Talk:Emails Taken in a Different Direction

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

What should we do about emails like long pants and the paper where he tried to twist the email, but the email twisted itself back onto the topic? Bad Bad Guy 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Long pants: complete twist; no one tried to get H*R to wear pants or even asked why he dosen't wear pants (SB just noted it), and the email was misread. The paper: no twist, whole thing was spent on the topic of the paper's "death". That Game Dude 386 00:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


[edit] More than 2 problems?

There are a couple issues with this article before it is cleaned up. First, the title should be clearer. The idea is fine, but I don't immediately think of "twisting emails" when I am considering the idea of using an email for a tangental idea. Secondly, the page needs to follow standard format:

*Email [[email]] — blah blah blah

Thirdly, examples of where Strong Bad goes off on a tangent should be moved beyond the Tandy 400 era and sectioned appropriately. Finally, some entries need to be cleaned up. For example, the bird doesn't fit, since "giving somebody the bird" is slang for flipping people off, which is the subject of the email and Strong Bad's response. wbwolf (t | ed) 15:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Facts

The DeFender1031 says: I removed a bunch of facts from this page, here's the removed facts and why:

[edit] i love you

  • In the email i love you, Strong Bad mentions nothing about anything in the email besides his/her name.

There wasn't anything more to the email except "i love you" and he replies that the feeling isn't mutual before going off on the majority of the email (as the name is longer than the email itself). — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] credit card

  • In the email credit card, he receives an email from John and some people trying to steal Strong Bad's credit card number, he shifts the email to be about "Homestar" and uses his credit card information to buy things on ""

How is this twisting? He's responding to the email by using it to his advantage. — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i she be

  • In i she be, Strong Bad is sent a phony email saying a girl was named great looking girl. After he plays along with it, he yells at her saying he gets a lot of emails like that and from "ladies with proper grammar" but then feels sorry for her. Thinking that he shouldn't let the email go to waste, he sends it to "The Cheat", later they text each other on an I.M.

What part of this is twisting? — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trevor the vampire

  • In the email trevor the vampire, since Trevor doesn't finish the sentence, Strong Bad tries to make an email in his honor, thinking that "they" got him.

How is he supposed to respond to a half-finished email? Trevor didn't even say anything for Strong Bad to twist! — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Well, he DID address for him to do something other than memorializing the email, the vampire thing had nothing to do with the email itself.

[edit] studying

  • Email studying — he "advises" Roy to stop studying and spend time with his girlfriend. He later tries to steal his girlfriend, but he says that doesn't know her name or where she lives.

Again, not twisting anything. — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stand-up

  • In stand-up, Joe p. wants him to do stand-up comedy. He repeatedly states "no", trying to avoid telling about an embarrassing thing that had happened to him before. "Strong Sad" comes in shortly after to show a tape of Lil' Strong Bad doing stand-up, somehow ending up in his pants falling for no real reason.

This is a blatant lie, not a twisting of an email. — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I think it sort of qualifies as both.

[edit] CGNU

  • In the email CGNU, Strong Bad, instead of telling how to graduate at CGNU, he ends up making an advertisement for it. Also revealing that CGNU is not a real college an applying for it is just to make fun of you.

He is asked how someone can graduate from CGNU and he responds with an ad about getting your degree from CGNU, makes sense to me... (the disclaimer at the end is a throwaway one-liner, and could also be construed as a "you can't" response to the email. either way, it's not a twist.) — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flag day

  • In flag day Strong Bad goes immediately from introducing the flag to singing the Strong Badia song.

He shows everybody the flag, what more do you want? Is it not proper to sing one's national anthem as you raise the flag? — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] property of ones

He responds. Then goes into his bogus theorum. Not twisting, elaborating. — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC) The ORIGINAL description addressed that he sometimes trails away from the email, confuses facts, AND "twists" the email.

[edit] little questions

  • In little questions Strong Bad gets an email from a Swedish person, misspelling things and making grammatical errors throughout. Strong Bad responds in what he knows of how the Swedish talk, instead of answering without leaving a big question on what just happened.

