Another Cartman thought

Does anybody wonder *why* Stan and Kyle still hang around with Cartman, especially after all he's done. How about putting Butters in his place in their group, and making Cartman an outside kid that keeps getting in their way and stepping on their toes? I think he's become too loathesome, evil, and extreme a character to keep in the central cast.

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

Yes. Cartman must be stopped at all costs.

Crusader Bill K wrote:

Oh yeh, right. Cartman is just too "extreme" -- nothing like any of the other main characters, like the kid who dies every week, or the crack-whore hermaphrodite mom, or....

You've been on this quest to "clean up" South Park for at least a year and a half now. Hasn't the futility of it all sunk in yet? Couldn't you just watch Joanie Loves Chachi reruns and get the same effect?

What the fuck does this have to do with "cleaning up" South Park? I'm just pointing out that it seems stupid and unrealistic on Stan and Kyle's part to be even hanging around with him at this point. And as for the kid who dies every week, his novelty has pretty much worn off for the most part too, and I sense that the writers are struggling to figure out good uses for him and think of a novel way to kill him every episode.

What the fuck does this have to do with "cleaning up" South Park? I'm just pointing out that it seems stupid and unrealistic on Stan and Kyle's part to be even hanging around with him at this point. And as for the kid who dies every week, his novelty has pretty much worn off for the most part too, and I sense that the writers are struggling to figure out good uses for him and think of a novel way to kill him every episode.

If it'll make you feel any better, let me reword it as "central gang" (consisting of the four boys) instead. Now, spare us your trademark hissing, begrudging, agreeing-to-disagree, arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing mode.

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

Look who's talking. What you want is never going to happen. South Park *is* Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman. Plain and simple. It wouldn't be South Park if it wasn't, it'd be some lame spinoff.

They can keep him on the show, but they should designate him a full-blown enemy or something, instead of giving him this dubious friendship with the other boys, which is getting less believable all the time.

"Were his friends...(but) we hate him." Yeah, right.

"We better not piss Cartman off." Quite a gross understatement. More like they'd be idiots to continue hanging around with him.

As for Kenny, he's pretty much space filler now. He hardly even mutters any dirty words lately, which used to be his only other significant role apart from dying.

"Bill K." wrote:

Oh cool, now you're giving out *permission*.

And you deny being a petty grudger who argues for the sake of arguing against select opponents by raising a fuss over a common ordinary expression, totally misinterpreted and taken out of context, like this?

"Bill K." wrote:

Your context is always quite clear and I've never sought to obscure it. Whiny claims of being quoted "out of context" are a very common refuge of the immature. If you can't stand to have your comments challenged, maybe you ought not post anything worth replying to.

Do you honestly consider yourself a "select opponent" just because your statements are being addressed directly?!?! It baffles me how you can whine continuously over your freedom to state your views, yet refuse to acknowledge anyone else's right to dispute them. You are *not* the arbiter of acceptable debate.

I'd still love to know how you equate a challenge with a grudge, but I'm sure your explanation would be even funnier than the rest of this.

Mark

And where, oh where, has there been any mention of giving "permission", or anything hinting to it, in the context of the statement that you were replying to? Here is that original passage once again:

"They can keep him on the show, but they should designate him a full-blown enemy or something, instead of giving him this dubious friendship with the other boys, which is getting less believable all the time."

Permissions? Did I suggest anywhere that they needed my permission for anything? If this isn't a classic example of looking for any little thing to harp about, I don't know what is.

You seemed awfully pissy in your original reply, and I too do recall our previous encounter. You just wouldn't let go, and kept ragging on about repeatedly refuted points, even to the point of nitpicking about word definitions and grammar.

I have to explain to you what "They can...." means?

Duh.

When someone refuses to acknowledge ordinary meanings of ordinary words, there isn't much else to do but point that out.

Never mind, sweetheart. I'm going to post a total retraction so that you can stay in your strange little bubble as long as you want.

Mark

To all readers:

I deeply apologize for my insolence. I had no idea Bill K. was so smart, so correct, and so righteous. I am but a snail in the vaginal sand under his mighty shoes. I have now seen the light and retract all my prior challenges. I further suggest -- no, I insist -- that South Park be reformulated to focus primarily on a non-dysfunctional mountain-town family with wholesome, inoffensive, "The Waltons"-style plots. I shall pray for a change to depictions of decent, respectful folk in episodes about, for example, playing checkers or listening to Christian music, and perhaps -- on special nights -- relaxing on the porch drinking lemonade. This I do pledge.

Sincerely, Your humble inferior

Option #1: Bill's way and piss off millions of Cartman & Kenny fans. Option #2: Do nothing.

My money is on Option #2.

"Bill K." wrote:

Why don't you go clean his ten inch penis?

"See what happens Larry?!" -Walter Sobchak

I agree whole-fartedly

I disagree whole-fartedly. They've done more with Kenny in season 4 than they have in the previous three seasons.

