Family Guy returns!

FOX just announced the new season of Family Guy will air on Sunday, May 8th. Yay!

Ubiquitous wrote:

And the only the truly dickheads rejoice. I'd love to see Seth savagely beaten for unleashing 'Family Guy'. Seriously.

The Time Has Come, Microsoap said To Talk Of Many Things...

"Seriously" being the operative word. You clearly have a stunted sense of humor. I pity you.

** Captain Infinity

In article , Captain Infinity wrote:

While not agreeing with the "savagely beaten" part, I agree with Microsoap's sentiments. Gah, of all the stupid TV shows to get something like 47 chances at a comeback...

Anthony

"Anthony Dean" wrote in message news:[email]...

What I wanna know is what people who hate a particular show are doing in a newsgroup dedicated to it.

I, for one, cannot stand any of the so-called reality tv shows...I'm not wasting my time in their respective newsgroups.

In article ,

Somebody crossposted the thread to rec.arts.tv. Whether accidentally or deliberately, with your own post you removed the crossposting.

Yes...why should I have my replies crossposted to a newsgroup I don't intend to go to?

In article ,

When you asked: "What I wanna know is what people who hate a particular show are doing in a newsgroup dedicated to it", I assumed that you weren't aware of the crossposting.

:-)

I was, and I always make a point of removing the groups I'm not gonna be a part of. Those in the other group won't miss a thing, and won't go wondering why I'm not answering to their replies, if any.

_Homer J. Simpson:_

_John Hall:_

_Homer J. Simpson:_

_John Hall:_

_Homer J. Simpson:_

You're missing the point. If you were aware of the fact that the discussion was crossposted to rec.arts.tv, why did you assume that that the "Family Guy" detractors had visited alt.tv.family-guy?

Also, why did you leave the crossposting to rec.arts.tv intact for a reply that you posted approximately eighteen minutes earlier?

I don't follow. Assuming that "those in the other group" were to continue crossposting their replies to alt.tv.family-guy, how would your ability to respond be affected?

I can understand your desire to avoid crossposting to unfamiliar newsgroups, but the above justification doesn't seem to make sense.

"David Levy" wrote in message news:[email]...

You explained this very well, but I don't think he's going to get it. Either he realized his mistake and is lying (or maybe more fairly, simply evading the point) to avoid admitting his goof, or he's too stupid to grasp the concept. I think the former is more likely, he doesn't seem stupid.

I didn't include recs.arts.tv because I didn't see the need to propagate this thread into that group any further.

As for my other message ("All of it, on May 8th"), that was just a silly comment from my part and didn't expect anyone to follow up on it in either group, so for me, removing that group from that particular post wasn't really worth the effort, however small that is.

It's really a split-second decision from my part and I don't really give it any second thought. Don't overthink this. The basic rule I try to adhere to is pretty simple: if I expect to see answers to something I post, I'll remove the newsgroups I'm not posting from.

Homer J. Simpson wrote:

As I explained, I understand your desire to avoid crossposting to outside newsgroups. No further justification is necessary, and I'm not challenging your right to do so.

I don't, however, understand the reasoning behind your previous assertion that the act of crossposting somehow leads "those in the other group" to "[wonder] why [you're] not answering to their replies."

Again, you didn't need to justify your decision in the above manner, and I'm not insinuating that you owed anyone an explanation. I'm merely curious as to what you meant.

You seem to be reiterating a belief that replies to crossposted messages somehow are relegated to "the other group" by default. Am I misinterpreting your words?

I'm merely replying to your statements.

What's the correlation?

And speaking of failure to respond, you excised my first question:

"If you were aware of the fact that the discussion was crossposted to rec.arts.tv, why did you assume that that the 'Family Guy' detractors had visited alt.tv.family-guy?"

Reverse the situation:

a) suppose I post in alt.tv.family-guy, and crosspost to rec.arts.tv, even though I don't intend to read any answers posted there (and only there) b) somebody in rec.arts.tv posts an answer to that newsgroup, but removes alt.tv.family-guy, which is something I would normally do c) I don't see the reply in rec.arts.tv, and it's not crossposted back here, so I can't respond to that post. There's my "post goes unanswered".

:-) Just a habit of mine. Threads degenerate into irrelevant topics, so to me, crossposting simply increases the irrelevant clutter over time. Call it a fallacy from my part if you like. I post here, and only here. Nothing more, nothing less.

In part, Homer J. Simpson wrote:

I explicitly wrote, "assuming that 'those in the other group' were to continue crossposting their replies to alt.tv.family-guy..."

This isn't a given, but why would someone who excludes one or more newsgroups from his/her reply "go wondering why [another poster is] not answering"?

And speaking of "unanswered," you one again omitted my original question:

"If you were aware of the fact that the discussion was crossposted to rec.arts.tv, why did you assume that that the 'Family Guy' detractors had visited alt.tv.family-guy?"

This is the issue that spawned the entire subthread, and you apparently refuse to address it.

Please take this conversation to alt.boring.shutthefuckup.bothofyou.

ws

wadester wrote:

"Oh-ho-ho! You are DARK!"

:)

____________________________________________________________________

   "A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street
    and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."