He responds to gibberish with gibberish, as best he can. What's the problem here? — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] marzipan

  • In marzipan Strong Bad goes from Emily's question about how nobody ever sees him with any girls. She mentions that the only girl she's ever seen even near him is Marzipan. Strong Bad then starts ranting that Marzipan can't keep her "hands" offa me (although this is entirely untrue).

Again, a blatant lie, not a twist. There are instances where an email can have more than one running gag in it, so don't shoot down every instance like that.

[edit] In addition

There are a few that I left in that aren't blatantly going against the subject of the email, but still don't answer it entirely, which raises the question, what is the scope of this page? Is it about instances like big white face and homsar where the intent is clearly one thing but he does the complete opposite, or should it include instances like retirement and rough copy, where strong bad sort of does what's asked but not really, or goes off on some unrelated tangent without first answering the email? (ones where he does first answer it definitely don't count, and i removed a bunch of those above.) The ones that are still there that I am referring to in particular are:

Thoughts? — Defender1031*Talk 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be those that aren't blantantly going against the email, but still don't answer it completely, about instances like big white face and homsar, and include instances like retirement and rough copy. KlingOnMyDreams 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been invited to add old comics and no loafing to the list here. While I'm at it, Defender, can I ask, what consensus are you talking about? Barely 2 hours ago you undid my own removal of these from the article, but all of a sudden you've been convinced of a consensus and you've gone ahead with these removals and more? Where was any of it discussed and who participated? I'm just wondering because it's not clear to me what makes action acceptable, since mine was not (to you) but your own (nearly identical one) apparently is. 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Because i didn't think they belonged there to begin with, but i didn't remove them until i saw consensus. The talk is fragmented all over this page and edit summaries in the history, but after this edit it seemed to me that there were enough people in favor of the removal and none against. I AGREED with you from the start, i just wanted to wait for more consensus to be sure. — Defender1031*Talk 00:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, you're right, a username is a good idear. Tenderly, I remain... Cableman Jorge 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emails from the Intro

I hope 3 days afterwards isn't too late for me to bring up this thing from the intro I shortened:

If I remember these emails correctly, he didn't even try to twist them. He created Dangeresque as proof he didn't need a stunt double, he brought up Limozeen because some kid asked him to help come up with band names, and he kicked The Cheat to show what he would do if a little animal came up to him. Bad Bad Guy 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Never did it mention he TRIED to, but it DID say that they WERE created whether or not it was intentional

The point of my post was that these emails were not "mixed up" at all. Bad Bad Guy 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention Kicking The Cheat predates Strong Bad Email. Bad Bad Guy 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] monster truck

  • Email monster truck— Stan and Loretta ask Strong Bad if he has ever done advertising for monster truck shows. He then twists it into him doing voice overs for Strong Badia events.

What is twisted about answering "do you do monster truck commercials" by making fun of a monster truck commercial????? You might as well have said that japanese cartoon was twisted because Strong Bad did not hire any Japanese cartoonists. Bad Bad Guy 19:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email tags?

Since this page can only have appearances in emails, is it necessary to write "Email" at the beginning of each line? — Defender1031*Talk 16:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I think it needs a new name. No ideas though. Anyone else got any? — Defender1031*Talk 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout Ignored emails. KlingOnMyDreams 16:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, that sounds like it's just talking about the unused emails. He's not ignoring them, he's doing the opposite. — Defender1031*Talk 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppisite? KlingOnMyDreams 16:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks DeFender for taking care of three of the four issues I identified and it looks like there are still plenty of content there. How about "Tangental responses"? wbwolf (t | ed) 19:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, i think that the scope of the page needs to be clearly defined before we can come up with a name. — Defender1031*Talk 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If anything, I thing "emails" in the title needs to be capitalized. Homestar-Winner (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
But of course. We're still left without an actual name... — Defender1031*Talk 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
How 'bout "Strong Bad forgetting the task in an email"? He can't say job. Don't say jorb 101 Seriously, he can't say job!
Too long, Clanky! TOO LONG! Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Derailed Emails", "Hijacked Emails", or "Diverted Emails" :) ☮y P … "Biscuitheads!" … 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We should definitely change it. I like "Hijacked Emails" best so far, but I don't think it's a very good title. Loafing 00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Off-topic sbemail (responses)" I created the article, and when I did, I too was puzzled with a title name, but I thought it could be discussed. So, as the creator, I agree with Off-topic Sbemails

