Matt and Trey killed South Park.

By not putting any "new" episodes on until this summer and doing nothing but continually recycling old episodes, Matt and Trey have sealed south park's death warrant. Sure, the movie is good, and the episodes are funny, but if you can't maintain interest, it's no good. They put the kids in fourth grade, threw about 8 episodes in, and then forgot about it to go work on Bush. These 'new' episodes won't generate much attention, I'd think.

I certainly hope you are wrong. I have been waiting patiently for new episodes. The Bush junk is a bust. It was a good idea. Unfortunately, the material that made it to the television was trash. Not funny, not biting, not intelligent, not clever, not watchable. I believe the fan base for South Park is still strong. Hopefully, a small hiatus will not erode it too substantially. After all, what is there on TV to compete with the likes of South Park? Anything on Cartoon Network? That poor network is so overly censored that result goes beyond sad. Basically, I hope your opinions are wrong. Alex Cain wrote in message news:[email]...

Cartoon Network sucks! They now show mostly Scooby Doo plus all of those Scooby's spinoff shows and movies. They should just call it Scooby Network now. They used to have great classic Hanna Barbera cartoons on Cartoon Network (Magilla Gorilla, Yogi Bear, Quick Draw McGraw, etc.) but then they created Boomerang which most cable companies like mine do not carry and all those cartoons moved over there. They need to cut down on all the Scooby Doo crap and let some other classic cartoons back on Cartoon Network's schedule. Just my two cents.

In article , [email] (Jerry Roche) wrote:

True, as it should just show old Warner Brothers' stuff. Now, what has that got to do with South Park, which isn't on Cartoon Network?

Oh, wait, it's a webtv person. Nevermind...

And what is wrong with WebTV users, Howard? We WebTV users have as much a right to give our two cents about South Park, Cartoon Network or any other topic. Somebody else brought up Cartoon Network on this topic so I responded. If you don't have something nice to say Howard then don't say anything at all.

In article , [email] (Jerry Roche) wrote:

I see, so you have a right to give your two cents about Cartoon Network in a completely irrelevant place, but I don't have the right to pick on you for it? Nice. Meanwhile, you uncle-fucker, I suggest you look in the mirror and ask yourself why you expect anyone to respect your double standard.

What's wrong with WebTV? Well, it used to be that the most clueless people on the net came from AOL. They'd come in, thinking that AOL was the whole net. They had no clue as to what was going on, no clue as to what netequette was, and they were picked on mercilessly.

Then came WebTV, which brought in people even more amazingly ignorant than AOL. So now you're the net's "pick-an-ethnic-group" people.

Gee Howard---Now that you have campagned for "Dick of the Internet" can you hop off your holier than thou Im on the real interent" soapbox. the web-tv guy had a point. the subject of the Cartoon network was brought up earlier in this thread. If you could get your mom to read all the posts to you instead of selected ones, you would not make such a public ass out of yourself.

In article , [email] (ConnMoore) wrote:

Gee, I don't feel like an ass. I -do- smell one, though. Y'see, I'd have to care what you thought to make an ass out of myself. <GRIN>

Ah yes.....so now we go to the "Well I dont give a crap what you think"

Excellent...lets build up your sociopathic resume a little more.......

Get a little class Howard....I'm sure you can buy some, or at least borrow some from one of your human friends. You were wrong to attack that guy, instead of saying so you resort to this crap.

He doesn't have to apologize for jack shit. He's entitled to his opinion of whatever, and that includes picking on AOL and *especially* WebTV users. If you don't like it, get out. Or whine and bitch, as you have just done. This isn't alt.tv.missmanners. This is alt.tv.southpark. The discussion doesn't revolve around "class," but frank, explicit, profane, and perhaps offensive discussion about a TV show of similar attributes.

p.s. I gotta give credit to Jerry Roche, or at least to whomever set up his WebTV account. He's the absolute first WebTV user I've seen who does not post in HTML. His post doesn't play fucking lame MIDI music, either.

Get off your bitcvhes ass. he was a jerk to someone about a post...it has nothing to do with the service this guy was using. Jump in half way then think you know what you are talking about..he made an incorrect assumption about someone because he did not look at all the threads in the post.....You just did the same thing......I guess all Hotmail users are morons.

