-
I managed to fall asleep about ten minutes before the start of the block...Would anyone happen to know which episodes were shown last night?
Trying to fill in those pesky little "TBA" boxes on my page is just a bit hard when I was out like a light during the block, and despite having two VCRs and a DVD Recorder, still managed to not tape it to watch/fill in the info later.
EDIT: If anyone knows, the *specific* episodes would be appreciated. Thanks again, and sorry all.
-
This isn't going to help much, I know, but I caught a couple of episodes and they seemed to be both newer and older shows. Sorry! I'm not much of a Lingo fan and didn't tape it.
I do think it's funny that they fit Lingo in for a Saturday night "retro" night. As fun as the game is to watch, I just don't think it qualifies.
-
That's because Casey is handling the promos, since it obviously fits for the "classic" fans.
Tyshaun
-
As Webster's will tell you, one definition of "classic" is "being of the highest rank or class," another is "of lasting significance." Both old and new shows can be "classics" according to Webster. I think a lot of people equate classic with old, which is not entirely correct. There are a number of old shows that are not classic.
-
Never thought I'd have to do this but........
"WHOOOOOSH!"
Tyshaun
-
GSN did the promos themselves, without my help. I did enjoy the marathon, much more than I would with many older shows. That's because Lingo is a lot better than most older (or newer) shows.
There's an excellent Lingo episode guide here (http://\"http://www2.hawaii.edu/~awakamat/lingo.htm\").
Offhand I can recall four episodes on the marathon. Sorry, I wasn't writing down the names...
12/3/2003: Rashim & Khali vs. Henry & Ruthemma
12/3/2003: Felicia & Lanre vs. Tatum & Greg
1/3/2004: Madeleine & Kacia vs. Devin & Michael
1/7/2004: Casey & Mary vs. Leslie & Chris (naw, that Casey ain't me)
Not sure about the fifth. 12/24/2003 Andrea & Stephen vs. Justin & Erin? 12/10/2003 Aubrey & Steve vs. Emily & Eric?
As I said on the GSN board, the eps looked like they were picked to showcase Chuck's humor (and big wins) and thus appeal to more casual fans. There were still several close, well-played games.
I would like to have seen the ToC final, but that ep is more for fanatics like me than people who might just be dropping by GSN on a Saturday night. The final episode skipped the rules explanations, the chit-chat session, and almost all host commentary to give the contestants as much time as possible to rack up big scores. They did, and it was a close-run contest.
By the way, I also liked the GAA yo-yo contest interstitials. Some impressive stunts and a lot of cheeseball humor.
-
[quote name=\'"CaseyAbell"\']As I said on the GSN board,[/quote]
You need not inform us about your posting history on other sites. What difference does it make to us?
-
A number of posters on this board, including one of the moderators, also post on the GSN board. It's common netiquette to warn on cross-posting, because posters may have already seen your comments on another board.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 02:21 PM\'][quote name=\'"CaseyAbell"\']As I said on the GSN board,[/quote]
You need not inform us about your posting history on other sites. What difference does it make to us?
[snapback]78904[/snapback]
[/quote]
Hey, if Casey wants to let people know that they can hear what he has to say without visiting that wasteland, I'm all for it. :-)
-
I guess we'll exclude Mr. Ottinger's posts from the wasteland definition.
To get back to the original topic, can anybody remember the fifth ep in the Lingo marathon? I think it was one of the first-pull winners, but I'm not sure. The episode guide lists a couple of possibilities with similar names, but it could be another episode altogether.
Knew I should have written down those names...
One more note: My favorite Lingo episode ever was the April Fools Show with all the hosts from the Boden originals. Mark Walberg blitzed to a 500-0 win and a bunch of puzzles in the bonus round. But it would be kinda hard to show that ep now that GSN is axing almost all of the Boden originals except Lingo itself.
Speaking of Mark, he didn't do so well on the Travel Channel's celeb poker show last night. Who eliminated him? Bob Eubanks, of course. Stick to word games, Mark. While he was getting squashed by Eubanks, Mike Sexton got in a line about the "battle of the hosts." Eubanks himself was the next victim. The best thing about the show was the heads-up, where an incredible run of luck lifted a 10-1 underdog in the chip count to a win.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 03:13 PM\']I guess we'll exclude Mr. Ottinger's posts from the wasteland definition.
[snapback]78912[/snapback]
[/quote]
Per merriam-webster.com, definition #2:
an ugly often devastated or barely inhabitable place or area
I think the "barely" leaves just enough room for posts from you and Matt. :-)
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 12:54 PM\']A number of posters on this board, including one of the moderators, also post on the GSN board. It's common netiquette to warn on cross-posting, because posters may have already seen your comments on another board.
[snapback]78907[/snapback]
[/quote]
Bunk. "Common netiquette" here has always been the exact opposite of what you imagine it to be. No one else here cares whether a comment was also posted to GSN, a.t.g-s or any other foul cess-pit. Looks like you're the only one, which puts you in cahoots with the "bowling buddy" crowd, eh?
-
I'll continue to warn of cross-posting. You follow your netiquette, I'll follow mine.