How about "email spins" The-homsarrunner 6:34 Jan,13,2008 (UTC)

But...I like "Derailed Emails"! Not only does it describe what happens in each email, it rhymes! – The Chort 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not comfortable with the Derailed Emails name. I've been thinking and how about calling it "Diverted Emails" or just "Disregarded Emails" following the wording of the intro? For now I'm removing (commenting out) this from the Strong Bad Email navigation template. --Stux 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"Derailed emails" implies a trainwreck, but these emails are nothing of the sort. I like something along the lines of "Taking it in a different direction", drawn from one of the primary examples, or any of Mr/Mrs/Ms/Other Stux's ideas just above. --Cheating the signature dealio 2:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Disregarded emails is not a good idea because it makes it sound like Strong Bad did not answer them at all. Bad Bad Guy 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"emails taken in a different direction"? — Defender1031*Talk 00:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On the one hand, it's a bit long. On the other, it matches Strong Bad's wording in 1 step ahead. I rather like it, actually. Heimstern Läufer 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep this article name.

de·rail (\di-ˈrāl, dē-\); transitive verb

1: to cause to run off the rails
2 a: to obstruct the progress of b: to upset the stability or composure of

I would oppose "Emails taken in a different direction". It is too long, and article titles do not really need to make references to anything. In fact, that just makes browsing the wiki more difficult.

An exception would be Bogus Mathematical Theorems, but then again, Strong Bad explicitly stated them all to be just that, whereas he has explicitly taken an email in a different direction once. I like "Derailed Emails"; it's short, simple, definitive, and there's no better word to replace derailed that I can think of off-hand. Keep. --Sysrq868 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I like"Emails Taken in a Different Direction". It's not that long, and of all the proposed titles so far, it does the best job at accurately describing the article.--.Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 07:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wha bou' Disregaurded E-mails?--Homsarm 16:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"Disregarded" makes it sound like he deleted the emails without reading them. Bad Bad Guy 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been open for four and a half months. It's time to close it. At present, there is no consensus, although a few users have converged on Emails Taken in a Different Direction. As I see it, we can have one of two things happen: 1. We can, in the next few days, come to a consensus to change the title, or 2. We don't, and I'll close the discussion as no consensus and default to keeping as is. Heimstern Läufer 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
While unhappy with the accuracy of "Derailed Emails", I find "Emails taken in a different direction" slightly long. Hmmm, I guess I prefer accuracy over short and to the point, so I'm leaning towards the new title if we can indeed agree on it. Loafing 04:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, as Heimstern pointed out, the new title matches Strong Bad's wording in 1 step ahead. Excellent suggestion, I'm all for it. Loafing 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Emails Taken in a Different Direction - or Emails Taken in Different Directions, which may be better - is more canonic, and though a little long isn't really a bad length. Rename accordingly. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Throwing in my support of the new name. -DAGRON 06:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Move to mails taken in a different direction. Bad Bad Guy 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like we reached consensus after all! I've renamed accordingly. Heimstern Läufer 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Pointless and a worse name. And nice concensus. What, three people? Four? A wikiposturing joke to be sure. "Oh no he decided to Be Bold and changed the name after discussion stopped for a long time. We can't leave it like that! Why? ... Because!" Pfft. -- 04:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A modicum of respect for others' opinions would be appreciated, please. As for the new name, I count seven supporters, not three or four (DeFender1031, myself, JohnnyJupiter, Loafing, Qermaq, DAGRON and Bad Bad Guy). I recognize that there was some support for the existing title, notably from SysRq and yourself, whom I assume based on your comments to be the user who boldly moved the article before. I'm not going to comment on the merits of this action (it honestly may have been helpful in the long run by rekindling discussion), nonetheless, there was a very high degree of support for the new title, overwhelmingly more support for it than the old one. This is consensus, not some posturing move. If you don't like the new name, fine. We don't make people like the results. Heck, I'm still pissed we merged Blistergeist. But I certainly don't call ideas supported by others "crap" over it. Heimstern Läufer 05:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and in case you didn't notice this part: there was a point at which I was about ready to close this as no consensus, back when there were in fact only three users supporting the new title. I did not lightly decide there was consensus for the rename, and certainly not as some sort of retaliation for your not having followed process earlier. As long as our article content is not compromised and we don't start trolling contributors, we can hang process as far as I'm concerned. I moved this article because there was overwhelming support for the new title, not because it was moved out of process the first time. Heimstern Läufer 05:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered?

