Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2505
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy » Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:57 pm

lieph82 wrote:
John Boy wrote:
nserven wrote:I really hate these music sales stat FJs.
Likewise. While I recognize anything is fair game to be a clue, this strikes me as the sort of obscure, you-know-it-or-you-don't that I hate.

I couldn't figure how long someone had to have been in the business to be no longer considered a newcomer, and guessed Lady Gaga (although I thought if she had been the right answer the clue would have been a trick question, as it said "singer" while all she is is a self-promoter).
Even though Gaga was in the clue as a comparison? DId you think Gaga and Lady Gaga were different people?
Actually I just now noticed that myself. As they always say, RTFQ.

I stand here red-faced with shame.

aeq5006
Valued Contributor
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:04 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by aeq5006 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:16 pm

alietr wrote:I'm not going to tolerate incivility
Well, the Pledge of Allegiance in uncivil, so your deletion of complaints about it strikes me as "tolerat[ing] incivility". As does deleting my posts, but retaining posts criticizing them, even ones that are outright dishonest and that obliquely call me a troll.
on here or unnecessary obscenity.
If blatant bigotry is not sufficient to justify obscenity, then I don't think anything is. If you wish to declare a blanket ban on obscenity, I am quite willing to abide by that, but I think that you should explicitly say so.

aeq5006
Valued Contributor
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:04 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by aeq5006 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:18 pm

El Jefe wrote:Yeah, if exchanging currency with G-D on it is also blatant bigotry. It's as bigoted as those proselytizers John Denver and George Burns were when they launched their offensive Oh God! You Devil campaign of cinematic indoctrination.
Dismissing bigotry with absurd straw men strikes me as falling quite solidly in the "incivility" category.
Frankly, aeq, over on the thread where you talked unsupported trash about Arthur we are feeling quite jealous.
I didn't "talk trash". I asserted an opinion that I am quite willing to defend, but refrained to doing so out of concern that that would be hijacking the thread.
I mean, willingness to say incendiary things here to prove a point (of some kind): mission accomplished!
I find the fact that "Bigotry is bad" is considered to be "incendiary" to be rather disturbing.
But Jeebus, earlier your Joe McCarthy act got checked and you have nothing further to say?
Expressing disapproval of someone is a "Joe McCarthy act"? I did not get "checked"; I posted a claim, and left there was initially no response to it other than sarcastic responses. Now that my my concerns of being accused of hijacking have been allayed, I have posted a more lengthy discussion of my views.
Enjoy living under that bridge.
And more incivility.

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 9230
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Bamaman » Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:03 pm

aeq5006 wrote: If blatant bigotry is not sufficient to justify obscenity, then I don't think anything is. If you wish to declare a blanket ban on obscenity, I am quite willing to abide by that, but I think that you should explicitly say so.
Nobody on here stated an opinion on the pledge of allegiance, you should send a profane letter to the lady on the show asking her that question if it bothers you that much.

User avatar
naurae29
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:57 pm
Location: Miami

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by naurae29 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:03 pm

aeq5006 wrote:
alietr wrote:I'm not going to tolerate incivility
Well, the Pledge of Allegiance in uncivil, so your deletion of complaints about it strikes me as "tolerat[ing] incivility". As does deleting my posts, but retaining posts criticizing them, even ones that are outright dishonest and that obliquely call me a troll.
on here or unnecessary obscenity.
If blatant bigotry is not sufficient to justify obscenity, then I don't think anything is. If you wish to declare a blanket ban on obscenity, I am quite willing to abide by that, but I think that you should explicitly say so.
My critique of your post was deleted, but you apparently saw it before it disappeared. Let me reiterate: Kindly stop making atheists appear to be monolithically hysterical. You're not helping.

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Vanya » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:08 pm

lieph82 wrote:
John Boy wrote:
nserven wrote:I really hate these music sales stat FJs.
Likewise. While I recognize anything is fair game to be a clue, this strikes me as the sort of obscure, you-know-it-or-you-don't that I hate.

I couldn't figure how long someone had to have been in the business to be no longer considered a newcomer, and guessed Lady Gaga (although I thought if she had been the right answer the clue would have been a trick question, as it said "singer" while all she is is a self-promoter).
Even though Gaga was in the clue as a comparison? Did you think Gaga and Lady Gaga were different people?
Maybe he was thinking of Radio Gaga.

User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by lieph82 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:08 pm

I think your best recourse is to go on Jeopardy!, and during the interview segment, say you refuse to respond to Alex's prompt cuz Jeopardy's in the KKK.

bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by bpmod » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:11 pm

lieph82 wrote:I think your best recourse is to go on Jeopardy!, and during the interview segment, say you refuse to respond to Alex's prompt cuz Jeopardy's in the KKK.
Now where's that "like" button?

