Editing Talk:Hremail 2000

==Dipped in ink==
Could the claim in the Easter egg that Shadow Homestar was "dipped in a vat of ink" be a reference to the ending montage of [[dangeresque 3]], where the silhouette of [[Killingyouguy]] was shown to be made by painting Strong Mad in black? It's what came first to my mind, anyway... {{User:Phlip/sig}} 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:Mine too.-{{User:Record307/sig}} 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Oh most definitely. Should there be a page for shadow Homestar, or at least a part of the chacter variation page for hime? He seems like a pretty important duplicate.--[[User:Jellote|Jellote]] 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::[[Shadow Homestar Runner]]. {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't really think the page is neccesary (Hope I spelled that right). It should be under Homestar's variations because that is practically him.---{{User:Record307/sig}} 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::The guy above me is right. Shadow Homestar is merely a slight variation of Homestar. But, Shadow Homestar could come back, and end up just like Homsar.[[User:Origonalname]]

== Shadow Homestar ==
Isn't this a reference to "Shadow Link" in the Legend of Zelda games? We all know TBC are big fans, so possibilities?
--[[User:Lustmyeyes|lustmyeyes &lt;3]] 10:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:I think lots of video game characters have "shadow" or "dark" versions of themselves, it's quite common, from what I can tell. --[[User:That crazy DumDe!|DumDe]] 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::I wish, but the easter egg seems to be referencing the [[Street Fighter]] series. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Mortal Kombat as well. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Since the whole scene is a parody of Mortal Kombat, I kinda think the Noob Saibot line holds some water.  Another "ambiguous reference" about the ubiquitousness of "shadow" characters may also be appropriate. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.21|132.183.151.21]] 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::For what it's worth, the original "Prince of Persia" was almost certainly the first game to have such a "shadow" opponent... predates Mortal Kombat by 3 years. --[[User:dmz|dmz]] 08:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::I think we're best off with the ambiguous reference, like we already have on the page, though i wouldn't mind a nod to noob in the same line, since it IS mortal kombat after all. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Frankly, I'm against any reference at all to Noob Saibot - he wasn't all-black, just gray, and he didn't copy the moves of any character in particular. In his initial appearance, there were MULTIPLE characters that looked like him aside from the color scheme. If it's got anything at all to do with Mortal Kombat, it's almost certainly the mirror matches that were in the original game. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:It's Jung! Carl Jung! The shadow self represents our insecurities, the elements of our psyche we repress! To do battle with the shadow self is to cease projecting these qualities onto others and acknowledge them in our self! -SFC
:: What the crap? What are you talking/spamming about? Okay, Mr. Preacher, could you keep your ramblings to yourself or would you care to explain what you mean? --[[User:Jellote|Jellote]] 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
::: Jungian psychology describes the archetype (the common form present in everyone's understanding of the world) of the shadow self. The shadow self is, as I said, the part of ourself we don't consciously recognise - not necessarily the 'bad' parts, but the parts we don't think of as really 'us'. Part of psychological development, in this model, is acknowledging these elements - engaging with the shadow self, 'doing battle with it', and merging with it to form a more complete, healthy being. So, basically, Jung attributes to this root cause all the mythical examples of shadow selves - and his work predates video games, naturally. -SFC
::::You guys are getting a bit out of hand here. Jung? All I think is that it is similar to shadow link, and nowhere near as important as you guys are saying it is. This is like the Homsar laugh thing from the Career Day discussion all over again![[User:Origonalname]]]

== Multiples again? ==
It should probably be noted that this is another instance of [[duplicate characters]], both with the 3rd Homestar leg (which is obviously not part of homestar when he's shown on the basketball court) and possibly also because of the Shadow Homestar. [[Special:Contributions/72.70.158.239|72.70.158.239]] 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:'''Agree'''. Yeah we should probably note the third leg.-{{User:Record307/sig}} 14:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::Done.-{{User:Record307/sig}} 19:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Except the three leg thing has really nothing to do with "shadow Homestar"... --[[Special:Contributions/71.58.29.180|71.58.29.180]] 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::No one said it did... {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

