Discussion about the Suspension List
Well, I'm impressed.
This Cheers is one of the more popular bars in Moundsville among the 30-50 crowd, so it was busy, but the people who frequented it were generally mature and never caused any trouble. I don't care to go to bars now, unless they are microbreweries, but when I did (and lived in Moundsville) Cheers was definitely one of my favorite two.
Quote: rdw4potusSo, I guess, I agree that Cheers will never get old.
+1
I can't believe what passes as comedy these days. I recently watched an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" the other day. It is supposedly one of the best shows on TV.
Unfortunately, I didn't find it funny at all. Plus, I hate that stupid Blossom chick.
Not solo acts with sledgehammers like Gallagher.
A troupe of guys like Moe, Larry and Curly who poke eyes, pull hair and slap faces.
like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkdYCFSf6V8
N'yuk n'yuk n'yuk.
Quote: Beethoven9th+1
I can't believe what passes as comedy these days. I recently watched an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" the other day. It is supposedly one of the best shows on TV. Unfortunately, I didn't find it funny at all. Plus, I hate that stupid Blossom chick.
Well, comedy has taken a huge back seat to the drivel that is "reality TV", but I have never liked "Cheers" at all. And the slot machine is just as boring as the TV show, maybe even more so. Would "Big Bang" be the #1 comedy 20 years ago, hell no. Now, no one is very close to them since Charlie Sheen screwed up his career. Maybe I find "Big Bang" funny because I am a science dork generally, but I have little interest in comics/Star Trek/etc. but the comments they make about these topics are still funny to me. Also both my parents and my g/f's parents really like the show and they are in their 60s with zero scientific background.
To be fair, Blossom's character is the least funny of the group I think.
Quote: Beethoven9th
Unfortunately, I didn't find it funny at all. Plus, I hate that stupid Blossom chick.
BBT is hit or miss. When it's funny, it's hysterical. When it's not, it's excruciating. The thing about Cheers was that it was always mildly funny. It's one of the more consistent comedies that I can think of.
FWIW, the chick from Blossom has a PhD. Maybe you hate that smart Blossom chick?
Quote: rdw4potusFWIW, the chick from Blossom has a PhD. Maybe you hate that smart Blossom chick?
Smart, dumb.....she's lame regardless. lol
Who else thinks she's a dead ringer for Margaret Hamilton (a.k.a. The Wicked Witch of the West)?
Quote: Beethoven9thSmart, dumb.....she's lame regardless. lol
Who else thinks she's a dead ringer for Margaret Hamilton (a.k.a. The Wicked Witch of the West)?
Wow, that's just scary.
Quote: tringlomaneWell, comedy has taken a huge back seat to the drivel that is "reality TV", but I have never liked "Cheers" at all.
Cheers came on the same year I got out of the
bar business. We had regulars that came in every
day, just like Cheers. Only we called them alcoholics,
not comical. There's zero that's funny about a real
life bar and people who drink for hours, 7 days a
week. Cheers came on just as MADD was taking
off, you would never see a similar show today.
Making a joke out of substance abuse might have
been hilarious at one time, not so much anymore.
Quote: EvenBobCheers came on just as MADD was taking
off, you would never see a similar show today.
Making a joke out of substance abuse might have
been hilarious at one time, not so much anymore.
Cheers ran for 11 years. It's not like MADD nipped that one in the bud.
Also, Two and a Half Men and Two Broke Girls are very highly rated comedies that are at least partially about substance abuse. CBS just debuted a third comedy, Mom, that is also peripherally about alcohol abuse.
Edit: also, Sullivan & Son exists.
Quote: rdw4potusCheers ran for 11 years. It's not like MADD nipped that one in the bud.
.
The climate in the 80's was when it was all changing,
when cops were clamping down on drunk drivers and
public awareness was heightened. The movie 'Arthur'
came out in 1981 and was a box office smash. When
they did the sequel in 1988, it was booed for making
an alcoholic the butt of all its jokes. Shows now have
alcohol abuse in them, but they also show what pitiful
lives people like Charlie Harper have. You never saw
that in Cheers.
Quote: EvenBobShows now have
alcohol abuse in them, but they also show what pitiful
lives people like Charlie Harper have.