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Vanya » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:17 pm

aeq5006 wrote: If blatant bigotry is not sufficient to justify obscenity, then I don't think anything is. If you wish to declare a blanket ban on obscenity, I am quite willing to abide by that, but I think that you should explicitly say so.
If you need to be told not to use obscenity, you should go somewhere else.

User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by El Jefe » Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:12 am

aeq5006 wrote:
El Jefe wrote:Yeah, if exchanging currency with G-D on it is also blatant bigotry. It's as bigoted as those proselytizers John Denver and George Burns were when they launched their offensive Oh God! You Devil campaign of cinematic indoctrination.
Dismissing bigotry with absurd straw men strikes me as falling quite solidly in the "incivility" category.
Exposing your leap in logic to ridicule was my goal. It is fairly reasonable that if someone is offended by "under God" in the (optional) pledge that they should be offended by the (completely f'ing mandatory!) "In God We Trust" on the money. It's pretty basic- are you saying you're not offended by the word God on the money? It's a big wide world- I guess there might as well be such things as militant atheists, but I don't see those inter-non-faith coalitions happening anytime soon.
aeq5006 wrote:I didn't "talk trash". I asserted an opinion that I am quite willing to defend, but refrained to doing so out of concern that that would be hijacking the thread.
Yes, and that's why I said you should start your own (nasty-titled) thread, and I meant it. If you're more open about your dealings way people will find it easier to engage or dismiss. Break it out, bro! Call yours "Pledge of Allegiance Fans Are Bigots" and trot out your manifesto already.
Last edited by El Jefe on Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 6676
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Volante » Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:23 am

Well, I had the wrong logic, but the right answer.

Madonna did the Super Bowl halftime show in 2012 (not last year as I initially thought. I guess I blacked out on last year's.) Course, maybe she didn't cash the check til the following year? :lol:

More likely it reminded everyone she still existed and was able to use that to her marketing advantage.

aeq5006
Valued Contributor
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:04 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by aeq5006 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 am

Bamaman wrote:
aeq5006 wrote: If blatant bigotry is not sufficient to justify obscenity, then I don't think anything is. If you wish to declare a blanket ban on obscenity, I am quite willing to abide by that, but I think that you should explicitly say so.
Nobody on here stated an opinion on the pledge of allegiance, you should send a profane letter to the lady on the show asking her that question if it bothers you that much.
This a board for discussing Jeopardy! I am discussing Jeopardy! To not discuss the Pledge of Allegiance comment is to normalize bigotry. And several people have clearly implied an opinion of the pledge.
naurae29 wrote:My critique of your post was deleted, but you apparently saw it before it disappeared. Let me reiterate: Kindly stop making atheists appear to be monolithically hysterical. You're not helping.
And did not see my response rebutting your response?
Vanya wrote:If you need to be told not to use obscenity, you should go somewhere else.
I don't believe that the issue can be properly discussed without profanity. "People who promote blatant bigotry are doodie heads"? Doesn't really properly describe my feelings. I thought this was a board for grown-ups.
El Jefe wrote:Exposing your leap in logic to ridicule was my goal.
Then you failed.
It is fairly reasonable that if someone is offended by "under God" in the (optional) pledge
In what sense is the Pledge "optional"? In the "It's perfectly reasonable to expect six-year-olds to be constitutional scholars, and know they have the right to not say it" sense? In the "There's no place in the country where saying 'I refuse to say the pledge because I'm an atheist' gets you beat up" sense? In the "Atheists don't have to deal with the effects of children being indoctrinated through, among other things, daily recitations of the pledge into believing that Christians are due special privileges" sense? In the "Atheists are not forced to give tax money to pay for the schools in which it is recited" sense? In the "If atheists decide they don't want to listen to it, so they refuse to go to school, they won't suffer any consequences" sense?
It's pretty basic- are you saying you're not offended by the word God on the money?
I'm offended by the presentation, on the money, of a religious sentiment as if it were a prerequisite of being part of the American community. What this has to do with Oh God!, I don't see.
It's a big wide world- I guess there might as well be such things as militant atheists, but I don't see those inter-non-faith coalitions happening anytime soon.
Huh?
aeq5006 wrote:Break it out, bro! Call yours "Pledge of Allegiance Fans Are Bigots" and trot out your manifesto already.
Why would I need a manifesto to explain why the pledge is bigotry? It's evident to anyone who honestly examines the issue, and anyone who isn't willing to honestly examine the issue isn't going to be convinced by a manifesto, anyway. What's next? Are you going to ask for an explanation for why asking black people to sit at the back of the bus is wrong, too?