==Homestar's Arms==
I'm no master at editing wikis, so I think I'll just mention it here.  There should probably be something about how Homestar holds a big sock, then a big shoe, then a bigger sock, and then a bigger shoe, more than someone could hold with two hands (as he lifts them up seperately, and they don't move afterwards).
:There is a place to do that. I'll try to find it for consistancy. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 17:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::Try going [[invisible arms|here]]. I also added a remark on the article. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay, does anyone else think the Chaps are doing this on purpose now? I notice the whole "doing-things-that-would-require-more-than-two-arms" controversy has seemed to heighten somewhat on this wiki lately, so are they just adding fuel to the fire? Do they ''enjoy'' making those who try to find at least some level of vague sense-make in the cartoon squirm uncomfortably in their seats? (Not that I'm one of those people, I'm just sayin'. It's a weird co-weenky-dink.) [[User:Lucentas|Lucentas]] 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I believe one of their commentaries mentioned the wiki, so they definitely know what goes on here. Probably amused their dumb little animal cartoon is causing so much silly bantering. My take is it's, 'relax, it's just a cartoon." And giant hands. Just because they're invisible doesn't mean they have to be normal sized!
:::::He holds them up individually, so unless he has REALLY big fingers..... -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What if he has one arm, holds an item, uses the other arm to put an item in his first arm, takes the second arm, puts the item in the first arm (this part would be hard, but not entirely impossible) and then holds the last item in the second arm (optionally, he could take the third item and transfer it back to the second)
:Yeah, it is actually possible to manipulate your fingers in a way where you can hold all four items at once, especially considering how light even giant socks are.
::I Don't think the Chaps meant to confuse you by having Homestar hold 4 things at once. I think it is more of a goof that they didn't have Homestar put down the extra items. This is one of those things that just don't make all that much sense. Just relax, it's not like it's the end of the world.[[User:Origonalname]]

