Emperor Fuckshit

Didn't Mr. Turner actually place a bet on the possibility that some other (unnamed) person would look good on the dancefloor? This to me suggests that some third party has been involved in the practise of operating a tout "on" the dancefloor (using the word "on" in the sense of "in connection with"). In a similar vein, Sophie Ellis-Bextor technically only draws attention to the dancefloor murder. Keith, the incorrigible cynic, is obviously presuming her guilt based on the old premise that "(s)he who smelt it dealt it." (Or perhaps we should imagine SBE as akin to one of those dishevelled parents crying press conference crocodile tears in relation to his recently abducted child... even though HE WOZ THE ONE WOT DUNNIT!!!!). I think we're right to be suspicious about some kind of wrongdoing, anyway. Bextor's claim to "know know know know know know [sic]" about the mentality of those involved in such rug-cutting rub-outs is a bit over-zealous.

OOTPX demo, for those interested, now available here.

The Yardbirds' Greatest Hits.

Yeah, that's a decent breakdown. Though I think the packing of 2009 Opening Day rosters as the default set has increased OOTP's "pick up and play" attractiveness quite considerably. And fictional leagues don't have to = zany leagues. They can often just be a way to do simple, realistic things that BM can't (run an Asian or other foreign league alongside MLB; use the Pacific Coast League or Negro Leagues in Historical play; etc..) I had a lot of fun creating a UK league with OOTPX, but I set the Player Creation Modifiers poorly and ended up with a league that was too offense-centric for my tastes. There are a lot of received opinions about OOTP being horribly obscure and difficult to get to grips with. It's true that, in historical and fictional play, there are a lot of user-set variables that need to be handled carefully. If you have a really specific set-up in mind (and if that set-up is really quite far-removed from modern-day MLB), then it might take you a few trial-and-error periods to get to grips with things. But the manual is very detailed and helpful; as is the online community for more specific queries (honestly, the expertise, DIY ethic and willingness to learn more about the game over at those boards is astounding). On the other hand, if you just want to take over the Yankees and win 130 games, then there's not too much more to get to grips with than in BM. You need to be more careful as regards some strategic elements (see the 40 man roster discussion earlier in this thread), sure. But other things which could theoretically require endless expenditure of time (micro-managing strategies for your GCL team, say) can be done by the AI if you like.

Honestly, I think the default roster set for this version of OOTP (10) is absolutely fine. I'm sure there will be a demo out at some point soon-ish: I'd definitely recommend trying that at least. e: If you play exclusively single-player present-day games, then OOTP will be quite a bit better than BM, but maybe not sufficiently so to justify the extra cost. If you play any fictional/historical baseball at all, though, then I think OOTP just wins hands down (since fictional play isn't even an option in BM, I don't believe, and it also lacks a lot of fundamental engine customisation options necessary for a decent historical facsimile).

Well, I'm an OOTP zealot, a baseball nerd and a megalomaniac. There is a large element of "different strokes", but OOTP is also just objectively superior in many areas. I mean, one can turn 40 man rosters off in the game, for example. And create six team leagues in Aruba that play forty game schedules! And are insanely pitcher-dominated! And have an associated high school league that feeds the parent circuit with players! And has no DH! And super low roster limits so that everyone plays the whole season! A lot of hardcore "sim" guys actually hate OOTP for not being enough of a "replay" game (as compared to DMB or Stratomatic). But at least, via league totals modifiers and the recalc function, OOTP now caters somewhat to a very wide user-base. To me, it's essentially a Big Mac/foie gras issue. I can accept the right of people to enjoy BM (hey, this analogy is slicker than I intended...) and sort of see why they would and all that good, libertarian shit. But I simultaneously have no problem deciding which is "better".

Yeah, I meant 40-man rosters in the sense of "secondary rosters" (i.e. the roster that all players with major league deals must be on unless waived). To me, having accurate roster rules and limits is pretty important. I mean, there's a reason that they exist in the real world (i.e. to prevent talent-hoarding and to appease the player's union) and their existence adds a considerable strategic element for GMs. Plus, there's nothing really unrealistic about considerable turnover in the high minors due to MLFA (and if you just weren't trying to re-sign those guys, then it's not really the game's fault). BM is O.K. if you just want to play a quick and dirty simulation of the present day, but the lack of a secondary roster and the inability to have minor leagues properly simmed and managed detracts even from that. And that's quite apart from any questions related to DIPS modelling.