Yeah, he was a jerk about it. So what? And what makes you think I have no idea what is being discussed here? I read the entire thread before posting. I read *all* the threads here, with the exception of the irrelevant crossposted shit that ends up here every now and then. I've done so for a hell of a long time. Check the archives. Or do you even know how to do that? Dipshits like you come and go all the time. *You* are the fucking moron that made the incorrect assumption. I guess that saying about AOL users is still true. Do you even know why I use Hotmail to post, fuckwad? "Holy shit!! -- he has more than one email address?!"

Well lookie here--Some 14 year old on his new Gateway that mom and dad bought him is talking about what a great internet poster he is.

Pretty funny--you say in one sentence he was a jerk about the way he posted.....Then just leave that.....Since that was my entire point it is nice that you agree. I made no wrong assumptions...maybe you did read all the threads...but you sure did not comprehend them. On the rest of this....just because you post a lot...does not mean you are any less or more a moron.

And congratulations on getting more than one account.......here----have a cookie.

Are you talking about yourself? 14? Try 30, and I've been using the net for well over a decade as well.

Nice try. We can both say that he was a jerk about it. Big deal. Yawn. What you did was more -- you jumped on him for doing so. See the difference? If not, you again miss the fact that this is not a typical NG.

Wrong assumption #1: That Howard did not read the existing thread before posting.

Wrong assumption #2: My age.

Wrong assumption #3: My brand of computer.

Wrong assumption #4: That I "jumped in half way." I did not make the first post, that much is obviously true. So, is everything posted afterwards in the same thread considered "jumping in half way"? Or do you define "jumping in half way" as posting without reading the earlier messages of a thread? If the former, you're wrong. If the latter, you were wrong about me. One of my pet peeves is when people post to a thread w/o reading it first. This is one of the last things of which I should be accused.

Wrong assumption #5: That I did not comprehend any given posts. I assure you that I have full comprehension of the English language. I challenge you to show any post I made here whatsoever indicating a lack of comprehension on my part. Lack of knowledge? Sure, that's one reason for NGs, so we can ask others things we don't know.

Wrong assumption #6: That just because I said that Howard was being a jerk about the issue means that I agree with you.

Wrong assumption #6A: That saying that someone was being a jerk about something inherently is a slam against that person. WebTV users should expect to be picked on and treated badly. Go Howard!

Did I say that posting a lot makes one smarter? Or did you just _assume_ I meant that? I mentioned that I posted a lot here to emphasize the point that I sure as hell know what is going on in this newsgroup, and have for years. *You* are the one who does not know what's going on in this newsgroup...its tone...etc.

Missed the point again. Oh well.

30 going on 12--You are seriously pathetic........Mom should kick you out of the basement and finally make you see the real world.

you know--knowing how many times Kenny died had nothing to do with this. If Howard is a jerk....he obviously needs to be told about it..since he is apparently incapable of knowing when it happens.

And I was pointing out--that in your case at least--posting a lot does not help ones intelligence one whit.

Who gives a crap if you know what is going on in this news group---Howard is a jerk--and you are a moron for automatically defending him...because of some preconceived notion about web-tv users..and some sort of misguided crush you have on him.

No--i got the point very well----you missed the point of WHO GIVES A CRAP.

Is that what happened to you?

?? Did I say it did?

Again, did anyone ever say that it did?

You are assuming again. I'm not even sure I like Howard, save for the fact that he disdains WebTV users. I *could* easily use your "logic" and say that you have a crush on WebTV users, but since I don't consider that logical at all, I won't.

Okay, so you get the point? Prove it.

In article , [email] (ConnMoore) wrote:

Ah, you just didn't like what I said about AOL users.

HA! I dont care--we are bigger than you!

Worship Case.....he is your God.

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

Aiieee! I missed a single post! Fuck me up the ass with a red hot poker, I'm EEEEEEVILLL!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get one thing straight: if I want to be a jerk, I'm a gonna do it. This is a great newsgroup in which to be a jerk, because it's -expected- here. Other times, I've straightened things out here. No biggie.

Will do!

In article , [email] (ConnMoore) wrote:

Nah, just potential Spammers.

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

I've got to admit that lots of WebTVers learn to turn that crap off. No I don't... but I will anyway.

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" writes:

Gag! I can't say I've ever encountered that before...

In article , [email] (ConnMoore) wrote:

How do you figure? He struck me as a less-than-cluefull WebTVer.

Because like every less than cluefull newsgroup snob...you looked at the service this guy was using--rather then actually looking at the post he made. He was commenting on a previous post---and you jumped all over him because of some preconcieved notion that because he uses web tv--he is less wothy to post then you are. Pretty damn lame

More assuming on your part. How do you know that any given person didn't read a post and looked at the address first? How do you know the post wasn't read first, and then the email address checked?