== Dream ==
When marzipan says that "the whole last season was just a dream", could this be a reference to the infamous ending of the Sopranos Tv series?
:This is the fourth suggestion so far as to what show it's referring to. I think that pretty much makes it something that can't be pinned to any one thing. The other three are Roseanne, Dallas, and Newhart, as seen when i removed them [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Hremail_2000&diff=627207&oldid=627205&rcid=586009 here]. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::Dallas did it first and is most famous for it. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.21|132.183.151.21]] 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::The show Newhart is arguably the most famous as making the ''entire show'' was a dream in his earlier show. But I don't want to get into an argument about which is "more famous", because if one is mentioned, they all need to be. The best way is to make an ambiguous reference. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 21:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a big controversy on how to include a remark about how "the entire last season was a dream." Why not just add a non-specific reference like; "Several prime-time shows have revealed in the season's last episode that the entire season had merely been a dream."? I'm not good at writing these things though, but i'm sure someone could make it sound very good and succinct. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 21:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:Why hasn't anyone else thought of this? Nice idea. -Nonuser mster24
::I'll take a shot at it. [[User:Lucentas|Lucentas]] 21:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay, it's up. Wasn't sure whether to put it in Explanations or Real-World References, but if I've erred someone can move it. I tried to word it as succinctly as I could, but of course if someone can reword it better, go for it. [[User:Lucentas|Lucentas]] 21:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Great summary, that's better than I could have put it. However, I believe that it belongs under Real-World references as it really isn't explaining anything rather than mention something said is referring to a real-life show(s). -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Actually, general references to culture rather than references to something specific go in explanations. it's in the right place. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::I almost changed it, but realized the same thing trying to rephrase it. I like it where it is. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::There has only been one show where they had an entire season which was a dream.  That was Dallas.  This is a direct, complete reference to Dallas. -[[User:Jdhannan|Jdhannan]]
:::-as opposed to NEWHART which was only 8 seasons dreamed up. If I do my math right, NEWHART is 800% more direct than Dallas. My point is, there's more than one show which did that and we have the reference already in the article. We appreciate your input, but this has been discussed. Please see above. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, not necessarily.  One could argue that, by the "math" of the transitive <strike>butt</strike> gimmick property, Dallas:  1 season = 100% direct reference by what Marzi said, whereas Newhart: 1 series/8 seasons = 0% direct reference by what Marzi said.  And as much as love Bob Newhart, I really think Dallas is the most likely reference (this coming from someone who hasn't even seen Dallas, but is just familiar with certain famous attributes, this being one of them).  Having said that, though, I don't think there's a strong enough case to put that specific one in the article, so I don't think there's any other way to do it, no matter how much I hate general, ambiguous references (I usually don't find 'em very useful). (Though I do maintain that Dallas did it first, in the 85-86 season (Newhart ended in 1990), and that they've referenced Dallas at least once in the past, with the [[Caleb Rentpayer]] thing.) -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.21|132.183.151.21]] 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::The Trope link, on the other hand, makes a general reference much more useful.  Anonny satisfied! -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.21|132.183.151.21]] 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::First of all, it would be 800% AS direct, not 800% more direct.  Secondly Newhart presumes the entire series was a dream (and entirely for comedic effect, not even pretending to be realistic).  If marzipan had said the entire series was a dream, then it would make sense.  Dallas is the only series to have had a "Dream Season" which is what Marzipan says -[[User:Jdhannan|Jdhannan]]
:::::The only point I was proving is that Dallas is not the only show that has done it (while Dallas may have been first). All I is saying is that it shouldn't be a specific reference. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Since when is TV Tropes Wiki a reliable source for anything?  -[[User:Ingiald|Ingiald]] 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Since TBC started making reference to TV tropes... {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Show me where they did this.  -[[User:Ingiald|Ingiald]] 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, there's two of them in this very toon, and tons of others all over the place. they spoof pop culture a lot. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Oh.  I thought you meant they referenced the TV Tropes website itself, in which case a link would be appropriate.  As it is I don't see why the links shouldn't be replaced with Wikipedia articles that explain the concepts.  -[[User:Ingiald|Ingiald]]
::::::::::::Because tropes does a better job at documenting and describing them, and is more specific. that's why. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::True as that may be, that's not my point.  Maybe I wasn't being clear enough.  My point in my original edit was that I don't see how TV Tropes is a reliable source.  I mean, Wikipedia's not perfect, but I'd take it over a site that openly says it has few standards and is mostly for fun any day.  I mean, yeah, it's kinda entertaining sometimes, and I get the feeling some people are actually trying provide objective information about common plot devices and media conventions, after visiting that site for nearly two years I get the impression that a large chunk of the contributors are more concerned with informing everyone that Doctor Who/Avatar The Last Airbender/Discworld/some furry webcomic is awesome and every other piece of fiction ever written is crap.  -[[User:Ingiald|Ingiald]] 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:Other shows have done it, but Dallas is arguably the most well-known, especially given the Brothers Chaps' ages.  Not to mention, that website doesn't even mention it, just a bunch of anime references...I don't know if it's really what fits in here.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 13:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::To elaborate, the Newhart ending was itself a parody of the tendency of 80s TV shows to turn to the "it was all a dream" copout to throw away story elements they didn't like, resurrect characters, move the show to Jupiter, etc.  That ending is also widely regarded as one of the best moments in TV history.  In contrast, there was a lot of aggravation that Dallas decided to just throw away an entire season's worth of story as just being a dream, which Marzipan's annoyance definitely alludes to.  Frankly, I think the mathematically questionable attempts to say that it refers to this or that ought to give way to what folks older than 20 or so will recognize as a clear Dallas reference.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just how does TV Tropes do "a better job at documenting and describing [concepts]" than this very wiki? To me, that website is the very definition of ""[[unnatural|an organized forum for people to shout out their ideas all at the same time]]": it's a complete mess of potentially interesting information, which overwhelms the reader due to a complete lack of standards and formatting. You claim that we should make ANY specific references to any examples of "dream seasons" (what's wrong with mentioning just two or three extremely well-known examples?), yet then link to some website that attempts to list every single use of dreams in all the films, TV programmes, anime, manga and video games that it can think of? Do we really need to pass the buck this badly? Instead, we should all take a look at a similar problem that happened a while ago with [[bottom 10]]; the problem involved "songs that try to pass off la la's, na na's, and doot do's as legit lyrics". There are a million songs this statement could be referencing, so it was decided that we would only make three well-known references and leave it at that. A similar solution should be taken with this article; we add a sentence to the fact along the lines of "Notable example of 'dream seasons' include Dallas, Newhart and Roseanne," and an invisble comment asking people not to make any more references. It might be OK to keep the link to TV Tropes if enough people want to, but at least don't leave our explaination of the concept as it is. It just looks terribly generic and wishy-washy unless the link is followed. {{User:The Chort/sig}} 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'd forgotten about ''Roseanne''. ''Dallas'' is the only example I find where the writers wrote themselves into a corner and out of desperation wiped out the whole season. I would not support listing ''Newhart'', as that final episode wiped out the entire ''series'' and was played for laughs. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that I forgot to add an alternative to the Tropes link, so it looks like I'm complaining instead of trying to improve the article.  Sorry about that.  For the record, I think that a general explanation of the concept with one or two references to the most popular examples, like what somebody suggested above, would suffice.  -[[User:Ingiald|Ingiald]]