The "bowling buddy" crowd? Gee, I haven't bowled a game in years.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 06:36 PM\'][quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 12:54 PM\']A number of posters on this board, including one of the moderators, also post on the GSN board. It's common netiquette to warn on cross-posting, because posters may have already seen your comments on another board.
[snapback]78907[/snapback]
[/quote]
Bunk. "Common netiquette" here has always been the exact opposite of what you imagine it to be. No else here cares whether a comment was also posted to GSN, a.t.g-s or any other foul cess-pit.
[snapback]78946[/snapback]
[/quote]
In almost 16 years on the Internet, I haven't heard of such "netiquette" either. One typically references a posting on another board if said posting has further comments that are relevant to the matter -- not merely to say "hey, I posted this same thing on another site." Moreover, when one references one's own comments elsewhere, it is proper netiquette to cite that post with a link; one would think that someone who touts his own alleged knowledge of netiquette would have done so, but as I type this, Casey has not.
Looks like you're the only one, which puts you in cahoots with the "bowling buddy" crowd, eh?
Hardly. A member of the bowling buddy crowd believes everything he reads regardless of the facts. Casey wants everyone else to believe what he writes regardless of the facts. (Hence his love of the GSN board, where — were I so inclined — I could convince numerous individuals to believe that Pat O'Brien hosts The Price is Right, Bill O'Reilly runs GSN, and Bob Barker and Chuck Woolery are the same person.)
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 06:27 PM\']A member of the bowling buddy crowd believes everything he reads regardless of the facts. [/quote]I thought part of the bowling-buddy experience was a recitation of all the various "he said / I said" exchanges.
If not, then have I mixed my metaphor. Or abused my malaprop. Or something. Never mind.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 08:27 PM\'](Hence his love of the GSN board, where — were I so inclined — I could convince numerous individuals to believe that Pat O'Brien hosts The Price is Right, Bill O'Reilly runs GSN, and Bob Barker and Chuck Woolery are the same person.)
[/quote]
I still say Barker has to retire from Wheel sometime.
-
I don't know what the bowling-buddy metaphor is supposed to be, and I don't care. But I don't expect anybody to believe anything I say unless I provide some supporting evidence. In this thread, for instance, I provided facts about the shows in the Lingo marathon (along with a link to an excellent Lingo episode guide) which another poster requested.
In this thread my critics have provided no facts, strange metaphors and personal attacks. I'll let others decide who's contributing more here.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 07:38 AM\']In this thread my critics have provided no facts, strange metaphors and personal attacks. I'll let others decide who's contributing more here.
[/quote]
Hey, now there's a tactic I remember from GSN's boards. Any words of advice or disagreement are by definition a "personal attack" by "my critics". Boo-hoo-hoo.
The point has been made to you, Casey. The "as I said on xxx board" remarks are unnecessary here. Unless you're providing a link as an alternative to copy-and-paste (which you didn't do), or unless the "xxx board" discussion has something of value to offer (if it did, you didn't say that either).
The folks here who read GSN's boards already knew that you posted there, and those of us that don't read GSN's boards don't care a bit.
I'm not going to argue it further.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 09:38 AM\']I don't know what the bowling-buddy metaphor is supposed to be, and I don't care. But I don't expect anybody to believe anything I say unless I provide some supporting evidence.
[snapback]79033[/snapback]
[/quote]
Please demonstrate your supporting evidence of the claim that saying "I also posted this on some other board" is proper netiquette. My claim to the contrary is based on many years of using the Internet and a variety of discussion groups -- online experience which I daresay is a great deal more extensive than yours.
Of course, in the past you've claimed to know more about the behind-the-scenes machinations at Hollywood Squares and Pyramid than did the people who actually worked on the shows, so this arrogance is hardly surprising.
In this thread my critics have provided no facts, strange metaphors and personal attacks.
Saying that you run with the "bowling buddy crowd" was uncalled for, and I corrected melman on it. It's true that your repeated intentional distortions of what other people say -- just so you can have an argument to shoot down -- are neither strange metaphors nor personal attacks. However, neither is calling you on your repeated intentional distortions; of course, calling you on them is stating a fact. (Can I read your mind as to intent? No, but said distortions happen way too often on your part to be accidental.)
I personally don't care if, when making a comment here, you want to point out other boards where you made the same comment. But hiding behind a cowpie explanation like "netiquette" will get you nowhere.
I'll let others decide who's contributing more here.
It certainly isn't the extremely arrogant individual who's clearly intelligent enough to make a cogent argument, yet -- for some bizarre reason known only to himself -- decides to invent straw-man arguments to attack instead.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 12:42 PM\']It certainly isn't the extremely arrogant individual who's clearly intelligent enough to make a cogent argument, yet -- for some bizarre reason known only to himself -- decides to invent straw-man arguments to attack instead.
[snapback]79059[/snapback]
[/quote]
Sounds like the introduction of the next category of stupidity at the Scarecrow Awards, Zink. And the winner of the day's most arrogant-and-factually-unfounded post is: CaseyAbell!