Look...I am becoming aware you are slow......So i will try and keep this simple for you. This newsgroup is dying...because of the lack of new episodes, and a general decline of interest in the show. This guy comments INNOCENTLY on a post in this newsgroup...and bozo boy gets all over him for not staying on topic...then trying toi use the fact that he uses web tv as justification for him being a jerk.

The Web Tv Guy was COMMENTING on a previous post...he did not start the thread about the cartoon network. Now quit with your knee jerk reaction to things just because i called your boyfriend out on being an idiot.

Pretty good justification, imo.

No shit! Who said he did?

Knee-jerk? Explain how my posts in the thread are any different from yours, except for being more clearly written and less-filled with assumptions.

Freaking typical....And now I know that your posts originate from a moron.

Maybe you can tell me now about the cool yahoo account you have...or maybe Earthlink, to really impress me.

Im amazed you can generate enough electricity in that tiny brain to type......must put a strain on your entire nervous system.

If you want to play circle jerk games with your litle friend...more power too you...but keep your petty net elitism to yourself.

It was INTERESTING that your boyfriend goes after the Web Tv guy--yet never comments on the guy that started the Cartoon network thread.....Grow up---its pathetic---

Interesting, seeing as how my typing is considerably better than yours. And on the subject of net elitism, I have no interest in making this NG a friendlier place for WebTV users. The less there are here, the better.

The original comment about the Cartoon Network just mentioned that it had nothing to compete w/ South Park due to censoring. The post he attacked was *all* about the Cartoon Network and various programs it plays. It mentioned *nothing* about South Park, or even censoring.

Of course you dont...since more people out here means more people can see what an idiot you are. Self preservation...it does make sense to me. All animals have it.

What a nonsensical argument...for me to care about being considered an idiot by someone, I have to care what they think about me in the first place. *Nothing* I've written indicates that I care one iota about what WebTV users think of me. Personally, if I don't respect someone, I also don't care what they think of me.

My slow little friend...i wrote nothing about respect or giving a crap what other people thought. You being an elitist moron is not a matter of opinion...its fact. You are simply an idiot. nothing more or less. It covers all your sins and all yourapparent learning disabilitys.

I like getting more than one opinion or idea in this newsgroup...your tiny little minnd looks at where that opinion came from..and you make a judgement on that.....I understand why, since you can't seem to grasp concepts and ideas from words, you just use your preconcieved notions about what service those people are using, and use a blanket judgement about them to form your "opinions".

Really?
===============================================

ConnMoore replied:

=============================================== The comment you made above about my "self-preservation" via getting less WebTV people here requires that I care about and/or respect what they think. So, yes -- you did write something that involved giving a crap what other people (WebTV'ers) thought. Since I don't give a crap what they think, the point falls apart.

So, in your eyes, am I "simply an idiot...nothing more or less," -- or am I also "elitist"? Which is it? You can't even argue with your own constructs. LD, now? I'd say look in the mirror if it wouldn't be insulting to other learning-disabled people. Go ahead and spew your repetitive ad hominem attacks. It's obvious you have little else to bring to the table.

I like getting more than one opinion as well. I also like to pick on WebTV users, as do many NG regulars. Your curious defense of a group that is 99% annoying and clueless suggests that you may have recently "graduated" from WebTV to AOL yourself. Congrats on moving from "Clueless Lamer" to "Clueless Jackass."

For your next self-enrichment exercise, try improving your vocabulary, gaining understanding of the correct usage of an ellipsis, and taking a course or reading a book on logical reasoning. The latter may help you w/ the syllogism of writing arguments that don't self-contradict and/or depend solely on ad hominem attacks & repeating refuted assumptions.

In the meantime, I will flame WebTV users and the occasional AOL'er *if* I feel like it, _particularly_ in this newsgroup -- a point that you never understood and probably never will. However, if you check the archives (assuming you know how), I doubt you'll find any instances of me flaming WebTV or AOL users simply because they use their respective ISPs. Their ISP of choice becomes the subject of the flame because the behavior is so common to those two ISPs, but they would not have been flamed if they hadn't posted off-topic, in HTML, have their posts playing music, typed in ALL CAPS, tYPeD LiKE tHIs THinKiNG iTZ kEWL, etc.

