User talk:DorianGray/Analysis of Homsar's Speech Patterns

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Nice project: I don't want to add anything you don't like, but here is my thoughts:

• "AaAaAaAaAaAaA!!! I'm saving the best for last!" - One scorpion goes into his mouth and I guess he likes to eat them.
• "I'm the ghost of Christmas past." - He is dressed as Ghost Dog, and mixing with another holiday.
• "And also with you." - He is insulted and tells Homestar that he doesn't get a ding in reply.
• "I do what I'm told..." - as you wrote: Strong Bad had just told him to get outta his house.

I don't have much time today to go over the transcripts you didn't add, so this is it for now. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 I've brought my best foot flowered 2 Something I'm missing? 3 It's time for tasteball 4 Butterfly effect

I've brought my best foot flowered

I think "I've brought my best foot flowered" could make sense if he meant to say "I'm putting my best foot forward", i.e., he's trying to make a good impression with his character video. — It's dot com 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's possible. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I'm missing?

This article seems unnecessary, very POV, and over-analytical, even for us. I wouldn't be sad to see it go, but, for the time being, I'm not putting a tbd notice on it. --Jay (Gobble) 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was created to directly refute information contained both here and at Wikipedia. It furthers the project because it systematically analyzes a central trait of a central character. It's in the main namespace because it should belong to everyone (yes, works in progress on user subpages can technically be edited by anyone, but it's just not the same); that way, it can be improved upon and maintained by the whole community. It only seems POV because it seeks to draw conclusions, but the process by which it reaches those conclusions attempts to be objective. — It's dot com 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We have an NPOV policy now? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's ever been written as such on any policy pages, but it seems like a knowledge base should be as unbiased as possible. Occasionally "NPOV" can be seen in edit summaries as reasons for changing or removing something. As for the article, I think certain phrases could be reworded to be more straightforward and less of an opinion. I'll work on that a little now. — It's dot com 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This article can go to really speculative levels, with all those interpatations. How do we know that The Brothers Chaps meant all that? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm not saying there's no speculation; I'm just saying that it's based on observation and reason. We allow a certain amount of speculation in fun facts and articles as long as it's relevant and reasonable and if the article would suffer if we left it out. This research page does have a bit more latitude, but that's understandable given its scope. Although it does give an interpretation at the bottom (which, like everything else, can be edited according to consensus), by and large it just presents the facts. No one claims to be able to read TBC's minds, but as long as we don't invent wild, irrelevant theories, then we're good. — It's dot com 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My point in doing this analysis was, as It's dot com mentioned, to objectively observe what Homsar is saying and relate it to the scene in which he said it. In many cases, you can clearly see the connection between his statement and what's going on, and in the cases where that connection ISN'T clear (or there doesn't appear to be one at all), interpretation is limited mainly to "There doesn't appear to be a connection, but this sentence is syntactically valid/correct on its own", etc. I removed as much POV stuff from the article as I could when I moved it to the main namespace. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's time for tasteball

Homestar responds as though he's just informing them that they have to go do something right then. Seems pretty non-random to me. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 21:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'm going to update the article. — It's dot com 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems more to me that it's general Homsar's randomness, but Homestar's too obtuse to notice and thinks Homsar's serious... which would be in character for both of them... --phlip ^T_C 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Butterfly effect

What I'm about to say could easily be said on a lot of pages (and I don't intend it to be a forum-style topic), but it seems particularly appropriate here, given the amount of time and energy that have gone into the character of Homsar, both on TBC's part to create him, make him entertaining, and make merchandise about him, and on our part to enjoy it all and analyze obscure patterns in minute detail. What if Vinnie had been a better proof-reader? The world would be a vastly different place. — It's dot com 00:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Really makes you think, eh? I never thought I'd be glad for misspellings... --DorianGray

True, though if he didn't come about, Homestar would probably just be alot weirder to compensate, or something. I'm sure it would probably still be a pretty similar site. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be weird. I mean, there would be no interview, Strong Sad would be even more lonesome, and there would be no regular use for that "b-b-b-b-b-b-b" sound that Homsar makes while walking. I'm sure someone would have slipped up eventually, inadvertantly creating Hoesta or Ometar or something. --Jnelson09 00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would doubt that Vinnie's was the only email that misspelled Homestar's name; TBC probably picked his from a handful of emails containing mispellings, like "Homstar", "Hometar", etc. (this is somewhat speculative, though) Trey56 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)