Let's not allow this to go un-answered, then: Under what scope do belong emails in which the question in fact was answered, at least to the best of SB's ability? I'm talking specifically about no loafing and old comics which didn't before seem to fit in any proposed or imagined scope, but I was instructed to hold my horses and not delete those until a re-name was decided upon. For reference's sake, the history including justifying comments is here: As you can see, I've stated why the emails were in fact not un-answered. 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also see that neither of these emails are among the examples where Defender is calling attention to, and attempting a discussion of, the scope of the page. Why not? Is it because an answer, or at least a genuine attempt at an answer, is present in each of those emails? 23:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's because i didn't notice those, you're welcome to add them to that list. Personally, i think that the scope of this page should be only the times where strong bad specifically does the opposite of what the sender is asking, like big white face or 12:00. — Defender1031*Talk 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The Chort believes old comics is "the perfect example of a derailed email". I've grown neutral to its inclusion because it's too hard for me to figure out if "the KOT's always had a poopsmith" truly means "I don't know". Bad Bad Guy 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's as about as derailed as what I want, which is still on the page. --Trogga 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Should I go put it back? Bad Bad Guy 02:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What links here

Right now, Defender's userpage is the only What Links Here. Was that true earlier? Were links to this page removed? Is this ultimately intended to be a Category or anything like that? It's funny, none of the early contributors appear to have made any links to this page. But as long as we're discussing the scope of the page, let's look forward to what the endgame will be once the page is actually in shape. Tenderly, I remain, Cableman Jorge 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, did not realize that. MEh, once we're done, we'll add links to the various pages involved — Defender1031*Talk 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If derailed emails don't count as inside references, where should we put the links? Bad Bad Guy 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

It needs some rewording. Strong Bad does not completely ignore the email. Each time it is somewhat, though not exactly, related to the email sent to him. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I put "Disregards" as opposed to "Ignores". It makes all the difference to me, but if it seems wrong to anyone... :B ☮y P … "Biscuitheads!" … 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Would you like to see the book from 1 step ahead used as a picture? Bad Bad Guy 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an image there now, so I see no drawback to you putting in this image. Be bold, you know? OptimisticFool 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Badathlon

I still think it counts. He does not do the stuff they requested. If I summarize it like this, the randomness is even more evident: "Throw The Cheat or beat up Homestar! No! We're going to make fun of the olympics tonight!" (I've just been bothered with the email's randomness for months now) Bad Bad Guy 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I added it. Homestar-Winner (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You've got a good point, but throwing the Cheat and Greco-Roman Homestar crud-out-of-beating are events in the contest, so TECHNICALLY it's not derailed.

[edit] New Commando Name - DONE!

It's been re-named, so, I'll do away with the {{rename}} template. Tenderly, I remain, Cableman Jorge 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the page was moved prematurely to "Derailed" before there was any real concensus. The rename discussion is still ongoing. --DorianGray 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's just that people want to name it what they want to name it, and everyone has/had different ideas, none of which seemed to be agreed upon by any two people at that point - so I figured I'd be bold and just go with something that fit. Saves the trouble of never-ending discussion as opposed to action, which is what we're clearly seeing. *disappears forevers* -- 03:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not cool. We edit this wiki as a team and try to find consensus before making changes like this. Moving pages while the discussion is still ongoing is counter-productive and will even make it harder to end the discussion properly. Loafing 03:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it got moved to a crap name. -- 04:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sick Day?