To pick on someone for their ISP choice, I would have to first know which ISP they used. Yeah, I perform added steps on each and every message among the thousands I read every week just to see that information. Yeah. They have to be annoying first before I check such information.

What you are doing is akin to defending a person's "right" to ride a bike w/ training wheels in regular traffic. I would say sure -- go ahead if you can do it without bothering other traffic. If you can't, prepare for a litany of honking.

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" writes:

<snip!>

Hmm... but aren't the three of you now posting *extremely* off-topic?

No, I'm not flaming anyone -- just posting a thought I just had. You may continue flaming each other now.

Mark. 8) - proud member of the WGPS and the SDA! - UtenaCode(1.1) U:6+ F:Wa++>Hi+:pBR D:Sh-->Sa< X:[**]:a39++ M:f:"Toki Ni Ai Wa" "BE HAPPY FOR ME AND MY SHOE. O_O" - Verthandi

OT in a way...and now so are you! ;-) Thanks for adding OT to the Subject: above. I forgot to do so.

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" writes:

D'oh! x.x;

Oh, well. My "d'oh!" moment for the day.

Mark. 8) - proud member of the WGPS and the SDA! - UtenaCode(1.1) U:6+ F:Wa++>Hi+:pBR D:Sh-->Sa< X:[**]:a39++ M:f:"Toki Ni Ai Wa" "BE HAPPY FOR ME AND MY SHOE. O_O" - Verthandi

Being an idiot and being elitist are not mutually exclusive. You can be both...I would think in 3 years you could have bothered to have bought a dictionary.

Yep=----little Pavlov Dog got shocked when going for hsi food...now he is afraid of his food. Typical of the small minded to generalize.....You continue to prove you double digit IQ.

Some of us can get beyond this cica 1996 net elitism. it does not matter where people post from. maybe you can finally grow up and realize that. i am not holding out much hope.

<<<>course or reading a book on logical reasoning. >>>

Oh you mean the chapter on disliking posters because of the internet provider they use? They seem to have left that chapter out of my logical reasoning text.

It is amazing that someone as dim as you has lasted this long....the charitys in whatever town you live in must be very giving.

You go ahead and stay in your tiny little safe nerd world..........let me know if you ever mature into the teenage years.

Swing and a miss again. Did I say that being an idiot and being elitist were mutually exclusive? Read it again. Being *also* an elitist is mutually exclusive with being an idiot...*nothing more or less*. Compare the sections between the asterisks, in other words.

Good!

<<<>course or reading a book on logical reasoning. >>>

And many other chapters as well, apparently. Anyway, if you can't be bothered to read and comprehend what is posted, then you aren't worth talking to. I already said that WebTV'ers are not picked on solely for their ISP choice. To do so would require too much wasted time checking for such info. They are picked on for their ISP choice *after* they acted in some annoying fashion.

Let me know if you ever have any arguments of substance. Your replies have broken down now into little more than name-calling. <Yawn.>

What? Did you even bother to read this? " Being "Also" an elitist is mutually exclusive with being an idiot????"

Are you seriously this stupid? Yes brainiac---you can be an elitist...you can be an idiot. You can do both at the same time. You prove that every single day.

You know......your protestations about not caring about what other people thought? You might want to reconsider that, since it is blindingly apparent that you are completely without any self awareness. I really do have a tough time believing you are 30 years old. It has nothing to do with your writing ability or argumentative style. It is simply that you are just not a very bright person. You defend ideas and philosophys that most people have outgrown before they reach their senior prom, yet you are indignant that anyone calls you on it. The points you have decided to defend are "We are jerks, so deal with it" and "I want to maintain my right to dislike people based on their internet provider"

Obviously you do care what other people think, because old Howard, the guy that started all this, decided to make a comment, acknowledge that he had not read everything in the thread, but still said "I dont care, I dont like web-tv users." And then practiced what he preaches, by moving on. He does not care what I think and shows it by making his point, as lame as i think it is, and moving on. You, on the other hand, meet and exceed every stereotype of the nerd net user that there is. You have some sort of "Pecking order" in your head about various internet providers. You actually think about things like setting up seperate accounts to avoid Spam. It is like we opened a time capsule from 1997, and out you hopped. Your ideas and philosophys on the internet are outdated. I am sorry that I am the one that has to educate you on this, especially since you dont listen to anyone else, but it is true.