Can we just add at the end of the reference a couple of examples? Just make it "Marzipan's remark that the entire last season was just a dream refers to a gimmick employed by several television series in which such a revelation is made, usually in the last episode of that season, in series such as ''Dallas'' or ''Roseanne''." I think it would make the reference better, while still leaving it open ended. --[[User:Zonis|Zonis]] 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

::Hey! Every one! May I have your attention please! Might I ask why 65% of this is about something that has absolutely nothing to do with what this was origonaly being talked about? Lets just all do what the Chort up there suggested.I hate stuff that just rambles on and on about pointless jank for ever and ever. let that be my final word! [[User:Origonalname]]

== Homestar's Shoes? ==

Think it should be noted somewheres that Homestar's feet/shoes act like (and are referred to as) shoes in this toon? As far as I know, there's been a dispute over whether Homestar wears shoes or not, and this, especially the puppet show, could possibly confirm that he does.-Nonuser mster24
:Or that he doesn't. Note the fact that in that one closeup, his supposed "shoes" have those gnarly wart-looking things and his leg region is shown to have hair, despite the fact that there's no clear boundary between his "shoes/feet" and his legs. Just another wrench in the works-of-clearing-up-ambiguity is my guess. [[User:Lucentas|Lucentas]] 21:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::Either way, we include references to his shoes on [[Homestar Runner's Pants]]. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 21:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::in the toon about Homestar's pants, it says that he has blue soles glued onto his feet. but yet, here it suggests that he has actual shoes. this is another one of the major goofs of Homestarrunner.com. [[User:Origonalname]]

== Foot Pelts ==
Is this easter egg another instance of [[Strong Sad]]'s implied [[death]]? [[User:Nightsong81|Nightsong81]] 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:Implied amputation isn't implied death. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::It could go here though -> [[Severed Body Parts]] -02:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:Why not? In [[modeling]], Strong Sad informs Strong Bad that poachers have been after his feet.
:: No, no, no, no, no! You people misintuprited this. Strong Bad is walking around in "someone else's slighty larger foot pelts", and he likes the feeling of it. In [[diorama]], it was revealed that Strong Sad wore Dr. Soolnd's Medicated Shoes, so those might not even be his feet, but his "slighty larger foot pelts" that Homestar mentioned. He is wearing Strong Sa's SHOES! At least, that's my inturpritation of the joke. Oh well, maybe not... --[[User:Jellote|Jellote]] 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
== Cow Clips ==

The "Cow Clips" Homestar uses on his shoes are Binder Clips, also known as Bulldog Clips.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binder_clip --[[User:Zonis|Zonis]] 19:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:The transcript already calls them binder clips. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::It's easy to see how someone could go from "bulldog clips" to "cow clips", but to me, it just seemed like some random association Homestar was making. {{unsigned|24.117.107.182|00:14 6 Feb 2009}}

== Swiss-ness ==

"swiss miss" is a brand of hot cocoa and other food-esque items.  to be included in real-world references? --[[User:Neumannz|Zatchman (Neumannz)]] 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:And [[Wikipedia:Swiss Miss (disambiguation)|many other things]] as well. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