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Vanya » Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:36 pm

aeq5006 wrote:
Vanya wrote:If you need to be told not to use obscenity, you should go somewhere else.
I don't believe that the issue can be properly discussed without profanity. "People who promote blatant bigotry are doodie heads"? Doesn't really properly describe my feelings. I thought this was a board for grown-ups.
Yeah, we could care less about your feelings.

bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by bpmod » Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:37 pm

I couldn't.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Vanya » Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:46 pm

When I went to school in Canada, they sang "God Save the Queen." I sang "My Country 'Tis of Thee" at the top of my lungs. No one seemed to mind.

User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by El Jefe » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:42 pm

aeq5006 wrote:
It is fairly reasonable that if someone is offended by "under God" in the (optional) pledge
In what sense is the Pledge "optional"? In the "It's perfectly reasonable to expect six-year-olds to be constitutional scholars, and know they have the right to not say it" sense?
Are you really prepared to deny my experiences without even having heard about them? Do you really think it takes a law degree to make up your own mind about saying the pledge? Without soliciting opinions can you really make assumptions or projections, convinced in your certainty? If you were forced at bully-point to recite it, that's unfortunate, but it does not necessarily portray the universal experiences of refusniks.
ElJefe wrote:It's a big wide world- I guess there might as well be such things as militant atheists, but I don't see those inter-non-faith coalitions happening anytime soon.
aeq5006 wrote:Huh?
Do you intend to persuade anyone (that indeed the pledge or clause is unfair) or do you just want to blast? If it's the former then less militancy in your vilification would be appropriate. Shouldn't all communicators respond to their audiences? How about a simple "Hey, anyone else out there take offense to that? Boy does that stupid clause get my goat." That way you won't blow a small detail up (in the least important section of Jeopardy) into a mountain of discontent. You're upset about it. We get it. We're not going to resolve any of the legal issues today but it certainly qualifies as a peeve.

User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 8235
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by econgator » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:48 pm

El Jefe wrote:
aeq5006 wrote:
It is fairly reasonable that if someone is offended by "under God" in the (optional) pledge
In what sense is the Pledge "optional"? In the "It's perfectly reasonable to expect six-year-olds to be constitutional scholars, and know they have the right to not say it" sense?
Are you really prepared to deny my experiences without even having heard about them? Do you really think it takes a law degree to make up your own mind about saying the pledge? Without soliciting opinions can you really make assumptions or projections, convinced in your certainty? If you were forced at bully-point to recite it, that's unfortunate, but it does not necessarily portray the universal experiences of refusniks.
*nod* Back when I was in 6th grade (late 70's), we had two kids in our class -- 1 an atheist, 1 a Jehovah's Witness -- who did not recite the pledge. Somehow, they knew they had the right not to say it and to stand up (or sit down, in this case) for that right. No one made fun of them or beat them up or stole their lunch money.

User avatar
skullturf
Married to a Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Miami

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by skullturf » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:52 pm

El Jefe wrote:Do you intend to persuade anyone (that indeed the pledge or clause is unfair) or do you just want to blast? If it's the former then less militancy in your vilification would be appropriate. Shouldn't all communicators respond to their audiences? How about a simple "Hey, anyone else out there take offense to that? Boy does that stupid clause get my goat." That way you won't blow a small detail up (in the least important section of Jeopardy) into a mountain of discontent. You're upset about it. We get it. We're not going to resolve any of the legal issues today but it certainly qualifies as a peeve.
Exactly. All sorts of things can come up on Jeopardy!, including things related to religion or politics, or our school system or our legal system, and so on. It's fine if something moderately controversial occasionally comes up in our conversations here.

But, as is sometimes said to performers, "Read the room." The strength of the rhetoric should fit the context. I, in fact, am somebody who supports the older version of the Pledge without the words "under God", but there are such things as picking one's battles and knowing one's audience.

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Rex Kramer » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:04 pm

ElendilPickle wrote:
El Jefe wrote:Half of the time Alex screws up a movie quote rhythm or accent too much to appreciate it, but he honored the Airplane! line awesomely. (MOVIE QUOTES- $1600
I got this because someone posted a link to it here not long ago.
I got this because . . . oh, never mind.

Rex

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Rex Kramer » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:20 pm

Wow, I hadn't checked this thread before today, and apparently I missed out on a lot of high-level intellectual discussion. I'm not quite sure I understood all the big words, but I think the gist of it was: If Arthur Chu were to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, he would burst into flame. Don't do it, Arthur! Not until after the ToC at least!

Rex

Locked