Okay, I guess I kind of overlooked some of the parts that he deserves credit for, and should acknowledge the integral role that he has in the show. The most recent and significant one that I can think of was as "Krazy Kenny". And he was quite crucial for the amusement park lawsuit, and getting his limbs hacked off by the eco-fascists. But overall, his presence in most of the recent episodes have been quite forgettable.

Anyways, make no mistake about it. His appearance in the show has become obligatory from the time of its inception, and I'm not saying they should remove him from the show, or the group, for that matter, but I wouldn't mind if he were used more sparingly and inserted only when needed, without any added pressure on the writers to somehow fit him in and restructure a story around him. Some of his deaths seem somewhat forced.

Ok, then how about they just stop killing him?!

Actually, I don't know if they can do that at this point. Killing him has become such an integral part of the show from the beginning, the fans may not stand for its removal. Even in the few episodes in which he escapes death, they always have to have some sort of variation on the theme (look-alike gets killed, wind up in Mexico while presumed dead, etc.).

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

OMG! You got a clue! Ok, take that "integral part of the show from the begining" concept and apply it to the gang of Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman.

Bill K wrote:

Spare ME, little man. You get bent out of shape whenever your peculiar suppositions don't draw unanimous applause. The "agreeing-to-disagree" slop is very much *your* trademark, and anyone who cares to review the huge thread from mid-January 2000 which spotlighted your true goals and which is still available at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=6c314f08368f4676,133&start=0

will see that. Your exhortations here & now, while less frequent, are quite similar to those you voiced then, and IMO just as comical.

It must be a big embarrassment for you that your somber warnings about the perils of pushing the envelope haven't panned out. Way back then, you droned on for days about M&T's "moral obligation to keep the humour within the boundaries of their basic human principles," and I recall you implying you'd desert the show if it got any meaner. Yet here you are 18 months later STILL WATCHING South Park, which can only be said to have gotten more "offensive" -- especially to folks like you who maintain hopelessly intricate definitions of that word. You're still wishing the show would change to suit your hypervanilla visions, and still laughably denying that you want anything of the sort.

Bullshit! I never said anything about abandoning the show if it got any "meaner" in and of itself. Getting completely classless and out of line against real-life people, particularly in tragic and vulnerable situations, would be another matter altogether. M&T know what's funny and know better not to cross the line. Nothing wrong with shows that resort to gross-out humour value once in a while and depict the darker side of human nature in itself. Never meant what you are insinuating then, and don't mean it now, so stop putting words into others' mouths.

It may disappoint you, but I've heard that even TP have publicly denied that his work is "mean-spirited". Whether or not it's entirely true can be left for the viewers to decide, but M&T obviously don't want to be perceived as catering to the lowest of the trash...like some people.

"Bill K." wrote:

I'm not about to go off and cite chapter & verse, but your record is there for anyone not already convinced to see. The fury and frequency of your "I never said..." remonstrations, and the many times you've claimed that others (multiple others) are putting words in your mouth, evince someone who wants his comments merely accepted, never challenged or analyzed. It's sad.

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

Now you're just sounding pathetic. Arguing through intimidation is the lowest of pre-school debating tactics. You're really coming off as petty and mean-spirited. South Park is a rude show, face the facts. The only kid gloves are the ones the kids are wearing. Don't like it? Fine, don't watch...but don't try to get others to accept your bullshit interpretation just because you've got some sort of internal conflict about what you like to watch.

That was my point w/ the earlier post, better explained. What I was trying to say was that many people like the character of Cartman the way it is -- mean, rude, loathesome, and evil.

I'm sure they would also like to see him get his payback for it too, as seen in the last episode.

Yep. Cartman is the asshole that everyone loves to hate. He also gets the biggest laughs, at least from me. His lines are the best, *especially* when he's being an asshole!

Intimidation? How so? You mean countering a confrontational approach with yet another confrontational approach?

It's unfortunate that this all had to arise from a simple suggestion that S&K should stop hanging around with Cartman, and some bitter-ass with sand in a certain nether region and a big personal grudge had to raise a big stink about it, even to the extent of digging through Google's archives for past dirt.

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

"I'm right, believe me. No arguments, please, I don't have any. If you persist, I'll just call you names and attribute my own actions to you."

What's unfortunate is that you STILL DON'T GET IT. A simple suggestion? Hey, I think Captain Kirk should sell the Enterprise. I think Han Solo should hock the Millennium Falcon. I think the Lone Ranger should shoot Silver and marry Tonto. And you think Stan and Kyle should dump Cartman and Kenny, and pal up with some other kids. Face it: It Will Not Happen. That gang roster *is* the core of South Park. It would not *be* South Park if it weren't those 4 boys. Cuz South Park is, and always will be, Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman. If you don't like that, go watch Ed, Edd and Eddie.

