being on the best terms\" will continue for the foreseeable future. An edited version of the article is now up that no longer has any personal attacks and he apologized for doing so to begin with.
(I apologize to Chris and Matt and anyone who may have been off-put)
I thought I had made this clear already, but I am no longer moderating this forum. If you feel the need to apologize to \"the moderators\", there\'s just one of those now.
This is the lamest site since lame came to Lame Town.
Ok, maybe I\'m lost. I really would appreciate if someone would fill me in to what I\'m missing.
So...golden-road.net is a site that, when mentioned around these parts, gets met with the general \"oh, it\'s just a bunch of obsessive fanbois that hate on everything related to Drew Carey/Mike Richards\". Someone comes along and writes an article calling them out and now everyone wants to rally on their side because a person on here had beef with the author of said article? I understand that not everyone on G-R.net is a crazed obsessed Drew Hater/Barker Worshipper, but when it seems like the stereotype fits more than just the minority does the problem lie with the forum or the person making an observation?
No one can ever make that claim about the GSF because the GSF and its members go above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that this piece is one of the few (if only) places on the internet where rational game show discussion can take place. I feel like everything said about G-R.net about the membership as a whole was on point because every time I log on there and click on a random discussion topic it always seems to turn into a Dump on the Current Administration session because it\'s not how things were when Bob & \"The Dob\" were in charge. Games have harder setups with Mike in charge and so the show has to be condemned for that. After the Perfect Bid fiasco the show started adding new prizes to the mix and that\'s a BAD thing. \"Pay the Rent\" is the worst game ever because it has a next-to-impossible perfect win setup and thus THAT has to be bitched about. Let any of the aforementioned have happened while Barker & Roger still had control and you wouldn\'t hear a peep from G-R.net\'s membership.
It seems like because a couple names were cited as examples of the extremity of G-R.net\'s membership people now want to cry foul because a couple users don\'t make up the whole majority. I do agree with that, however the site didn\'t gain the rep they did for no reason. That\'s all I\'m saying. Don\'t double back now because the author of the article\'s integrity is being questioned. I feel like the man was speaking the truth because what he wrote about is the tone I get every time I log onto that site. Of course that\'s not the case with the entire membership and I don\'t feel like that\'s what he was getting at with the article. But we all know the old saying...it only takes a couple bad apples to spoil the bunch.
Another response by said author has been posted: http://gameshowgarbage.com/response.html
So...golden-road.net is a site that, when mentioned around these parts, gets met with the general \"oh, it\'s just a bunch of obsessive fanbois that hate on everything related to Drew Carey/Mike Richards\". Someone comes along and writes an article calling them out and now everyone wants to rally on their side because a person on here had beef with the author of said article?
There\'s a difference between pointing out errors and blatant personal attacks. The original version of the induction had personal attacks against several prominent site members, and the picture showed Steve Gavazzi\'s name and avatar.
I feel like everything said about G-R.net about the membership as a whole was on point because every time I log on there and click on a random discussion topic it always seems to turn into a Dump on the Current Administration session because it\'s not how things were when Bob & \"The Dob\" were in charge.
When it was discovered that Roger was fired, and after the meal Marc and John had with Drew (they mentioned it on a Stu\'s Show episode; apparently, Drew -- who had invited them to a meal -- kept going on and on about Second Life and wanted little to do with discussing Price), Marc made the decision to not try and establish contacts/friendships with those who replaced Roger. That was his decision.
Games have harder setups with Mike in charge and so the show has to be condemned for that. After the Perfect Bid fiasco the show started adding new prices to the mix and that\'s a BAD thing. \"Pay the Rent\" is the worst game ever because it has a next-to-impossible perfect win setup and thus THAT has to be bitched about. Let any of the aforementioned have happened while Barker & Roger still had control and you wouldn\'t hear a peep from G-R.net\'s membership.
