So is it really over?
Jul 7, 2003, 5:52 PM ET46 posts by 13 posters
46 posts
"The Digital Dragon" wrote in message news:[email]...
Yes, the animators, writers and actors have long since gone on to do other projects.
Bugger. Well I guess it was inevitable, I mean if it hadn't been for Matt Groening using The Simpsons to bargain with then they would of axed it long ago. But still, it was a great show.
"The Digital Dragon" wrote in message news:[email]...
any
other
long
I don't understand, At the point of the first airing of Futurama MG was already completely hands off of "the Simpson's". And it was a FOX property to begin with. That is really what caused Futurama problems in the first place was that It was an independent entity from FOX itself. FOX didn't like that.
Well, I probably have my facts wrong but I was under the impression Matt Groening threatened to stop making The Simpsons if Fox dropped Futurama.
"The Digital Dragon" wrote in message news:[email]...
<...>
Nope The Simpson's was executive produced by Mike Scully by then. You see Matt has a short attention span when it comes to his shows. In an article last year he mentioned how he was already tired of doing futurama and was ready to hand it to David X. so he could go and do another show or something. Basically if it's not "Life in Hell" He just gets it started then hands it off to a co-producer. Plus FOX owned "The Simpson's" that's why they are "The Simpson's" and Not "Life In Hell: the TV show" Matt pitched them as an alternative to loosing creative control of LIH. And either way "The Simpson's" is now onto it's third main Producer now. I don't know his name but he thought Homer Raped by a Panda was funny.
Michael Zaite ([email]) wrote:
But they are still his characters, wouldn't he have ultimate control over what happens to them?
Made me laugh reading it just now, although possibly for the wrong reasons.
There are *no* right reasons.
"The Digital Dragon" wrote in message news:[email]...
<...>
what
No they are FOX owned characters. They have been since Tracy Ullman day 1. That's why Matt invented them on the day of the pitch.
This is the problem with Futurama. It's Curiosity Company's property not FOX and FOX doesn't like that.
reasons.
If it was because you think Homer raped by a panda is funny and belongs on "The Simpson's" then it was for the wrong reason. Otherwise it's all ok.
If you'd like to learn more about Matt Groening, The Simpsons, and Futurama check out http://www.snpp.com/misc-interviews.html . It's loaded with Matt Groening interviews.
Coincidentally this was where I first found out about Futurama way back in 1998.
"Michael Zaite" wrote in message news:...
Ian Maxtone-Graham is the dickhead in question.
ben
"ben w" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
way
his
Booooo, Booooo, rubbage! Filth! Slime! Muck! Booo Booooo!!!
"ben w" wrote in message news:[email]... "Michael Zaite" wrote in message news:...
Ian Maxtone-Graham is the dickhead in question.
Why did that episode bug so many people? I thought it was funny as hell.
(this message brought to you in glorious HTML)
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:55:44 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" spewed forth:
Because it was the sort of cheap shit that Simpsons writers used to make fun of. Now it's an Adam Sandler movie every week.
In news: ACKOa.50098$[email], someone let A Bag Of Memes loose on on a computer... and the unfortunate result was:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DVillage color=3D#008000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV>"ben w" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:[email]">[email]</A>> = wrote in=20 message <A=20 = href=3D"news:[email]">news:65612c= [email]</A>...</DIV> <DIV>"Michael Zaite" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:[email]">[email]</A>> wrote = in message=20 <A=20 = href=3D"news:news:<= _soOa.28887$[email]</A>>...<BR><BR>>=20 them as an alternative to loosing creative control of LIH. And either=20 way<BR>> "The Simpson's" is now onto it's third main Producer now. = I don't=20 know his<BR>> name but he thought Homer Raped by a Panda was=20 funny.<BR><BR>Ian Maxtone-Graham is the dickhead in question.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT face=3DVillage color=3D#800080 size=3D4>Why did that episode = bug so many=20 people? I thought it was funny as hell.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DVillage color=3D#800080 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DVillage color=3D#800080 size=3D1>(this message brought = to you in=20 glorious HTML)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C34593.72B0E310--
I suppose so.
"Je�us" wrote in message news:3f0b8205$0$23123$[email]...
Thanks, I was wondering what "The Prisoner" font looked like without HTML. And "The Prisoner" font.
"face=3DVillage"!
Here's what annoys me about the HTML/newsreader debate: Why are there so many newsreaders that a) don't support HTML and if they won't do that, b) don't have a setting that strips it from the message for you? There's no reason anyone should see raw HTML source unless they just want to.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:45:22 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" spewed forth:
Because it's never, EVER been for anything other than plaintext, minus the binaries groups
"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...
HTML.
So? It's only about 20 years old. That's no reason they can't at least strip raw HTML so people who don't want to use it don't have to see all that garbage.
A Bag Of Memes wrote:
There's no reason people can't simply refrain from using HTML in the first place. It has *NO* place whatsoever on usenet. If you want to use HTML find a web board, but do not use it here.