== Missle vs. Missal ==

When Homestar says "today's missle," I think he is actually saying "Today's Missal," a publication found at nearly every Catholic church. See: http://www.ocp.org/products/tm Also see the Wikipedia article on Missal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missal
Should this be included in explanations or maybe real-world references?
:It's a [[malapropism]] for "missive". "Missile" has the benefit of being one letter off. "Missal" does not. The pronunciation is the same. I say "missile" is fine. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:I think "missal".  Mostly because both are written materials, a much more closely related semantic field than "missile" would be.  (Although, one could make the argument that Homestar misread a teleprompter or queue card).
::In [[senorial day]] when there was a homonym debate, we put a footnote. -[[Special:Contributions/128.103.10.17|128.103.10.17]] 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::That was a stretch, this is a bigger one.  There's no reason to throw in an uncommon term like missal when the common term will suffice.  Barring some sort of direct mention to the contrary by the Brothers Chaps, I don't see how a footnote would be necessary.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::As I stated above, at least missive and missal share the common semantic domain of written documents, whereas missile does not.  And considering that TBC do have some Catholic roots to them, it's very likely that they could have meant missal.  I do not think you can simply dismiss one over the other without some solid rationale for doing so.  At the very least, "missal" could be added parenthetically. {{unsigned|24.117.107.182|00:02 6 Feb 2009}}
::::*Also, this is further complicated by the possibility that this is a portmanteau of "missive" and "epistle". {{unsigned|24.117.107.182|00:09 6 Feb 2009}}
::::To be extremely nitpicky, they're homo''phones''. If they were homonyms, we wouldn't be having this discussion. ;) I stick with "missile", but a large part of that is the fact that I had never heard of the word "missal" before this conversation. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 09:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

== Long Pants ==

Remember when Strong Bad asserted that Homestar "simply has blue soles glued to the bottom of his feet"?  Should that be mentioned?
:Since they don't mention it in this toon, I don't see why it should be mentioned in the wiki. Also, this toon clearly indicates that Homestar is wearing shoes, since he mentions them by their brand name, and he shows a couple of larger versions of the same shoes.--[[User:Cheesius|-- Cheesius]] 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

== Power forward ==

Why isn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_forward_(basketball) power forward] explained? [[Special:Contributions/24.165.150.118|24.165.150.118]] 23:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:Who knows? Feel free to add it if you'd like. {{User:GuardDuck/sig}} 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::I added the explanation, and I also explained what it means to "post up" and I clarified "in the paint" a bit, but I'm sure what I wrote could be worded better. By the way, this is my first time editing. [[User:Willstar|Willstar]] 05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Art Stockton ==

