furrykef wrote:
I agree with both of those points, though I'm not so sure it's a Pokemon reference (I'm thinking, for instance, "type" was supposed to mean "blood type", but not knowing what it was, either The Cheat or the cardmaker chose "Miner"). Bubs is far more likely to call somebody "kid" than Strong Bad, so I do think that's a Monument/Thnikkaman reference.
I did remove the information on the ID card from Fun Facts since it's already in the transcript and a screenshot is shown at StrongBadEmail/cheatday ...duplicating it a third time seems silly to me.
- Kef
In regards to the Pokemon thing, there seem to be some users that see a lot of Pokemon references in everything. I'm not sure how to say this... but I think it might have something to do with their age. (I could easily be wrong on this, but it's something to keep in mind.) I really don't think that any of these types of references work in the Homestar Runner universe. I've never seen anything on The Brothers Chaps that says anything about Pokemon. But I'd still be open to some evidence of a connection...
I agree with Kef's removal of the ID card, since it is in the transcript of the toon. That's not even an issue in my mind, especially under OnceAndOnlyOnce.
EboMike wrote:
Two examples... someone pointed out that Strong Bad calling Bubs "kid" is a reference to monument, where Bubs calls Strong Bad "kid". Okay, not exactly very striking, but the same thing occured to me when I saw that email, and I was actually about to add this bit of information when I noticed that somebody else already did.
Yeah, the "kid" thing was really a kind of a stretch. The only way I would think that could come back is if it worded properly. I'm not really sure how though... But I also thought of it during my first viewing.
EboMike wrote:
Yet, two users removed those entries, with the smart explanations "Probably not" and "Now that's what I call Cohen C. Dense".
I didn't write those entries, so I'm not bitter about them removed, but IMHO it is very egotistical to remove an entry just because you don't agree with it or question its validity. This is especially true when it comes to 'fun facts' where a reference might or might not be coincidental.
I think it really comes down to this here. The people editing other's fun facts. They could have tried to re-word them, and gotten some input from other users. Or they could have left better reasons for their removal. There's never any harm in starting a "Comments" subpage to discuss something, and perhaps we should start encouraging it. I know those "discussion" pages seem to be used well in the WikiPedia, but furrykef would know more about that than I would.
Coming to the forum to discuss it was a good move, EboMike.