Two more Kramer contradictions!

Here I go picking those damn nits, but in tonight's (4/24) syndicated episode, "The Wife", I noticed that there were two things Kramer said/did that contradicted something he has said/done in other episodes. I don't know whether he said these things previous to this episode, but I'm assuming he had said this before this one.

 Anyway 1. The big dispute about Kramer wearing boxers or briefs gets a new
	   twist. In either "The Ticket" or "The Watch" Kramer runs into
	   Jerry's apartment with one pant leg on and boxers, but tonight,
	   he was wearing briefs in the tanning booth.
	2. When the "Low-Flo" showerheads were installed, Kramer complains
	   about the lack of shower pressure and he can't wash the shampoo
	   out of his hair. Jerry suggests taking a bath to which Kramer
	   convulses and says, "Sitting in a bunch of your own filth?" or
	   something like that, but tonight when Jerry asked him if he
	   urinated in the shower, Kramer says, "I take baths."

In article , Ed Ruane writes:

know

I agree that the Kramer character is very inconsistant. For the first few seasons, it seemed that Kramer was on a high moral Horse, and said certain things about 'the fabric of society" I think this conflicts with things like sueing over hot coffee, etc.

But if you look at the real Kenny Kramer, he is completely wishy washey, and sort of a schmuck. He was posting to alt. Howard Stern (first prasing, then insulting Howard), and they were having a ball lambasting him.

      One episode had Kramer, concerned about his sperm count, announce
      to Jerry and Elaine that he had no underwear at all under his pants,
      and they both recoiled in disbelief- in another episode, Kramer
      had a whirlpool bath installed in his apt.; this is really what the
      Internet was designed for, a discussion of the bathing habits of
      sitcom characters, right? :)

Ed Ruane wrote:

Ever heard of tanlines?

Well, keep in mind that Kramer is crazy and unpredictable. He can change from one moment to the next, so that would explain the "inconsistencies".

Ed Ruane ([email]) wrote:

[email] (Zev Berkovich) wrote:

Yes it would, but it would also be a crutch for the writers to avoid coming up with a more creative explanation.