I hear "Technical foul ''on'' Stockton", not "Art Stockton". &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:I would agree that that makes SLIGHTLY more sense, however, the "T" is clearly audible. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::it makes entirely more sense. In that "On Stockton" makes sense, and "Art Stockton" doesn't. Also, that "clearly audilbe T" isn't. I hear "on" every time.[[User:Nightsong81|Nightsong81]] 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Is it "Art"? I think so, but I'm not 100% sure. What I ''am'' 100% sure of is that it is ''not'' "On". And even if it was, who puts the stress on a preposition? --{{User:Jay/sig}} 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh, and one more thing. "Art" makes ''exactly'' as much sense as "Stockton" in this context &mdash; it's short for "Arthur". --{{User:Jay/sig}} 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Definitely "Art Stockton" rather than "on".
::::After cramming my left ear up to my computer speaker and listening to it like 7 times, I deduced that it's "on Stockton." {{User:GuardDuck/sig}} 03:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I hear on, myself. -[[Special:Contributions/128.103.10.17|128.103.10.17]] 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Sounds like on to me, he's just talking like a referee.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Just listened to it again.  I don't know how on earth someone could interpret that as "Art."  It's clearly "on."  There's not even Homestar's usually twisted version of R present, let alone a T sound.  Short O is something Homestar is not known for having trouble with, and that's clearly what he's saying.  Might want to clean the wax out, guys.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 05:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::No, it's clearly "Art."  Try turning the volume up on your speakers or something. {{unsigned|24.117.107.182|00:07 6 Feb 2009}}
::::::::Uncertain on how clear the "T" is, but a) it sounds ''exactly'' like when Homestar attempts an "R" (or "awr"), b) there isn't a clear "N" either, and c) I re-stress the stress. If it was "On", one would think the stress would be on "Stockton", but it isn't; it's on that first word. If one was to say (as though it were a name) "Art Stockton", the stress would more likely be on "Art". --{{User:Jay/sig}} 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Other possibilities, BTW, include "Arn" (short for "Arnold") or "Ott" (short for "Otto"). --{{User:Jay/sig}} 06:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: Ok, although I've clearly heard "on Stockton" every time, I went ahead and sampled that part of the toon and slowed it way down in Audacity. I think it makes it very clear that he's saying "On Stockton." Here's a link to the mp3 so you can hear it yourself and decide: [http://www.efn.org/~jbl/hsr/stockton.mp3] --[[User:Cheesius|-- Cheesius]] 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: He's saying it funny because he's talking like a referee would in such a situation.  "This action...on XX...this penalty!"  No offense to anyone, but I think you're crazy if you're hearing "Art."  There's nothing even vaguely resembling it there, nor does it make any sense in that context in a way that would lead to a punchline.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::He's clearly saying "'''on''' Stockton," because he's assessing the foul ''on'' Stockton. Perhaps you're hearing "Art" or "Arn" because of the echo. And for that matter, the most well-known player named Stockton to ever play basketball was ''John'' Stockton. [[Special:Contributions/24.165.150.118|24.165.150.118]] 09:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Still doesn't sound like "on" to me. Besides, who said he's referring to a basketball player? Homestar's playing "baskeeball". Which, apparently, uses first downs. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 23:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing what looks like consensus here. Suggest removing the extraneous footnote. [[User:Nightsong81|Nightsong81]] 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
: What consensus are you seeing? The footnote stays. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed... this isn't consensus... and he doesn't say "on". {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, it seems like <strike>two</strike> three people think it's Art and a lot more think it's on (.. and it is), which is more of a consensus than cases that have been called consensus before. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.187|132.183.151.187]] 00:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::And by a lot I mean, like, 7 or so... -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.187|132.183.151.187]] 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think you need to learn the not-so-subtle difference between consensus and a vote. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::The difference is consensus is what's accepted here and vote is not.  Talking about prior cases on the wiki would never refer to a vote, unless STUFF is involved.  And to address a separate issue, one of the arguments for Art is that the T is supposedly clearly audible, but then it's also claimed that "Arn" is possible.  (Even if it were "Art", I think "Arn" is much less likely.  It's a much less common nickname, imo).  So which is it?  Audible T or no T? -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.187|132.183.151.187]] 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I am unable to make out the consonant fully at all. I think it's a "T" and don't at all believe it's an "N"; I merely suggested "Arn" as an attempt at compromise. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 01:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::K, well, if nobody seems to think it's Arn, I think the footnote is better with just Art. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.187|132.183.151.187]] 01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Jay, you're hearing the "T" in Stockton and attaching it to the first word. It's '''on'''. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 04:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Right, I'm hearing the "T" in "Stockton" ''before'' the "S". 9_9 --{{User:Jay/sig}} 05:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Think about it from a common sense perspective.  They're trying to be funny: what's funny about "Art" or "Arn" or "Ott?"  Nothing.  There's no punchline; even when the Brothers Chaps are random, there's some sort of punchline to it, like Homsar's nonsensical response to Strong Sad asking him if he was going to say anything in DNA Evidence.  Their references are always direct, joke A to popular culture point B.  Stockton makes sense as a reference to John Stockton, an NBA player; Art Stockton makes no sense, and isn't funny.  I've never, ever heard anyone use "Arn" as short for Arnold, or "Ott" as short for Otto, ever.  I think that if you have to stretch the logic way out and create a web of connections to justify a reference, then barring a direct mention from the Brothers Chaps in a commentary or something it shouldn't be considered a legitimate reference.