So here you go.....I dont intend on trying to explain this to someone as dim as you are anymore. Being as predictable as you are. (And trust me...you are very predictable) you are going to get all fired up over this, as you feel like I have disturbed some sort of South Park newsgroup etiquette. So go ahead and make your response. You need the last word in order to feel like "you won". Any response you make after this, I will not make comment on. You can then puff yourself up and feel like you have defended your principles of ...well actually I dont find any priciples in what you say and think. Well you are defending whatever it is that passes for important in that less than stellar brain of yours. Good luck in the comic shop and with keeping newsgroups safe from new posters.

No, it is you who have failed to read correctly *again*. You said that I was an "idiot...nothing more or less." Then you immediately say that I was "also" elitist. If am ________ *nothing more or less*, it follows that I can't "also" be something else.

Didn't say that. Said that I didn't care what *WebTV users* thought of me. Read, for cryin' out loud.

I maintain my right to dislike anyone based on any reason. But, you have again failed to read that I do not automatically dislike someone based on their ISP. Keep replying and snipping out my detailed explanation of that, if you think that somehow makes you look more clever by repeatedly accusing me of the same thing over and over.

I don't think he did. He was being sarcastic. You took that statement out of context. If you read another post of his, you'll see he states that he did read the messages.

Again, I said that about WebTV users. You are damn close w/ AOL, but I discuss w/ you because I do care what some other people think of me. Not WebTV users. Not you.

The "pecking order" of which you speak is not in my head. It is as follows, starting at the bottom: WebTV, AOL, everything else. And yes, I do think about things like setting up accounts for spam. What of it?

If you want to believe that, fine. I have used the net heavily for over 10 years. I have been a computer consultant for longer than that. You can say or believe whatever you want, but I am well aware of the state of the internet. I'm also aware that you don't like most of what I say, but oh well.

Never said that. You've disturbed not much at all really. In fact, you've done more disservice to WebTV by having this discussion with me. No one would have said a damn thing if you hadn't piped in after Howard made a single sentence tease about WebTV. It would have been forgotten long ago.

I don't need the last reponse to know that sort of thing, which I don't care about anyway. Go ahead, post the last response if you want. The only reason I would reply is if you misquoted me or otherwise address my words out of context, etc.

We can only hope, but of course go ahead if you change your mind.

I'm crushed.

In article , [email] (ConnMoore) wrote:

I suggest you check the order of comments in my original reply. I tacked the bit about WebTV on at the end, when I noticed it. Not that you care.

I wouldn't say he was less worthy to post. Well, maybe I would. But then, I'd lose most of the newbies (read: only been on the net since 1995 or later).

"Howard S Shubs" wrote in message news:[email]...

Actually, I thought he was a more-clueful-than-usual WebTVer. He didn't post in HTML, with a sig that'd put a teenage chick's webpage full of cat pictures, midi files, and banner ads to shame. But he was off-topic, so fuck him.

"Jerry Roche" wrote in message news:[email]...

Good thing Trey and Matt never adopted that philosphy.

In article , "Jeff Bishop" wrote:

And I'm not about to. This newsgroup is fairly rough. People get picked on, called names from the movie, and etcetera all the time. If people have such thin skins that this bothers them, they should go elsewhere.

Actually, I think even they have toned down their act a little bit, or at least, have come to make a point of sugarcoating it by denying that their work is "mean-spirited", though I think they're full of shit on this. Maybe being reckless with others' feelings is something that they could get away with as "cool" when the program began and they were still in their twenties, but now that they're in their thirties, and their audience is also a bit older, they're probably expected to conduct themselves with a bit more class, not to mention not burning all their bridges by being too undiplomatic if they want any sort of career after SP.

In article , [email] (Jerry Roche) writes:

He's a little cranky because he's got some sand stuck in his vagina.

In article , [email] (Jerry Roche) writes:

I'd be surprised if they weren't clipping out parts of Scooby Doo either, for that matter.

At risk of wandering further off topic, Hanna Barbera must have the largest collection of lame cartoons I've ever seen. Oh yeah, don't even bother watching the new ones either; pee yew!

"Alex Cain" wrote in message news:[email]...

So just what the fuck are you doing hyah? Jesus, if you like old episodes, watch old episodes. No one's got a gun to your head saying you have to watch only shows which have never bee shown before. Hey, you can even go and do something like read a book, walk in the park, etc. You must be really pathetic to think anyone gives a shit that you think SP is over.

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:3b132221_1@news3...

episodes,

<snip>

or have they hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

lol

"Cartman" wrote in message news:9evpso$jht$[email]...

|

Clyde-frog says that's highly unlikely.