What do you mean? All I did was express an opinion or suggestion, and Mark starts shitting on me. Or is *this* your way of dismissing all opinions you disagree with?

I never said they should dump Kenny as a friend. I was just stating that his use has become quite limited. As for dumping Cartman, that would be the commonsense thing to do. That is not to say they should dump him from the show altogether or reduce their encounters with the "fat fuck" in any way.

I think it can now be said that you, along with your buddy, are the uptight purist with the 'sand' problem, who has a hostile reaction to any suggestion of change.

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

There you go again. It's called "projection". You're not describing me, just what you see in the mirror.

If I had a hostile reaction to change, I'd have quit watching South Park a loooooooong time ago.

You still don't seem to get it. So here it is:

Stan + Kyle + Kenny + Cartman = South Park

That is the gang. Personal changes to core players in live action shows have been necessary, but have generally not been well recieved. In fact, it's usually a sign the show has jumped the shark. M&T know this. You don't. Your problem is that you're afraid to admit to yourself that you actually like the show, rude as it is. And you're hoping that if someone else buys your bullshit, it'll be true. Sorry, life's a bitch like that.

I wasn't the one who started with the bitchiness in this thread. Like Mark, respect him, and agree with him 99% of the time if you will, but you have to admit he is quite a bitter, obnoxious and temperamental fellah.

Okay, fine. I can respect your opinion on this, though I believe tinkering with the structure of the show concerning its core personnel and their interactions with each other may not always be a bad thing. I would even add that the character of Cartman has been changed (made more severe anyways) so much that it may be suitable to somewhat change his role in the show, and the other boys' relationship to him. I mean realistically, S&K&K would have to be absolute idiots to be hanging around with him after all the times that he has betrayed and mistreated them, and almost got them killed.

I have no problem with the rudeness of the program, as long as it doesn't descend to unjustifiable rudeness and nothing but. Nor do I have a problem admitting that I enjoy the program, otherwise I obviously wouldn't show up in a South Park discussion forum. So you can put away the armchair psychologist for now.

BK spewed:

You flatter yourself immensely to think anyone could hold a "personal" grudge against you based on nothing more than your rants here. It is of course clear that you think your opinions have some sort of extra significance. But my only response to that is: Whatever blows your skirt up. To imply that your views affect or concern anybody here excessively or "personally" is just balls-out hilarious. Oh, and the Google search took me all of 10 seconds so it hardly qualifies as "digging." I think you're just pissed that your earlier inanities were cited and are now easily examined.

Grow up. You're acting like a caged animal who can't handle being disagreed with. In fact, you're acting like a certain spoiled, fat animated 8-year-old whose name we'd all recognize.

I don't care. It's not like you showed yourself to have a lot of class in that discussion either, though you are probably oblivious to this fact. You must've had the relevant keywords vividly etched into your mind to get the search done in the stated amount of time.

I face challenges and disagreements all the time. The difference is, they don't all come in the form of jump-the-gun hostility, irateness, and false accusations.

How does breaking Cartman's friendship from Stan, Kyle, etc., or relegating him from the central group constitute the "cleaning up" of South Park?

I'll bet nobody here wonders why.

Mark, oh, Mark, please find us somebody who never does.

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

That's quite an inequality you're appealing to there. It's also staggeringly bad logic. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone huh? Following that logic, no criminal would ever be punished, no mistake ever corrected no matter how severe.

Oh Jesus H. Public Access Christ, how the fuck does the fact that everyone's made a mistake or been disagreed with at least once make *any* difference as to whether or not we're surprised at the fact you're taken to task about damn near everything? Maybe you're just wrong.

Um, anybody who ever expresses opinion about anything knows that there will always be those who disagree with them. What hole have you been living in? Facing disagreements "all the time" is just testament to the fact that I live in the real world and not in some fictitious universe where everybody thinks alike.

He is way cooler than Stan and Kyle, they should consider themselves lucky to be able to hang with Cartman! Especially Kyle, last episode he was a total pussy ass little bitch.

Bernie

"Bill K." wrote in message news:...

Kyle: We just wanna warn you: Eric Cartman, the fourth grader, is goin' tuh try and trick you somehow into getting your weiner bitten off by a pony who lives at Denkins' ranch. Scott: How do you know? Kyle: 'Cause, we're his friends. Scott: Thennn why are you telling me? Kyle: 'Cause we hate him.

Apparently, Stan and Kyle don't think so, and they have to deal with him daily, whewas you don't. :) They accept him as he is because they've known him for so long (since they were babies - "Summer Sucks"), and there must be something redeemable about him... thinking... ah hell, I give up. :)

Because they're friends of his, dude. Don't you remember that South Park episode when they were asked that question, by Pip, I believe it was?

Because that's not how they do things in SP.

There was word that this season one of the kids would "move away." Perhaps that is what M/T are setting things up for.