Good grief, I can't believe I'm still going on about this.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 04:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
: What's funny about "On"? I already said I believed it was "Art" and only introduced the others as potential compromises. What reference? And the punchline was most obviously the "first down" part (if not the part where the puppet is appearing ''at all''.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 04:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::As I and the anony above said already, he's talking like a referee in a football game (randomness with a punchline) assessing a technical foul against "Stockton" (Marzipan).  It's very simple.  Don't make things so complicated in this; like I said, the more you try to find some sort of twisted web of logic to justify an extreme reference, the less sense it will all make.  The most obvious reference is probably the right one, again barring something to the contrary from the creators.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 05:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::In what way am I making this complicated? I'm simply saying that what I hear is closer to "Art" than "On" and I don't see how making it "On" makes it any funnier as you previously said. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 06:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I agree with Big Dog. He's saying "on Stockton." As I said before, I think you're all hearing the echo and it's muffling what's actually being said. For the referee to say "Art Stockton" doesn't make any sense, even when it comes to TBC being random. [[Special:Contributions/24.165.150.118|24.165.150.118]] 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Sure it does. Think of it this way, what if he said "False start, Larry Smith, five yard penalty"? would you say that that made so sense? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, that does make sense, but like I said, Homestar's playing basketball (even if he pronounced it weird), and John Stockton is the most famous "Stockton" to ever play basketball. That being said, to say "Art Stockton" doesn't make any sense at all, even for TBC. I just don't see how anyone could think it's anything other than the referee assessing the foul "'''on''' Stockton." [[Special:Contributions/24.165.150.118|24.165.150.118]] 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It makes every bit as much sense as [[Happy Hallow-Day|every]] [[Cool Things|other]] [[cheat talk|time]] TBC randomly mention the name of a character who doesn't exist, so yeah, this fits with TBC's style entirely. Anyway, the argument's pretty moot by now. You've already essentially won. The transcript says "On", which it did not do when this topic was created. The footnote is there to show that there is a disagreement. Removing the footnote would show that the people who originally argued for the footnote's point have recanted &mdash; which is obviously not the case. This is this Wiki's standard. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Well, there's no footnote in Jibblies 2, even though the arguers didn't recant. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.34|132.183.138.34]] 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::To add to the counterargument, your claim that "it makes no sense because he's playing basketball" actually goes to support our side... the whole sentence is supposed to not make sense. I mean, have you ever seen anyone get a first down in basketball? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Which is the entire point, which is why "Technical foul, on Stockton" is what he said.  He's a referee, calling a foul, albeit in a football-ref style with a football penalty.  Which is the entire joke.  Can we please vote on this and get it over with?  I think this rivals "gamble/gambol" for most inane debate ever on this wiki.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Voting has never really been Wiki policy outside of the now-decommissioned STUFF (which this wouldn't fall under anyway). And I reiterate: if nothing changes from how it is now (as opposed to when the debate started), you win this debate. So you asking to vote comes off as nothing more than attempting to hide that there ''is'' a debate. (After all, the "gambol" footnote is still on [[Senorial Day]], is it not?) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:For whatever it matters at this late point in the debate, I hear "on". My theory as to why people hear "art": Homestar uses a rather gravelly voice which makes the "n" sound more articulated than it really is. Maybe? Just a thought. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
::As a football referee, "Art" makes just as much sense. The "on" would be implicit, and the foul is on "Art Stockton". If "False start, Larry Smith, five yard penalty" makes sense, then so does this. Or i'll make it even clearer. If "Technical foul, Larry Smith, first down!" makes sense, so does this. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 10:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::The thing is, though, foot ball refs give penalties in the format of "(Foul), '''Number (jersey number)''', Offense/Defense, (penalty)." They do not say "(foul), '''(player name)''', (penalty)." So if you want to talk about what makes sense, neither "on" nor "Art" make sense. Also, it should be noted that no one named Art Stockton ever played basketball in anything above high school. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Visible Seam" in goofs? ==