Using HTML on usenet isn't supposed to be an option (and wouldn't be if a certain software monopoly hadn't built it into its poorly written newsreader).
"Exatron" wrote in message news:[email]...
Who are you, the usenet police? Usenet is supposed to allow any text. HTML is text. Get over it.
It's (generally) 7-bit clean, but that doesn't make it plain-text.
As you well know, there are no "usenet police". What we've got is a series of conventions to make communcation work well for everyone. Breaking that "netiquette" just because you can doesn't benefit anyone.
"Matthew Miller" wrote in message news:[email]...
Netiquette evolves. Fashion changes. HTML is plain text. It's also easy to strip. I can write the code to strip it in less than 10 minutes in several languages. Every newsreader should offer that option. I've got 2 Windows newsreaders and 5 Linux newsreaders. I use OE because it's my favorite. And I never see raw HTML source.
"A Bag Of Memes" wrote in news:lt7Pa.51895$[email]:
You can't seem to accept this fact, but ... you're dead wrong. HTML should never be used on usenet as a matter of common courtesy. End of story.
"UsualNoise" wrote in message news:[email]...
should
No, I can't seem to accept that fact. Because it's just your opinion.
"A Bag Of Memes" wrote in news:zW7Pa.52118$[email]:
When it's the opinion of 98% of the usenet community, it becomes established as a fact. Just because you're unfamiliar with acceptable practices doesn't mean you shouldn't familiarize yourself with and follow them. Unless you're a jerk.
If you persist in your anti-usenet ways you'll just be plonked, so if you really want to remain you should abide by the agreed upon usenet standards. Just because you haven't received your written copy of "Rules of Usenet" doesn't mean there aren't any.
"UsualNoise" wrote in message news:[email]...
Does too.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:33 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" spewed forth:
Now we KNOW you're lying.
Neither do I, but that doesn't make the other arguments against it go away
A Bag Of Memes wrote:
If necessary, yes. What are you, stupid?
HTML is *NOT* plaintext and it is not meant to be used on usenet.
Anything that contains formatting data in addition to alphanumeric characters, such as HTML, is never appropriate for usenet for a wide variety of reasons that you seem intent on ignoring.
Try taking your own advice.
"Exatron" wrote in message news:[email]...
HTML isn't limited to ASCII (it is limited to UCS), but the stuff you're seeing on this newsgroup is pure ASCII. Plain text. Nothing hinky. Your newsreader just doesn't know how to ignore the stuff between < and > or what to do with > and <.
I'm not ignoring your reasons, they just look like opinions. Markup languages are gaining popularity. Why should we keep them out of one form of communication?
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:21:56 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" spewed forth:
Hey wow, that's how an un-decoded 40MB MPEG looks too. Does that mean it's plaintext too ?
Gaining popularity among who ? The rude, illiterate types flooding the internet from their eMachines.
Because they probably don't know not to fart at a wedding.
A Bag Of Memes wrote:
That's exactly the point. HTML is not plain text by any definition. It carries formatting data within it and requires additional code to make it easily readable.
Of course it doesn't. My newsreader isn't a web browser. If I wanted to communicate with someone using a klunky, inefficient interface that allowed linking to things like someone's k3Wl 300kB Dragonball Z animated GIF, I'd use a web board.
Yes you are. You're just too stupid to understand the difference between opinions and facts.
Which doesn't change the fact that they don't belong on usenet.
Because they inhibit the efficiency and simplicity of said form of communication. HTML has no use on usenet. It's a phenomenal waste of space, a potential security hole, and requires additional software rendering to view properly.
The entire point of usenet is that it is simple and efficient- any computer with network access is supposed to be capable of reading it, even thirty year old machines with CLI's.
It doesn't matter how much you like HTML or how popular it is in other places it was never meant to be used on usenet. No amount of whining on your part will change that and if you want your posts to be read you will comply with basic usnet etiquette.
What this all boils down to is you don't feel like changing anything to suit other people and as long as something is convenient or right for you, you act like it's convenient and right for everyone.
Look at it this way: we are all having a conversation on a telephone party line. You are playing screeching, chirping modem sounds into your phone. That *is* sound, which *is* what phones are designed for, but that's missing the point. We all know what modems are and about the Internet and how wonderful it is, but we're not using the Internet, we're using a party line.
"Lone Locust of the Apocalypse" wrote in message news:qYiPa.23329$[email]...
Your
what
You're assuming a lot about me. I'm defending the use of HTML. That doesn't mean I want to use it.
I would agree if it wasn't trivial to filter HTML. Why should some folks with lousy newsreaders get to stop everyone from marking up their text?
The newsreader issue is only one of the problems.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:35:18 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" spewed forth:
yeah man, tin and XNews and Agent are SO bottom of the barrel.
But then again, how seriously SHOULD one take a statement about the quality of a newsreader from an OE aficianado ?