____________________________________________________________________

               Gavin Blair  -  [email]
                  God of Chicks That Kick Ass

That Guy wrote:

I don't know what to think. He certainly is engaging in evasion, but he also seems to be clinging to genuine misconceptions (which he reiterates, despite the fact that it would be easier to remain mum).

In message Microsoap wrote:

If you're not a fan, don't watch it.

oh poor wittle microsoap aint gonna see any of his wishes come true get lost turd

[email] wrote:

Okay, then. Watch your sexist, racist, homophobic anti-Semitic cartoon and further poison your mind further. Ah, it's only society that will suffer.

Microsoap wrote:

Ahh... good ol' blinkered anal seepage from someone who doesn't actually watch the show, just attacks it on principle. It's been so long!!!

Why don't you stop wasting your time bothering us (after all, we're lost causes) and go off and burn some freakin' books or something?

And before you go, kiss the fattest part of my ass!

Jox

PS - can I get a "ba-zing!"

further poison your mind further straight from the department of redudancy department

Microsoap wrote:

Have you no sense of humor?

"Family Guy" certainly features the above themes (and many other controversial topics), but it does so in a satirical (not advocatory) manner.

Until recently, one installment ("When You Wish Upon a Weinstein") was "banned" by the Fox Network because it lampooned Jewish stereotypes. I happen to be Jewish, but I wasn't remotely offended by the episode.

Further than further?

...said the admitted thief.

Yeah, I mean the whole POINT of Family Guy is to fly in the face of the Political Correct, who ironically-- with their hypersensitivities-- would rather sweep controversial issues under the rug than completely face them. I'm so happy that Family Guy is trying to bring back the humor of the 1970s, a time when people weren't so hypersensitive about everything and could actually crack jokes about being a certain color or religion or what have you. Because believe it or not, the Politically Incorrect humor of the 1970s (stuff like All in the Family and Blazing Saddles) was a great leap forward in American culture, because people were finally learning to use humor to deal with problematic situations and becoming more relaxed and less polarized about them.

hfguide wrote:

Then just bring back the early-'70s cartoon "Wait 'Til Your Father Gets Home". THEY did it correctly! :-p

"Microsoap" wrote in message news:zVcHd.39310$[email]...

Gee, obviously someone has no idea what the words HUMOR and SARCASM entail. Go back to watching happy home maker then, that at least you understand.

cartoon

*FFFFFWWWWOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH!!!!*

What's that? No-- not a 747, but the sounds of the Politically Incorrect humor of Family Guy soaring over your head at 100 MPH!

In article , [email] says...

Projecting again?

And you are in the Family Guy newsgroup
because.....................................

"Microsoap" wrote in message news:v6_Gd.17371$[email]...

In message "WDY" wrote:

This thread is crossposted to rec.arts.tv as well...

In article , [email] says...

Ubiquitous wrote:

I believe the subject says it all. :-D

[email] wrote:

Howard wrote in news:[email]:

Well not any more, now that you're prepared for it.

In article ,

He could be incontinent....

In article , [email] wrote:

He's a liberal?

Sunday,

Bunny....The

can

======================================================================

They actually have the clip up on the fox.com homepage. Bottom right, click the family guy icon and it plays. Very funny, and they even mention Wonderfalls.

wrote in message news:[email]...

They mentioned *everything*! It was pretty funny.

Good episode -- I liked the North by Northwest stuff. Too bad that Mike Barker and Matt Weitzman, the strongest writers from the first three seasons, are busy working on that inevitable bomb, "American Dad".

I just watched it. It was pretty good. Not great, but good. A little too political for my taste. A reference here and there is fine, but it was too much IMO.

I saw the first episode and didn't like it for the reason mentioned above - too political.

And you laughing at it doesn't mean you're not very easily amused. The American Dad pilot was a turd.

It would be a terrible shame if FG's quality suffers due to talent drain. Like The Simpsons and X-Files did.

Except for the fact (which you clipped from the quote) that AD was inferior to FG.

When Futurama was on, it was superior to The Simpsons, and I made no claims to the opposite. It was still sad to see the best written show on TV slip to such a degree.

I never watched Millenium, but X-Files certainly declined in quality with the talent drain to the new show.

If the pilot of AD is representative, the drain from FG will result in a net decline in quality. AD was closer to Johnny Bravo in quality. Which is to say - lame beyond belief.

RogerM wrote:

According to Greg Colton (a storyboard artist for "Family Guy," who posts to this newsgroup under the handle "Sweet Zombie Jesus"), the subsequent episodes are far better. Then again, he made the same claim about the first episode (compared to the original pitch pilot).

I didn't dislike it to that extent, but it didn't elicit anything more than a few chuckles from me. ("Family Guy, in stark contrast, consistently leaves me in stitches.)

I didn't say it wasn't funny. I said it was too political for my taste. And I understand that's the premise of the show, which I didn't realize before watching it.

I believe the commercial said May 1st...

According to Fox.com. it's May 1st at 9/8 central.

http://www.fox.com/familyguy/

Cheers!

eXcalibur

"Ubiquitous" wrote in message news:[email]...

*All* of it? On May 8th? :-/

There was a great preview tonight on fox for Family Guy, after they showed a repeat at 9:00. Anybody capture it and post online so I can watch it agian?

New scenes, great to see, we're actually back!!!