I don't see the visible seam on my screen, no matter how much I zoom in. It's possible that it's just my monitor, so I'm not going to erase that entry or anything, but I just thought I'd bring that up. Does anyone else see it in the current version of the toon? Maybe it's a fixed goof? --[[User:Cheesius|-- Cheesius]] 22:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:It has been fixed. I didn't see it, so I changed the section to "Fixed Goofs" and reworded it. {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::It hasn't been fixed because it was never broken. It is simply untrue. I have removed it. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

== Inside references. ==

Does this toon somehow contribute to the idea of Homestar wearing long pants? 

The big shoes he held up go over his foot to where his ankles would be, but his shoe puppets only flapped like sandal soles with inlays for tongues.

== That's a lot of emails ==
I'm not sure if this is more notable here or in [[Hremail 7]], if it's notable at all, but if this the two emails' numbering is taken at face value and Homestar was supposed to have checked 1,993 emails between 2001 and 2009 (assuming this email isn't taking place "in the future", which there's no evidence of) he'd having to be checking on average somewhere between four and five emails a week over the course of eight years.  Anyone think this is worth noting anywhere?  - [[User:Ingiald|Ingiald]] 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
: The thing is, the numbering is intentionally wonking. There is no evidence he checked any emails besides the ones we have seen.
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ::: Jungian psychology describes the archetype (the common form present in everyone's understanding of the world) of the shadow self. The shadow self is, as I said, the part of ourself we don't consciously recognise - not necessarily the 'bad' parts, but the parts we don't think of as really 'us'. Part of psychological development, in this model, is acknowledging these elements - engaging with the shadow self, 'doing battle with it', and merging with it to form a more complete, healthy being. So, basically, Jung attributes to this root cause all the mythical examples of shadow selves - and his work predates video games, naturally. -SFC
 ::::You guys are getting a bit out of hand here. Jung? All I think is that it is similar to shadow link, and nowhere near as important as you guys are saying it is. This is like the Homsar laugh thing from the Career Day discussion all over again![[User:Origonalname]]]
-It's a Scott pilgrim Reference! Also, I didn't realize Jungian philosophy was literally my cartoon's concept of "Insecurites", the evil shadow beings that are, exactly what he described! ----[[User:Jeffjman|J∃ffJMan]][[File:jeffjsigchrismas.png|23px]] 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 == Multiples again? ==
@@ Line 74: / Line 73: @@
 Can we just add at the end of the reference a couple of examples? Just make it "Marzipan's remark that the entire last season was just a dream refers to a gimmick employed by several television series in which such a revelation is made, usually in the last episode of that season, in series such as ''Dallas'' or ''Roseanne''." I think it would make the reference better, while still leaving it open ended. --[[User:Zonis|Zonis]] 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
+::Hey! Every one! May I have your attention please! Might I ask why 65% of this is about something that has absolutely nothing to do with what this was origonaly being talked about? Lets just all do what the Chort up there suggested.I hate stuff that just rambles on and on about pointless jank for ever and ever. let that be my final word! [[User:Origonalname]]
 == Homestar's Shoes? ==
@@ Line 185: / Line 186: @@
 I'm not sure if this is more notable here or in [[Hremail 7]], if it's notable at all, but if this the two emails' numbering is taken at face value and Homestar was supposed to have checked 1,993 emails between 2001 and 2009 (assuming this email isn't taking place "in the future", which there's no evidence of) he'd having to be checking on average somewhere between four and five emails a week over the course of eight years.  Anyone think this is worth noting anywhere?  - [[User:Ingiald|Ingiald]] 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 : The thing is, the numbering is intentionally wonking. There is no evidence he checked any emails besides the ones we have seen.
-::I think jumping from 64, all the way to 2000 is a bit wonky. I think they should have had a more suttle number, like one in the mid hundreds.
-== Compu-turds ==
-Does any one but me fin it strange that from hremail 64, allo the way to hremail 2000 Homestar has the same computer? and why havent he seen hardly any Happy Hremail? I hate how the Brothers Chaps can really screw up time lines. [[User:Origonalname]]
-:This talk page is for the discussion of the accompanying article on the wiki.  The [http://forum.hrwiki.org/ forum] would be an appropriate place to bring this up. {{User:GreenHelmet/sig}} 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
-::I would do that, but I simply suck at making threads. It would be better if some one could who is better at that kind of stuff could do it, and then tell me.
-==First Down==
-Since all of the basketball terms have explinations, shouldn't the concept of a first down be explained? And I feel like the use of a term for the wrong sport should be referenced as a gag somehow, but I'm not sure what catergory it falls under. Any ideas?
-:Yeah, definitely. Surprised that wasn't already there. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
-::I was kinda hoping someone else would add it in but no one did, so I put in a very basic explination of a first down. I'm no good at explaining sports though, so I think someone else should probably fix it up.
-== Fat-OW!-lity ==
-You think it is worth mentioning that the OUCH that appears at the end of the ''Mortal Kombat'' sequnce is reminicent of the words "Fatality" that appear in ''Mortal Kombat''?