An alcoholic who lives in house off Malibu and has a endless string of beautiful women.
I suppose Charlie would be called a functional alcoholic.
Quote: rxwine
I suppose Charlie would be called a functional alcoholic.
They always have him puking and they show the
downside of drinking. He never drives when he
drinks, for instance. They never showed that on
Cheers. We had customers who died on a regular
basis from drunk driving accidents, at least 5 in
a two year period. Two of them on Harley's.
Quote: EvenBobCheers came on the same year I got out of the
bar business. We had regulars that came in every
day, just like Cheers. Only we called them alcoholics,
not comical. There's zero that's funny about a real
life bar and people who drink for hours, 7 days a
week. Cheers came on just as MADD was taking
off, you would never see a similar show today.
Making a joke out of substance abuse might have
been hilarious at one time, not so much anymore.
I wouldn't say "Cheers" celebrated drinking. "Cheers" was actually, "Taxi In a Bar." Later followed by "Wings" which was, "Cheers in an Airport." Norm could put down a lot of beers, but the show was more about the fact that they all either had no family or disliked the family they had and sought solace with each other daily.
When I was in Rochester the bar I hung out in was open Christmas Eve and day. The owner said it was not really for business but there were about a dozen regulars with no real local family and the owners had none either so they opened. Same thing.
Quote: AZDuffmanI wouldn't say "Cheers" celebrated drinking. .
Sure it did, it was a bar. Everybody has happy times,
everybody knows your name. I was in a neighborhood
bar for three years, they are the opposite of happy
places. They are drunk places, where alcoholics hang
out with other alcoholics so they don't have to go home.
I walked out of there in 1983 and haven't been in a bar
since, not even a casino bar. It's a bit like an asylum for
crazy people. You start to become like them after awhile,
and it wasn't for me.
Quote: 1BBI always get Maynard mixed up with Gilligan.
Both were played by the same actor, Bob Denver
Quote: maryjoBoth were played by the same actor, Bob Denver
No wonder I've never seen them in the same room together. :-)
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/15296-gr8player-where-are-you/2/#post274608
That's one example, you'd want to read Pages 4-6 of that thread for more, he's also been doing some border-line trolling in a few other threads, but the ban is mainly for that thread.
Quote: AhighYeah, I'd say cut the guy a break, or at least let him pay $10,000 to have the suspension removed.
He can't afford it, he just had 35K jacked from, what was it? That's right, the "Pirates of I-70".
Quote: VCUSkyhawkIf "of course your a low roller...." is grounds for a trolling ban, how in the name of everything good and holy can Evenbob still be around. Not trying to be a jackass to the admin, but I am really curious.
+100
It's like the Supreme Court knowing porn when it sees it. Two people should have been long gone !0,000 posts ago.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkIf "of course your a low roller...." is grounds for a trolling ban, how in the name of everything good and holy can Evenbob still be around. Not trying to be a jackass to the admin, but I am really curious.
There's a lot more than just that. The insults, the flooding, the trolling, etc.
In addition, he got lucky because his last suspension was also for 30 days. He's lucky he didn't get banned for 60 days or even nuked.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkIf "of course your a low roller...." is grounds for a trolling ban, how in the name of everything good and holy can Evenbob still be around. Not trying to be a jackass to the admin, but I am really curious.
Like I said, read Pages 4-6 of that thread. I'd never ban someone for trolling for a single post, absent personal insult or it not being PG.
Joined on 1/12/13 and gets a 3 Day Suspension on 1/28/13, Day 16 of membership
Suspended for 10 days on 4/25/13, after 3 months of clean living
Suspended for 30 days on 8/17/13, another 3 months of clean living
Suspended 30 days today, only 16 days after coming off the last Suspension
And I thought someone in the thread said something to the effect of "C'mon, quit giving Tree such a hard time, he is a valued member with over 900 posts"........not unless valued member is measured in days of suspension during your first 12 months of membership......by the time this 30 days are up he will effectively have been suspended one day for every 3 days he could post.....25% of his membership existence will have been in red font!
Quote: Paradigmhe is a valued member with over 900 posts
Plus, quantity and quality are not necessarily correlated. I'd trade all 900 of TTB's posts for 1 post from a few of the folks here...