Should Sick Day be included here, even if it's a Short Toon and not technically a sbemail? Strong Bad does receive an email and it does get derailed, however. Thoughts? Jimmy91 11:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Although it has an email in it, it's still not a SBemail itself, but a short. Strong Bad was too sick to answer the email, so he was unable to even think about derailing it. Plus it's not really derailed anyway because the short shows that Strong Bad does get sick sometimes. – The Chort 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] old comics is not a derailed email.

Strong Bad answers the question--why the KoT has a Poopsmith--and elaborates on it by relating it to The Castlefunnies. "The King of Town's just always had a Poopsmith. Even way back when..." He doesn't do the complete opposite of the email's content or disregard it.

Hmmmno. He doesn't say why the KoT has a Poopsmith. And then he talks about the castlefunnies, which explain nothing either. A typical ETIADD ("email taken in a different direction"). Loafing 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar Ruiner

Would Homestar Ruiner count as a derailed e-mail? Strong Bad set out to beat up Homestar as per an e-mail he received at the start of the game, but winds up impersonating him in a race, stealing from the King of Town on his behalf, and evicting a party from his house. --Belthazar 02:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Bad declares it to be not-derailed (though he also declares it to be "the most direct and least convoluted way" possible). He considers tossing Homestar out the window as a beating. --DorianGray 02:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, forgot about the resolution sequence. Still, this is possibly a case of taking such a different direction that it winds up at the same destination anyway. =) --Belthazar 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought this list was limited to emails... — Defender1031*Talk 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Aye, that was one thing which occurred to me as well, which is why I posted it on the talk page first. That said, Homestar Ruiner, like Strong Badia the Free after it, are both presented as being what happens when Strong Bad tries to answer an e-mail, making it a sort of... interactive sbemail. (Baddest of the Bands is different, in that he's just trying to fix his Fun Machine.) --Belthazar 03:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original

I thought this email was taken in a Different direction.I mean,strong bad is asked if his favorite character in a show is replaced with a new actor,but he talks about when they replace people.--Mariofan1000 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The way Strong Bad tells his story treats people from Homestar Runner as actors, so his response seems relevant. BBG 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

These are some I removed and the reasons I removed them. If you disagree, comment here. I just wanted to explain myself instead of them just disappearing with no explanation.

superhero name — Stiny asks about Strong Bad's name, but Strong Bad instead makes fun of Stiny's.

Strong Bad answers his question. He says he will change his name if Stiny would be his side kick.

gimmicks — Strong Bad is reminded of the times when he didn't need a gimmick to be funny... shortly before his computer explodes.

Strong Bad is asked if he remember when he didn't need a gimmick. He says he does. He answered his question.

(By the way, I added original for the reasons stated above.)

Can you use the discussion page? That is what it is here for. Don't just remove someone's posts without reasons.
Very simply, the emails you removed do the exact opposite of what was asked. That's the scope of this page. And i gave a reason in my revert summary. — Defender1031*Talk 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If you say so. I would hardly call saying "These were good and this is bad" stating your reasons. But, if you think they belong, I'll leave them. Philip8o 23:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Expatiation

I've taken the liberty of modifying the the definition with another thing Strong Bad frequently does. Often he does answer the question first briefly, but doesn't focus on it. For example, what i want he actually defines some of the things he wants "a catapult that launches balls of cobras, chainsaw car, a subscription to EGM2, a hot step-sister," then, on his own free will, decides to establish what he doesn't want.

[edit] Different direction comes later?

What about e-mails where he does give a lengthy answer to the question, but then takes the opportunity to talk about something else that's related? For example, in fan club Strong Bad does answer the question about a sbemail fan club, and there's even an entire scene featuring said fan club, but then he goes on to talk about fan fiction which wasn't mentioned. --ComputerBox 03:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools