[edit] Hammin' it up
Ekersby's ham-heartedness is a reference to The King of Town's ham-heartedness in Halloween Fairstival
From: Stinkomanual
Posted on: 18:58, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Arguments for:
- There is only one other place in all of H*R where someone has a ham-shaped heart (ham-hearted).
- Ekersby does have a pixellated ham for a heart, while the King of Town seemingly has a real ham for a heart.
Arguments against:
- A very unlikely reference.
- Judging from Ekersby's quote in the Stinkomanual, the word "ham" is probably a bad English translation of "half", as in "half-heartedly".
Additional comments:
- There is mention of the KoT's ham-heart in Halloween Fairstival in the discussion portion for the Stinkomanual as well (at the bottom). Is the argument against based on the literal meaning of 'ham-hearted' as it applies to Ekersby's (personal) character?
- It's more of an instance than a reference.
- I agree, we should revise it to say that it's not a reference, as I don't think it is, but instead similar to the way The KOT has a ham for a heart.
- The Argument Against is difficult to parse. Does "ham-heartedness", in reference to Ekersby, refer to his ham-shaped heart or not? And if it's the latter, how does that make it any less of a reference?
- Ekersby has a ham for a heart. KoT has a ham lodged in his heart.
Proposed revision:
Arguments for:
- After closer inspection, they both do have hams for hearts.
Arguments against:
This revision is factually inaccurate: KoT doesn't have a ham for a heart. He has a ham lodged in his heart.
Additional comments:
- Is a revision required? The current revision is on its way to being accepted.
- The revision is more accurate, as although Ekersby does have a ham for a heart, it is probably not a reference. But it is similar, so this is more of a piece of trivia than an inside reference.
NOTE: This item was unusual in that both versions were being accepted when it was closed. I have chosen the second one based on the raw difference in the votes (the second one leads by 4, and the first by only 3) and the ratios (the second one is 2.33 to 1, whereas the first is only 1.43 to 1). In addition, several of the users who voted to decline the first one voted to accept the second one, so I'm confident that at least a couple of those who accepted the first one would also accept the second. This is the first time this has happened, but I currently do not believe this item is important enough to set precedent. — It's dot com
[ Back to STUFF index ]
|