"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...
Filtering HTML would be easy, and it would stop tin and Xnews users from whining when some HTML shows up and wastes their precious bytes.
A Bag Of Memes wrote:
No, the space from using HTML is still wasted since the client is doing the stripping. It's far simpler to not use HTML at all.
Quit whining and just accept that HTML does not belong on usenet, no matter how useful it is for webpages.
A Bag Of Memes wrote:
You're not defending it very well. You haven't been able to successfully defeat even one argument against it.
It's also trivial to not post in HTML in the first place. Filtering HTML doesn't remove the space it wastes, nor does the alleged ease of doing so make it appropriate to use here.
Your assertion that newsreaders that don't render HTML are lousy is erroneous, and your judgement is severely lacking if you think Outlook Express is good. The ability to render HTML isn't part of most newsreaders because it isn't expected, or wanted, on usenet. Why bother having a feature that nobody with any sense would ever use?
Why sould a few inconsiderate dolts with lousy newsreaders, like OE, get to disrupt communications simply because they can't follow the rule of not using HTML on usenet?
So is base64 encoding.
Get a clue.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:46 GMT, [email] (Lone Locust of the Apocalypse) wrote:
Hell, a UUENCODE'd gzip of a cpio archive would fulfill Bag's definition for 'text'.
Obviously Bag doesn't understand the difference between 'text' and 'plain text'. Here's the clue, Bag: the "plain" in 'plain text' _means_ that the text contains no additional encoding (like, say, HTML) - it is *PLAIN* text. See the difference between that and your limited 'any old 128-bit ASCII' based concept of 'text'?
If you can see the difference, then deal with it (use plain text), or continue to be viewed as a snotty, little, juvenile troll.
If you really can't see the difference then, man, IT is *not* the field for you.
But, then, I guess there's just nothing like pissing in the commons, is there Bag Of Trolls?
-Jones
"You ask me what I'm doing here, holding up this lamp-post, flipping this quarter, trying to make up my mind... If it's head I go to Tennessee, tails I buy a drink. If it lands on it's edge I keep talking to you." -T. Waits
Military Phonetic version of my address to spoof spam: jones at November Echo Tango Sierra Echo Tango dot Charlie Oscar Mike
"Jones" wrote in message news:[email]...
Absolutely.
"Plaintext" means unencrypted text. It's the opposite of "ciphertext". HTML is not "ciphertext".
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?plaintext
Yeah, the IT industry shuns snotty trolls. I'll be sure to stay away from it.
Yet it doesn't fit the one used on Usenet. The "binaries" newsgroups are entirely full of uuencoded data (and yenc and spam) -- and this is clearly recognized as "binaries", even though it's encoded in text form.
And "plain text" is not the same thing as "plaintext".
"A Bag Of Memes" wrote in message news:...
That's only in the context of encoding or decoding messages. Plaintext means something which a native speaker can read (i.e., this sentence is in plaintext, in English). Ciphertext is the text resulting in deliberate encoding: Yjod od vo[jrtyrcy/
So does that make HTML ciphertext automatically, since not all English speakers can read it?
In graph theory, I call something a tree which you would not agree IS a tree. (A tree is a connected graph with no cycles.) -- Christopher Heckman
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:24:32 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" wrote:
And, at the same time, it would not fit the USENET definition, which, BTW, is where you are posting. (You act so clueless about USENET, I wasn't sure you knew _where_ you were spewing...)
And I notice that the below line was the *single* part of my posting that you cut (hell, maybe the only part of *any* posting that you were following-up that you cut):
Because, that is *all* that you are doing, Bag: Pissing in the Commons. And cutting that line shows that you are at least a little embarrassed by that - as you should be.
(Though it is also possible that you have just never head of "The Tragedy of the Commons", either. You seem so... limited.)
-Jones
"We live in an age lit by lightning - after the flash, we're blind again." T-bone Burnette
Military Phonetic version of my address to spoof spam: jones at November Echo Tango Sierra Echo Tango dot Charlie Oscar Mike
"A Bag Of Memes" wrote in message news:mdMOa.50124$[email]...
Because FUCK YOU. Are you through with this HTML not HTML shit or for fucks sake what more do we all have to hear? You like HTML, Fuck You. Others don't like HTML, Fuck them. I'm sure there's a newsgroup about pro-con HTML Usenet. take it the fuck up there.
And to answer Freddy Paulsen again, when miscarriage issues from one topic ooze puss like into other parts of a group like a festering sore on a ten cent whore. the group is in the process of dying down.
Or it's a regular healthy Usenet group, who the fuck can tell anymore. No wonder most of the Futurama community is on Web boards.
"Michael Zaite" wrote in message news:PaOOa.527$[email]...
HTML.
so
b)
no
Ah, reason.
"Michael Zaite" wrote in message news:...
Well, if it's so funny, let's make it happen to him. -- Christopher Heckman
(Sorry if this got posted twice. Google ...)