The default set seems fine this year. What problems are you experiencing with it? Admittedly this was the first year I didn't buy the game (going back to like 2002), but last year's was pretty sparse at the lower levels if I remember correctly. Well, I didn't buy last year, so I'm not sure. The roster set this year is really very good. I follow the Red Sox very close, and the reproduction of their players is really rather good across the organisation (with errors becoming rather more common around the A ball area). Does BM still not support 40 man rosters?

The default set seems fine this year. What problems are you experiencing with it?

Mogul is quite nice if you're a fan of baseball simulators, but you don't want to play a game that's actually good.

cock-sucking witch.

JOEY!

We had a prom at the end of Sixth Form. Can't remember where it was held. I didn't go. I didn't go to my graduation ball, either. That's "traditionally" held at York Racecourse, but it was moved to campus for this year and some tedious prannocks kicked up a middle-class fuss. I didn't go to my graduation, either, come to think of it. Fuck la spectacle.

the publican has developed a uniquely effective strategy for dealing with pimps and prostitutes. he tells them to go away. lol the "casual" facing the camera on the far left is in a coma for some reason. and that magazine cunt is a cunt.

NO not rabbit friend, broke leg. eta:

anyone know the name of film in which jimmy stewart is in it and he has broken leg? not "rear window". or "vertigo". really like to see the way jim stewart is act when has broken leg (pretend). thx.

As far as music about history goes -- Million Dead. You might well know them already, but they were a fantastic post-hardcore band who dealt with a lot of political and historical themes. Some rarities from their pre-LP days with an historical bent include "Come on, Sharon" (about the Sabra/Shatila massacres); "The Edison Address" (dealing with the history of music as a revolutionary instrument); "I Am Become the South" (basically an analogy comparing the relationships between the First World and Third World and the individual and the state -- some historical references); and "Reformulating the Challenge to Archism" (includes a kind-of semi-rap about formative contributors to anarchist thought). Their first full-length includes "I am the Party" and "Charlie and the Propaganda Myth Machine", both of which contain references to Eastern Europe under Soviet hegemony. There's also "Relentless", a song about the very pitch and yaw of historical transformation -- also includes some references to 9/11. The album ends with "The Rise and the Fall", which refers to the evolution of the Eastern Roman Empire. Their second album features more casual/glancing historical refs -- from the Icarus-Daedalus story to the Sorbonne riots and a bunch of points in-between. Billy Bragg. Sure you know about this guy. "Between the Wars", "Days Like These" (both U.S. and U.K. versions), "The World Turned Upside Down", "Nicaragua...", "The Internationale", "Jerusalem", "A Pict Song", etc.. Minutemen. Some good stuff that was then somewhat contemporary and now feels historical. "Vietnam" (guess the topic there), "Untitled Song for Latin America", "Joe McCarthy's Ghost", "Song for El Salvador", "West Germany", "The Politics of Time". Probably some other bands too...

"Seinfeld" probably wasn't at its peak by the final season, and the last ever episode struck me as a huge anti-climax and disappointment. But I think it was still basically a "good show" at its termination -- i.e., it deserved a '1' on my patented 0-1 rating scale. "The Puerto Rican Day" is an excellent episode from very late in the final run, for example, and whilst obviously on the tail-end of the basic bell curve, the final series is very good TV comedy.

Oh, right. As I worked further down your post, I realised that this was probably what you meant. Anyway, here's an alternative reading of Bart's line at the end: the line isn't an "aw shucks" admission of ephemerality by the writers; but is rather a prescription of correct viewing practice. All through the episode, the "tension" is provided by critical viewership of "Itchy and Scratchy." It's made quite clear during the Q&A session that one of the main "problems" with the "nerdy" fans is that they watch too carefully (Homer: "Why would a man whose shirt says 'genius at work' spend all of his time watching a children's cartoon show"). The audience's critical mindset is not only problematic, it's unwarranted since T.V. is "supposed" to be a medium enjoyed casually without being chewed over. At the end of the show, the tension is resolved as the writers' view of how television should be consumed is returned to hegemony. Bart's reaction to the I&S show (combined with Lisa's) is a blueprint for how the writers would want fans to react to "The Simpsons" -- "be positive if you can, be negative if you must but -- please, God -- don't think too much." "Over"-analyzing the show can lead to critique that is eloquent and well-substantiated. During the course of the episode, the writers have proved themselves unwilling to/incapable of addressing such criticism -- hence the conflations, lazy straw-men and personal attacks. Well, that's how a number of snpp.org editors read the character. And I think that the point would be for it to be "obvious." It's a cartoonish reduction of a practice often performed un-cartoonishly. It's a giggling reminder that "hee hee... we can and will do this if we want." Maybe it'll be done self-consciously at first but, later, who knows... I agree that Roy also serves the purpose of a parallel with Poochie in order to extend the allegory. But I don't think it's too fanciful to suggest the above dual purpose. But by this formulation then any satire -- no matter how unconvincing the arguments put forward or how undeserving the "target" -- is positive. The whole problem with the episode is that it attacks a tiny minority of (powerless, harmless) people; does so in a way that conflates those people with others who don't share the traits being ineptly "attacked"; and does so in a way that is obnoxious, panicky, defensive, sneery, etc.. For me, good satire doesn't necessarily need to be "balanced." "The Day Today" never ran a sketch which revealed that, actually, news broadcasters work as hard as they can and deserve credit for doing a tough job under a great pressure, etc.. But TDT did at least present its "side of the case" accurately. It took the piss out of things which were actual practices of the majority of news broadcasts. It aimed itself at a deserving (powerful; malevolent; large-scale) target. And, notably, the TDT crew were not one of the "sides" of the debate (apart from insofar as the contributors were all consumers of news programming). The "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" episode is an exercise in self-defense rather than disinterested bludgeoning -- that's probably the root of its satirical problems. Good satire doesn't have to and shouldn't have to abandon any hope of portraying its targets accurately whilst extracting "lulz." Whilst conflating that group with the entirety of the internet fanbase. ("Registering my disgust throughout the world"; the early test-screening scene). And the group of "hardcore fans" (as represented in the Q&A session scene) is basically an irrelevant group that -- as you say -- isn't even taken seriously by the rest of the internet fans. The fans on SNPP were "glad to see" a tiny and irrelevant minority of the fanbase attacked, because the fans on SNPP (or the editors at least) were thrilled to play some tiny part in an episode and were aware that, if they criticised the show, they'd be laughed at and identified with the CBG. In fact, some SNPP editors actually expressed their "appreciation" for the 'sode by noting that it "hit a little too close to home!!!!!!" or that "you sure got us good!!!!!!" or whatever. Ultimately, I think the majority of SNPP editors are maybe not too bright. Probably all the attacks aimed at the fans. Yes, there are attacks directed at "the network." But... so what? How does that diminish all of the energy expended in shouting down the fanbase? Why are you presenting this as an "either/or" dynamic? The elements of the episode which are critical of the network feed into the expression of self-defense by way of a "hey, don't look at us"-type argument. CAMDEN-NOODLERS (n.) 1. People who visit Camden Market and, upon being spoilt for choice by a huge variety of cuisine from all over the world, start joylessly shovelling noodles into their stubbly, woolly-hatted heads, barely even aware what the little foil tray in front of them actually contains. 2. Comedy fans on the internet. To me the only way that the "acknowledgement"/"attack" distinction would work would be if the episode shyed away from making didactic conclusions. It doesn't. Between the assertions that "we don't owe you anything; if anything you owe us" and "we're still providing you with quality entertainment after all these years" and the pompous rhetorical questions as to "what right do you have to critcise the show?" we're left with no uncertainty as to where the writers' sympathies lie. Now, you could argue that these are intentional caricatures. But, in order to be caricatures, they must at least have a solid basis in the writers' genuine opinions. Consider the way that the two sides of the argument are stacked up: in the "supportive/passive" corner we have all of the members of OFF (the show's "sympathetic" characters) and a relatively eloquent expression (Lisa's closing speech). Bart is even taken out of the character to defend this line of argument, making straight-faced, somewhat sophisticated, pro-authority comments. Now look at the "criticial" side of the debate: fat, ugly nerds with stupid voices who have no lives!!!! And no articulate expression -- in fact, an expression so inarticulate that it became a catch-phrase for that very reason. The show makes conclusive comments; it has an agenda. It's not speculative. I don't see how regarding the show as a mere "acknowledgement" can be anything other than a purely semantic differentiation. That's unfortunate. Now I won't have any more opportunities to insincerely whip myself up into an unwarranted frenzy like my idol the Comic Book Guy. Since that, as you've so trenchantly observed, is my real motivation.

Nadir = "the lowest point." I believe that episode to have been the worst episode of the show ever broadcast. That doesn't necessarily mean that every episode afterwards was as bad. I'm not even labelling the show a "turning point" -- I don't think that the show's transformation from efficacy to uselessness necessarily needs to be seen as a linear narrative. In re: the bolded part. I'd much rather see the show become entirely a-political than witness it take on undeserving "targets" in a sneery, inept, and obnoxious fashion. I don't believe this to be true. I don't think that any other episode of the show is anywhere close to being as reprehensible in terms of the ideas about culture that it presents. For me, that's far more important than any narrative or joke-based concerns. What "trite lesson" are you talking about, and in what way is this "subverted at the end"? I offered some commentary on my blog post regarding the way in which the Roy character could be seen as a "troll" directed towards sections of the fanbase. A popular criticism of the show at the time was that it lacked sensible narrative and/or consistent characterisation. Introducing a character without a back-story (or present-story, I suppose) would obviously serve as a tongue-in-cheek "baiting" of that criticism. I'm not denying that the episode is to some extent concerned with the capacity of shows to survive over the long-term via the insertion of new characters, etc.. I just feel that those elements are vastly subordinated to attacks on the fan-base and are, in any case, far less interesting than the political expressions contained within the episode. Also, you mention the "pot-shots taken at the very extreme edges of the "fan-dom"". But don't you think that by addressing these "extreme edges" in such a lengthy and public fashion, the writers are suggesting that such fans are a serious "problem"/issue? They're essentially conflating (at least) two elements of the fan-base together, and knocking down the arguments of the "extremists" whilst simultaneously making attacks at the wider fan-based ("what do they owe you?"; "we should be grateful"; "on the internet registering my disgust"; etc.). If you yourself acknowledge that the behaviour of the fans represented in the episode reflect at most the fanciful obsessionalism of a few at the "extremes", then don't you think that the episode is disingenuous, defensive and panicky, or at least incredibly smug? Like those NERDS at the Q&A session!!!!!! I AM the Comic Book Guy!!!!! Which "details" would these be? I interpreted the former as just a cutesy attempt on the part of the writers to display some self-awareness as regards the show's ultimately ephemeral nature. As for the latter, "The Simpsons" writers are happy enough to take lukewarm shots at themselves, sure. But if they were really a self-effacing bunch without major egos or a belief in their own abilities, then how do you explain the whole of the rest of the episode? Why would they be so willing to publicly and sneerily attack those who criticise the show? Why would they (by proxy, of course) insist that "if anything, [the fans] owe [us]?" and to baldly state, through Lisa's mouth at the close, that the show is still in rude health? A couple of winking gags that -- ho, ho -- us writers enjoy junk food and come homogeneously from privileged backgrounds hardly makes up for the content of the rest of the episode, does it? As I've said above, I don't think that this is the intent of this element of the show. Or, at best, it's another example of that which I've talked about immediately above -- an attempt to basically brush-off criticism with a "hey ho, I suppose we've made some mistakes but, hey, it's a tough job and we're still the best around so fucking shut it, fatty" attitude. Why would they choose to "acknowledge" that portion of the fanbase by attacking, misrepresenting and trying to silence it? The show has been viewed as an attack by pretty much all observers from both sides of the fence. There really are no shades of grey. At some point, doesn't this become a purely semantic differentiation without material significance? The episode "acknowledges" the show's internet fanbase in the same way that "The Day Today" "acknowledges" broadcast news. Surely the content of the presentation matters more than the way it's arbitrarily termed. And yet it's clear whose side the show's one "intelligent" character is on. And even Bart gets some relatively eloquent, forceful and straight lines in defense of the company line. There is never anything so much as a semi-intelligent equivalent expression of "the other" argument. I'd take non-satirical stuff over bad satire any day. This is why I'm not rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of that Zucker brothers film about how Michael Moore is a big fat liberal dummy.

Those nerds! They like the treks through a stars! (Also: yr most welcome, Cloudy. That's a couple of years old and some of the haughtier bits make me cringe. But I think it's still basically "correct.")

I don't think it's missing the mark at all. That episode is the first which suggests a self-righteous desire to insulate the show's writers from criticism, and is an episode which just generally espouses a right-wing, sneery and ultimately deleterious attitude towards the "industry" of artistic production. To me, the episode is suggestive of an underlying noxious attitude amongst the writing team. That's far more serious than -- and perhaps also facilitates -- individual dumb jokes, inconsistent characterisations and poor narratives. The episode is obnoxious, misguided and scarily authoritarian. To me, it having "a few nice lines" and a "reasonably well-constructed storyline" (the latter of which I'd dispute to some degree anyway) are vastly less important considerations. If you're interested, I wrote a long-ish piece on the episode here. e: As for the idea that the show was "at least as much about" the issue of long-running shows attempting to stay fresh by adding new characters -- there are several scenes which wouldn't be necessary if that were the case. The Q&A session with the I&S fans and the Bart-Comic Book Guy "argument" are the two most obvious. The show ends on a Lisa speech which basically serves to elucidate the writers' views regarding the fanbase-creators relationship. The show was widely interpreted at the time as a commentary upon postings at "The Simpsons" newsgroup pages. I think the intentions are pretty obvious. And, in any case, the content relating to the fan-creator relationship and the politics of artistic production are much more interesting than the (in any case slighter) stuff about long-lived TV shows attempting to stay fresh. ee: Just to further flesh-out my last point -- "Vanity Fair" described the episode as "a meta-celebration, a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to everyone who claimed that the quality of The Simpsons had declined over the years." The "Planet Simpson" web-site saw it as "the most contentious and direct counterattack The Simpsons ever unleashed on its fans." Quotations from snpp.org contributors as reproduced in the article I linked to show that they knew what the score was. The episode had a clear intent.

By being conceived of and casted, "Friends" outstayed its welcome. "The Simpsons" is an obvious and good choice, no matter how vigorously ApSham will fuck me as a result of my naming it. I don't think it's possible necessarily to mark an exact beginning of the decline or a time when the show went from being essentially worthwhile to essentially useless, but there were a number of slowly-realised, negative changes which eventually robbed the show of any of its merit. Part of its decline had to do simply with the show's success. As it built up a wide fanbase and an extensive canon, the show became besieged with a tendency towards smug, pleased-with-itself self-referentiality. It also became increasingly difficult to take the show seriously as a satirical force as it plastered the visages of its characters all over any tatty merchandise it could get a hold of and, perhaps even more seriously, got into bed with the Fox network. The attempts to explain such moves away via regular on-screen references to these phenomena didn't really do much to sweeten the pill -- as some music critic commented in relation to a later Pistols album, shamelessness isn't a virtue. The show's growing mainstream fame also enabled the producers to rope in whichever big-name guest star they felt like at every turn, frequently without any regard for the appropriateness of the casting decision. Obviously, some of the choices led to fantastic running narratives (Kelsey Grammar most obviously), but most seemed to be just a way of contriving some kind of spectacle around otherwise unremarkable episodes (Tony Blair, Ricky Gervais, probably countless others). Ultimately, it seems that -- particularly under Ian Maxtone-Graham -- the show's writers just felt that they could do no wrong. The "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" episode consists of basically a twenty minute tirade against the show's fanbase, and is one of the absolute nadirs for OFF. The "animated sit-com" feel -- complete with subtle narratives, consistent and nuanced characterisation and big, booming trad gags -- was slowly eliminated in favour of a non-sequiturish "show me the funny" style which perhaps reflected a desire to "keep up with" shows like "South Park" and "Family Guy". A lot of people point to the "Homer's Enemy" episode as a point at which any attempts by the show's writers to glean pathos from situations involving the family were basically exhausted -- Homer, at that point, was an obnoxious jerk who deserved whatever he got. I think that "Family Guy" is the Platonic ideal of a show that should've stopped at one season. At the time, a lot of its devices seemed genuinely fresh and exciting -- the chronology-leaping cutaways, the openly tokenistic nature of the plots and characterisations, the Stewie character generally. Especially after more writers began to be employed, though, the show developed a kind of grating obnoxiousness very very quickly. What seemed innovative soon became passée, and the writers just couldn't re-invent the wheel appropriately or switch to a more trad style. It didn't help that a million imitators/competitors popped-up soon afterwards. And, whilst the show had always made a big deal about how "un-PC!!!!!" it was, those elements seemed to rise to the fore very quickly during season four or so. The writers' self-involved jubilation at how SHOCKING they were being by breaking so many (non-existent, tedious) "taboos" became the hardest thing about the show to stomach. e: The final series of "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" was weak as piss, but I'm not sure to what degree that coiuld've been foreseen.

Holy shit, that Tippa Irie song is insanely good. I played it like a million times yesterday. It's "officially" the British equivalent to "Juicy." Also, Keith, is that you playing guitar in the video? HAHAHA you have a beard!!!!!!!!

What -- turpentine?