"CLIFFHANGER" PREDICTION

I don't know if anyone has brought up this possibility yet, but it seems more than likely to me:

All the guesswork about Cartman's father is a waste of bandwidth. The question will never be resolved. They will just leave it hanging, and go on with a completely new episode.

Given the past 13 shows, I find it impossible to believe that Parker, Stone, et alia would devote a whole second episode to the resolution of the paternity question. Not enough action, too "character"-driven, too soap-opera-like, not enough potential for exploring new avenues of shoxploitation humor. And the "revelation episode" is scheduled for April Fool's Day, no? What better way to jokily screw over your audience's expectations than by not resolving a much-publicized cliffhanger?

I could be wrong, of course, but I'd like to go on the record now with that as my guess.

Warmly,

Adam

Alright, I'm as bored with the Cartman's dad thing as everyone else, but I'll throw another guess out there. Maybe Matt and/or Trey will end up making a cartoon cameo themselves, and one of them will turn out to be Cartman's father. It's as plausible as some of the other guesses I've noticed.

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:43:37 -0600, [email] offered this unto Shub-Internet:

You know, that's an incredibly original idea!

That's what I would have told you if you had put forth the same idea 2 weeks ago when everyone else was dicussing it.

Reverend Bob wrote:

"Discussing"--careful, don't want anyone to think you're on AOL. . . .

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:25:14 -0600, Deacon offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Out, damned typo, out I say! I hope people don't come down on others just for a typo. A whole string of typos is, however, an entirely different matter.

Deacon wrote in message ...

NO, Maybe the good Rev. meant that! Di cussing = what she was doing as they drove into that tunnel.

-or-

Die cussing = What Kenny does almost every Wednesday night!

LM (then again, maybe it was just a topy) :o)

I wrote:

more

In article , [email] wrote:

Say, Rev, here's a news flash for you:

I never claimed it was an origianl idea. My post began with the disclaimer that I didn't know if anyone had already talked about this. That's because, apparently unlike you, I don't follow this newsgroup especially closely. Apparently unlike you, I have a life. Your attempt at a stinging rebuke -- that I don't know what's already been talked about on this newsgroup -- could only make sense to someone who considers it a failing not to have spent an enormous amount of time "dicussing" things with barely pubescent megafans. So your desperately dorky attempt to disguise this wasted time as somehow entitling you to be a patronizing little shit -- well, it's rather poignant. Nothing is more pathetic than failed sarcasm.

Warmly,

Adam

[email] wrote:

first off i would like to say that if you dont want people on your back read a few back posts or at least some headers before jumping into a NG it makes you look at least mildly intelligent and it keeps similar/identical posts from being posted over and over again (thats where the true waste of bandwith comes from)

second if we are all barely pubescent megafans than why step down off of your pedastal to talk to us peasants?

third you wont gain many friends in this NG insulting the almighty reverend bob

and finally if you think all regulars in all NGs are losers with nothing better to do than glue their ass to a chair 24-7 well then you sir are horribly mistaken

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:50:35 -0600, Frank Rizzo offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

Almighty? Isn't that a bit much, Frank?

In article ,

a

I did scan over some back posts, and I didn't see anything. Perhaps the posts in question were too far back. In any case, if you've spent any time on newsgroups, you know that certain topics are bound to come up many times. To insist that there be no further discussion of matters that have already been dealt with is to limit the newsgroup to an increasingly insular and self-referencial group of "regulars." Thta's useless to almost everyone. If you're not interested in my post, don't respond -- but certainly don't respond by implying that I ought to have spent an additional few hours on Deja News making sure that no one else had had my idea. *That's* a waste of time.

your

Not everyone is a barely pubescent megafan. But, judging from the level of discussion, *many* are.

bob

I'm not looking for friends in this newsgroup. I'm looking for news.

better

mistaken

Not all. Just Bob. Have you seen that FAQ?

Warmly,

Adam

[email] wrote:

i spend time in other NGs but mostly as a lurkerthis is the only NG that i actively participate in

and being a lurker and frequenter (if there is such a word) of NGs i know just how annoying it is to hear "cartmans dad is probably a guy" for the nine millionth time

i never implied that you should spend several hours in dejanews looking up shit but by simply looking at 400 previous headers with "CLIFFHANGER" PREDICTION or CARTMANS DAD or other stuff should have stuck out a little without even having to read the messages

uhohlooks like you have made a point that i cant argue

youre just here to get the facts and get out?i guess thats cool

yes and he did a damn fine job withoutbut if you think that FAQ didnt take a long assed time (its work still in the making as far as i understand) to finish youre wrong

and personally i give him a lot of credit for taking the time to sit down and write that mother out god knows im too lazy to do half the job he did

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:02 -0600, Frank Rizzo offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

All FAQs, by their very natures, are works in progress.

It's not as hard as you'd think, really. I cranked out the majority one night & just added from there.

[email] wrote:

Tell me, does the horseshoe up your ass affect your continence?

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:59:28 -0600, [email] offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

You have a problem with the FAQ? If you mean it's so long and/or detailed, I type fast and have a good memory. It's also fun to say 'Hey, go check out the FAQ that I wrote.'

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:54:01 -0600, [email] offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

True, very true. You never claimed that it was an original idea. I think the problem here actually lies with me. You see, I assumed that any sane and remotely intelligent person would have realized that 99.9% of the South Park viewing population would have come up with that idea long before you decided to grace this group with your staggering revelation. I'm sure that you know what happens when you assume something. Hence, we are at this impass.

Obviously.

There's those assumptions again. At least it wasn't me this time. The outcome is, regretably, the same, though.

See above for misunderstanding.

I don't consider it a failing to not spend time in this group, yet the remark obviously made sense to me. I find your logic curious.

I;m a patronizing shit. Not little, but patronizing nonetheless. I've never made any effort to hide that. I enjoy being condescending, it's quite fun.

Very true.

I was re-watching WG4K a couple nights ago, and just noticed for the first time that when the mayor introduces him to sing his song, his reply is "Thank you, Mr. Mayor"

Anyone else catch this? I thought it was pretty funny.

Doesn't he always call her Mr. Mayor?!?

That's what you're suposed to call mayors, regardless of sex. It's degrading to call someone "Miss Mayor", don't you think? And Mrs. Mayor? I don't think so, children. In fact, I think that's illegal.

Scott Newman Vancouver, BC

I think that Madam Mayor would do quite nicely.
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

I wouldn't call a mayor a "Madam", unless you wanted your property taxes (and no one else's) to go up.

Scott Newman Vancouver, BC

From what I've seen, they usually skirt this by referring to a female mayor as "Mayor So-and-So" all the time.

[email] wrote:

<ebonics>Don't dis my man the rev!</ebonics> (. . . who is, admittedly, a little anal when it comes to correcting everyone's spelling and grammar) Anyway, sonny, don't start a flame war with someone who can out-write you, and, more importantly, out-spell you. Plowboys just off the farm should not try to draw down on Wyatt Earp.