Two things I should point out:
* If any of these things had happened while Bob and Roger were in charge (or just Roger), either A) they would\'ve done those in a completely different manner or B) they would\'ve done it the same way and the fans would\'ve joked that they had gone senile.
* The \"Perfect Bid fiasco\" was a direct retaliation to Golden-Road. It\'s been well established, I think, that a G-R member named Ted (Slauson?) had been the one to give Terry Kneiss that bid (although he later tried to tell him $23,500). Drew\'s reaction to the moment on-camera, and the general reaction backstage, was that of mayhem and a thought process that the fans had gotten their revenge for Roger\'s forced ousting (i.e., there was something kinda hinky and Drew thought it wasn\'t going to air because \"somebody f*cking f*cked us over\"). That was when they decided there needed to be a slew of new and strange prizes to prevent it from happening again.
** Going back to Bob and Roger, Barker would\'ve treated the moment as crowning proof that watching the show every day pays off. You sell the moment as hard as you can and celebrate today; let S&P worry about the legalities tomorrow.
Seidelman does have some points, but they weren\'t expressed that well.
It seems like because a couple names were cited as examples of the extremity of G-R.net\'s membership people now want to cry foul because a couple users don\'t make up the whole majority. I do agree with that, however the site didn\'t gain the rep they did for no reason. That\'s all I\'m saying. Don\'t double back now because the author of the article\'s integrity is being questioned. I feel like the man was speaking the truth because what he wrote about is the tone I get every time I log onto that site. Of course that\'s not the case with the entire membership and I don\'t feel like that\'s what he was getting at with the article. But we all know the old saying...it only takes a couple bad apples to spoil the bunch.
When you stoop to the level of the people you are supposedly ripping against, does that make you any better? That\'s the problem. Golden Road is a site with an image problem. It\'s better than years ago, but still the same site where the show is picked apart. And here this article is picking apart the site, quoting another article that took to referring to members as \"ass-burgers.\" Golden Road may have been (and still is) annoying for their level of fandom, but I hardly think personal attacks making fun of a serious disorder is their style. At that point, you go from stooping to their level to stooping even lower. That article put in a piece about the recap guide at the site and how he does recaps. What in the blue blazes does that have to do with the tone of the site? That seemed like insulting for the sake of insulting. And while it takes a couple of bad apples to spoil the bunch, do you really think it\'s fair to say that it takes a couple of bad apples (who may or may not still post at the site) to say the the members of the site aren\'t sympathetic at all and would care about Pay the Rent more than the death of someone? The site gained a reputation, but it didn\'t get a reputation for being cold and heartless.
The site laid their bed and must lay in it, but there is and isn\'t a way to go about criticizing them and the first article wasn\'t the way.
OK, I am a fan of GSG, even though it seems to some here it should be a point of shame for me. As a MSTie, I just find some appeal to cheesy or bad things being riffed on...hence my similar fandom for: Cheap Seats, Wrestlecrap (the not-so-smarky articles, that is), and the now-late WWE Are You Serious? I draw the line at Faux Pause, of course.
That said, I am kind of in the middle as far as my feelings about this situation. \"Smart marks\" in any form of fandom do get on my nerves, and while they have points more often than not, they still take a lot of the fun out of things. Heck, that\'s why I don\'t watch current wrestling that much, unless I\'m with a friend who\'s watching it. Should they be schooled from time to time? Heck yeah! But on the other hand, I can see how the G-R induction was a powder keg as well.
And again, I personally think some of the G-R-type overreactions and criticisms are overrated. It\'s not 1979 anymore, face it. The core of the show is still there, it\'s not like Fremantle hasn\'t done worse to other classic formats. And the theme weeks and guest stars don\'t bother me as much, really.
and a thought process that the fans had gotten their revenge for Roger\'s forced ousting.
Proof or Not Real. Seriously. I want one shred of proof from you that anyone backstage tried to blame the intent for that incident on Roger\'s dismissal.
That was when they decided there needed to be a slew of new and strange prizes to prevent it from happening again.
Which was a brilliant idea, since it\'s not a game of memorization and was never intended to be. I think they just didn\'t realize the issue needed to be addressed so urgently.
fandom
Christ, how I hate this word.
and a thought process that the fans had gotten their revenge for Roger\'s forced ousting.
Proof or Not Real. Seriously. I want one shred of proof from you that anyone backstage tried to blame the intent for that incident on Roger\'s dismissal.
Ctrl+F on the f-word in this Esquire interview, and you\'ll see the part Dan\'s referring to. Whether that counts as proof is the reader\'s call.
-Jason
Ctrl+F on the f-word in this Esquire interview, and you\'ll see the part Dan\'s referring to. Whether that counts as proof is the reader\'s call.
Well, that\'s more evidence than I thought I was going to get, though I suggest Drew\'s solitary say-so being augmented into \"the general reaction backstage\" gets me at least one or two squares on your average Benfield Bingo card.
apparently, Drew -- who had invited them to a meal -- kept going on and on about Second Life and wanted little to do with discussing Price), Marc made the decision to not try and establish contacts/friendships with those who replaced Roger. That was his decision.If someone\'s paying for my dinner, I think its polite to discuss things they might be interested in.
\"Smart marks\" in any form of fandom do get on my nerves, and while they have points more often than not, they still take a lot of the fun out of things.And GSL87 hates \"average casual viewers,\" so you\'re in his company. Congratulations.
I understand they stopped down while they decided what to do. Then they did major post on that segment to conceal Terry fielding his bid from the audience; that much is indisputable.
\"Smart marks\" in any form of fandom do get on my nerves, and while they have points more often than not, they still take a lot of the fun out of things.
And GSL87 hates \"average casual viewers,\" so you\'re in his company. Congratulations.
I never said I HATED them, mind you, nor do I think they\'re all like that...the above was meant to describe them at their worst.
That was when they decided there needed to be a slew of new and strange prizes to prevent it from happening again.
When it was discovered that Roger was fired, and after the meal Marc and John had with Drew (they mentioned it on a Stu\'s Show episode; apparently, Drew -- who had invited them to a meal -- kept going on and on about Second Life and wanted little to do with discussing Price), Marc made the decision to not try and establish contacts/friendships with those who replaced Roger. That was his decision.
Then that\'s on Marc. If he decided that he did not want to continue the site\'s relationship with the show based on the fact that Drew didn\'t want to spend the entire dinner talking about TPIR then he doesn\'t have any right to criticize any changes that have been made since Bob & Roger\'s departure. It\'s like me dating a girl, dumping her, then criticizing about her life choices after the fact. I have no right to intrude on my ex\'s daily habits since she\'s no longer my girl.
Two things I should point out:* If any of these things had happened while Bob and Roger were in charge (or just Roger), either A) they would\'ve done those in a completely different manner or B) they would\'ve done it the same way and the fans would\'ve joked that they had gone senile.
Bullcrap. The denizens of G-R.net worship anything Barker/Dobkowitz. The show could\'ve switched to an \"American Idol\"-type set and added musical guests between each pricing game and no one would\'ve batted an eye because Emperor Barker would still be reigning over the show and \"The Barker is Right\" regardless. Marc cut the show off, not the other way around as some people over there would like you to think.
* The \"Perfect Bid fiasco\" was a direct retaliation to Golden-Road. It\'s been well established, I think, that a G-R member named Ted (Slauson?) had been the one to give Terry Kneiss that bid (although he later tried to tell him $23,500). Drew\'s reaction to the moment on-camera, and the general reaction backstage, was that of mayhem and a thought process that the fans had gotten their revenge for Roger\'s forced ousting (i.e., there was something kinda hinky and Drew thought it wasn\'t going to air because \"somebody f*cking f*cked us over\"). That was when they decided there needed to be a slew of new and strange prizes to prevent it from happening again.
I know the story. We all do. It\'s just like when \"Press Your Luck\" changed up the board patterns after Michael Larson came through and exploited the hell out of CBS for over $100,000. I don\'t see how this is a bad thing. If anything, it adds variety to the show AND we get to see some pretty cool prizes that people actually want to win. I\'ll take a multimedia prize package that includes a bunch of (crappy) Apple products, a game system with a bunch of games, and a 3D HDTV than a damn living room group.
** Going back to Bob and Roger, Barker would\'ve treated the moment as crowning proof that watching the show every day pays off. You sell the moment as hard as you can and celebrate today; let S&P worry about the legalities tomorrow.
Completely irrelevant to the argument. Barker\'s imagined handling of the situation has nothing to do with G-R.net\'s overreaction to the show since the regime change. My point still stands.
With what shall we replace it?Christ, how I hate this word.fandom
With what shall we replace it?
I don\'t care. But in my experience \"fanDOM\" is a word most commonly used by fanBOIZ.
With what shall we replace it?
I don\'t care. But in my experience \"fanDOM\" is a word most commonly used by fanBOIZ.
Isn\'t this making a mountain out of a molehill? I see nothing wrong with \"fandom\" and I\'m not a fanboy (I refuse to spell it any way other than its proper spelling).
Isn\'t this making a mountain out of a molehill?
If \"Christ, how I hate that word\" is a mountain, then if you want to call it that, great.
I\'m a longtime fan of the WrestleCrap site. As PYLdude noted, they keep their material fresh, and that site is about something that has a fandom that\'s widespread, not something that only a small amount of us are interested in. Seidy once told me in Palace that he asked the people behind the WrestleCrap site if it would be OK for him to do a similar site about game shows, and that he got the OK to do it. Whether or not he was given the OK, I\'m not going to jump the gun and say \"Yeah, right.\" If anything, if he did get the OK, the folks at WrestleCrap obviously had no idea that the site would turn out to be a total piece of s**t, or they just didn\'t give a s**t.
Gee, Dan, thanks a lot for grossly oversimplifying a story that you weren\'t involved in, thus opening up the people who were involved in it to uninformed criticism.
...I did? Wow. Apologies for that.
Admittedly, I was going by memory and my own recollection was hazy, but that\'s still not an excuse and I\'ll gladly take my lumps like a man.
With what shall we replace it?
I don\'t care. But in my experience \"fanDOM\" is a word most commonly used by fanBOIZ.
Maybe we should come up with a marketable phrase like \"the GSF Universe.\"
or they just didn\'t give a s**t.
Exceptionally likely this. They know very well they don\'t have any sort of claim to the concept of a \"things that suck about something\" website, so they rolled their eyes and said \"yeah, sure\" because that was the fastest way to get him to go away.
apparently, Drew -- who had invited them to a meal -- kept going on and on about Second Life and wanted little to do with discussing Price), Marc made the decision to not try and establish contacts/friendships with those who replaced Roger. That was his decision.
If someone\'s paying for my dinner, I think its polite to discuss things they might be interested in.
On the other hand, if the host of a television show invites the owners of his show\'s largest fan site to dinner, I think there would be a reasonable expectation that the topic of the television show in question would be discussed.
But, as Steve said, there are a lot of factors involved here, most of which I was never privy to in the first place.
or they just didn\'t give a s**t.
Exceptionally likely this. They know very well they don\'t have any sort of claim to the concept of a \"things that suck about something\" website, so they rolled their eyes and said \"yeah, sure\" because that was the fastest way to get him to go away.
I would agree for a different reason, though. Rob was actually writing for WrestleCrap for awhile (Jobber of the Week columns, largely) and he wasn\'t doing the best job of it (although it wasn\'t bad- the guy who did most of the writing for that, a man Rob claims gave him the blessing, was far and away better). And if I remember it, he polled the WC forums and they were for the most part in favor of him doing a game show-related site like that. I would believe that it might have been just so he would stop posting there, considering how much of a rep he has on certain forums.