Rule six: "Keep it PG. No pornographic or violent images or text."
My question: would posting a photo of a bare-breasted hottie be grounds for suspension?
What if it is part of a review of a topless show?
Where is the line drawn on titillation?
Quote: VCUSkyhawkhow in the name of everything good and holy can Evenbob still be around. .
Please point out to the mods where I have trolled
anywhere. If it's true, I'll gladly take the suspension.
You must have many examples, you seem so convinced.
Just post a few of them.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkIf "of course your a low roller...." is grounds for a trolling ban, how in the name of everything good and holy can Evenbob still be around. Not trying to be a jackass to the admin, but I am really curious.
That post was just the straw that broke the camel's back. He has been nuke-worthy for a while now. Regarding EvenBob, or anybody, if anyone thinks he is breaking forum rules, please PM Mission or me the offending post(s) and management will consider it.
Quote: MrVQuestion about the Forum Rules:
Rule six: "Keep it PG. No pornographic or violent images or text."
My question: would posting a photo of a bare-breasted hottie be grounds for suspension?
What if it is part of a review of a topless show?
Where is the line drawn on titillation?
You would definitely be on the wrong side of the line! LOL
Quote: WizardThat post was just the straw that broke the camel's back. He has been nuke-worthy for a while now. Regarding EvenBob, or anybody, if anyone thinks he is breaking forum rules, please PM Mission or me the offending post(s) and management will consider it.
That's what I just said in another thread. Show the posts,
don't just talk about it. Find a post where I should be banned,
hit the permalink button, and give the post to Pierce. He'll
be more than happy to suspend me. Too happy, it's kind
of frightening..
Wiz's own rules, suspensions are cumulative, it should
be 60 days. This is his 4th suspension in 8 months, that
alone should say something.
Quote: AhighI think if he can prove you were drunk when the post was made, the ban should be lifted. If he can prove he was stoned, it should be doubled. Of course because pot makes you a better person, and alcohol could be blamed if it was that.
If he can prove mission was drunk when the post was made?
No sign of such a seizure on I-70 in the KC Star or in several metasearch engines.Quote: Mission146TreeTopBuddy gets a thirty-day ban for blatant trolling and baiting.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNo sign of such a seizure on I-70 in the KC Star or in several metasearch engines.
Are all such seizures documented? Just curious more than anything else.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNo sign of such a seizure on I-70 in the KC Star or in several metasearch engines.
Maybe search terms "dog+rapes+man" will produce a few hits.
Quote: thecesspitAre all such seizures documented? Just curious more than anything else.
Officially, yes. Unofficially? Well, it's $35k in CASH...
Quote: rdw4potusOfficially, yes. Unofficially? Well, it's $35k in CASH...
Yeah, no freaking joke. $35,000 is a nice little wad. Just little enough to stuff in one pocket.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNo sign of such a seizure on I-70 in the KC Star or in several metasearch engines.
Posnanski and Whitlock still writing for the KC Star?
REALLY BIG
Yeah, that would do nicely.
Of course, I have no intention of actually insulting anybody on this forum.
I only posted the link so that others would know what NOT to say here.
Just trying to help, is all.
Quote: thecesspitIf he can prove mission was drunk when the post was made?
That's what I was thinking too when I read that.....LOL
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's what I was thinking too when I read that.....LOL
Pierce almost never drinks when he suspends people.
Like all good writers, he saves his heavy drinking for
inspiration as he types his stories.
Quote: rdw4potusPlus, quantity and quality are not necessarily correlated. I'd trade all 900 of TTB's posts for 1 post from a few of the folks here...
+1
didn't notice an iota of worth in any of them
Quote: DeMango+100
It's like the Supreme Court knowing porn when it sees it. Two people should have been long gone !0,000 posts ago.
Fully agree. No forum should tolerate that diarrhea of words supporting simply post count. Consider the body of woirk and it's just post count. How special.
Quote: Beethoven9thThere's a lot more than just that. The insults, the flooding, the trolling, etc.
In addition, he got lucky because his last suspension was also for 30 days. He's lucky he didn't get banned for 60 days or even nuked.
I'm amazed he wasn't nuked, but not to worry he'll be blocked when he returns--his posts now simply hurt the eyes and have zero value
