Talk:car
From Homestar Runner Wiki
[edit] People stopped arguing
WOAH! The people actually stopped arguing about this!? But just to clear it up incase one of them comes back... Strong Bad would get one email a second because (Q represents any number, but the same number) Q/Q=1. I don't care WHAT Q really is. Math just works out that way.--That Kid! 06:46, 26 Oct 2004 (MST)
[edit] Spelling of "doyng"
Doubtful anyone still reads this, but still. Would, perhaps, spelling Homestar's word as "doyng" help to differentiate it? - 67.126.183.40 22:44, 6 Dec 2004 (MST) I concur. Retromaniac 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] possible fun fact
When else do we see Homestar's "buzzer" spin?
- The main page when Homestar is falling, I think. --Joshua 19:29, 19 Mar 2005 (MST)
- And his character vid.Yellowpikmin476 17:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Closed STUFF
These were on the STUFF page and declined. If you wish to contest these, leave a note here, but don't allow it to be confused with any of the original votes.
[edit] "You ever see me in a car? No!" (Declined)
Another subtle fun fact: At the end of the email, Strong Bad says, "You ever see me in a car? No!" Interestingly, he is seen in the Gremlin just a few emails later, in the Dangeresque 3 email.
- Revise, Move I think this belongs more in the Dangeresque 3 email fun facts. Also, get rid of the "Another subtle fun fact" bit. - Gydea
- Decline. I'd actually put the Gremlin more into Bubs' possesion. He came up with it, so it just seems to work along those lines.
- Decline. As with the 'bigger wusses and lesser wimps' item up above, since when does Strong Bad always tell the truth? See stand-up. --TheEggman 21:31, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)
- Comment. He could have also changed his mind about being seen in a car. Since this really doesn't contradict anything, it's not really worth noting. --TheEggman 08:38, 17 Mar 2005 (MST)
- Decline. Previously someone else said "Strong Bad tends to lie" or something like that. I've thought of that fact before....also the Gremin might not be his. Allow me to reason:
stunt double had Dangereque 2 dangeresque 3 had Dangereque 1, with which car. car had the "You ever see me in a car? No!" quote. Allow me to put these in order: dangereque 3(1) car(quote) stunt double(2) First in Dangereque 2, he wasn't in a car. but Dangereque 1, he was seen in a car. Dangereque 1 was obviously made before Dangereque 2, before "car". This is too confusing, but I hope it gives you a better understanding of it.
--oopsyoubwokeit 13:55, 21 Mar 2005 (MST)
I think what the above user is saying is that since Dangeresque 1 is a prequel to Dangeresque 2, and Dangeresque 2 was made before "car", that Strong Bad had been in a car before "car" was made. However, I think there is evidence in the "dangeresque 3" e-mail that Dangeresque 1 was actually made after Dangeresque 2 (within the H*R universe). Note the sign at the beginning that says "Not in 3-D" and the fact that it is called "Dangeresque 1", not just "Dangeresque." Strong Bad probably realized there was no Dangeresque 1 and subsequently made one, excusing its appearance after Dangeresque 2 by saying it was the limited edition director's cut. 134.241.227.51 06:44, 25 Mar 2005 (MST)
Comment. Now I get it: He says, "Do you ever see me in a car?" He said that because we didn't see Strong Bad in a car yet.--oopsyoubwokeit 04:59, 2 Apr 2005 (MST) He must be s
[edit] Minor Change
I've changed "Old English" to "Gothic" in both instances. Gothic lettering was developed in Northern France and Belgium around the 12th century, not England.
The website is full of inaccuracies. Almost every e-mail points out some "goofs" that either aren't goofs at all or really, really nitpicky. Lots of the transcripts are incorrect. Many descriptions are wrong. (The font on Strong Bad's glove is Olde English, NOT Gothic. That's a fact.) What's the point of gathering all this information and forming a website if it's not going to contain accurate information?
- It's a wiki. That means that the users must fix any errors. So, if you see anything wrong, fix it. Homestar Coder
14:18, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I DID fix a lot of errors I found, a couple days ago. I checked back this morning and found them all changed back to being wrong again.
According to your contribs, you have done no editing. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:11, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Anonymous users aren't necessarily tied to the IP addresses that identify them. His ISP could give him a different IP address each time he logs on, which would make tracking his contributions difficult. — It's dot com 20:21, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I see. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:27, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Where are the edits you fixed? I'll double check to see if the reversions were in error. Homestar Coder 21:02, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Here's [1]. This is the only one I can find that doesn't involve a Talk page. The talk page were mainly for conversations months ago, so they were deleted. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:05, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- I recommend signing up for a username. That way, we can see which edits are yours, and edits made by trusted usernames are less likely to be reverted. Homestar Coder 21:36, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- I recommend signing up for a username. That way, we can see which edits are yours, and edits made by trusted usernames are less likely to be reverted. Homestar Coder
It's not my Wiki. I made the changes to improve its accuracy and help everybody out, but they were changed back, so if someone wants mistakes on his Wiki, it's not my problem.
- What? It's everybody's wiki. Also, if you won't help us figure out which edits are yours, then there's no way we can give them another look and possibly reinstate them. To paraphrase Jerry McGuire: help us help you. — It's dot com 00:47, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gap in Hat
- Somebody removed my goof saying that there's a gap in homestar's hat throughout this entire email. Allow me to reason...Look closely at pic.
So, there's a gap in his hat. Can I add this? 
DevonM(talk·cont-ribs)
That's not a gap, that's a section of blue from the other part of his hat. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 22:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- anyone else? DevonM(talk·cont-ribs)
- I see it. The red part of his hat has a gap between his head that's very small because it is not perfectly aligned with his head. The blue is the background. Yup. I agree that it's true. Looks like it to me.--
»Bleed0range« 05:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see it. The red part of his hat has a gap between his head that's very small because it is not perfectly aligned with his head. The blue is the background. Yup. I agree that it's true. Looks like it to me.--
[edit] Stole from the puppet
In the commentary, it's mentioned that Homestar calling the prop on his cap a "buzzer" was stolen from Puppet-Time Homestar. Yet the "buzzer" is mentioned as a Fast Forward. Is this a case where TBC are incorrect, or is there a case prior to this email where Puppet-Time Homestar calls it a "buzzer"? - Qermaq - (T/C) 
23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- We don't know in what order they produce the material. There have been several cases where they create something months or years before they release it. They seemed pretty sure of the order. The link should probably move to the inside references section. — It's dot com 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lack of Visible Arms ref?
DeFender1031 (or whatever his number is) claimed that those weren't real hydraulics and he was using his telekenisis invisible arms. I didn't think he was right because it doesn't explain the controller and the sound effects. Does anyone else think he is right? Bad Bad Guy 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe i'll take this one. I say that he was holding the controller with one hand and moving the hat with the other, and that the sounds come from the controller itself. Good job on getting my number right. — Defender1031*Talk 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's literal hydraulics, and I don't think he's moving his hat with his hand. I think it's just cartoon magic without a real-world explanation.
Trey56 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's literal hydraulics, and I don't think he's moving his hat with his hand. I think it's just cartoon magic without a real-world explanation.
[edit] Strong Bad's Dominance?
"In both this email and invisibility, Homestar was taken by surprise. Homestar beat up Strong Bad in Marshmallow's Last Stand. However, this cartoon has been said by The Brothers Chaps to show characters doing things they would never do in their current state, Strong Bad's dominance is probably the norm."
I don't think we can assume "Strong Bad's dominance" Just because he sucker punched Homestar.
- Umm... i don't even know what that garglemesh even means... — Defender1031*Talk 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whats the problem? The term "sucker punch?" Try watching the email and judge for yourself.
[edit] 'X' eyes!
I love seeing Homestar with 'X' eyes! Can someone get a picture of that? Is there any other time you see Homestar with 'X' eyes? — 67.173.165.139 (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (left unsigned)
- You mean an image like this one?
OptimisticFool 23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Thanks! I'm actually a huge Homestar fan, but I just love seeing those 'X' eyes!
[edit] Since when is Strong Bad right-handed?
Since, you know, the article says he is. I'm pretty sure that, like the article [i]also[/i] says, (o.0) he's ambidextrous. 99.226.10.146 01:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Your point? Ambidextrous means being able to use both your left and right hands equally at particular skills, though at some times favoring one hand over the other. I didn't see a problem with the wording. DevonM(talk·cont-ribs) 05:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Homestar's spinning buzzer
I'm with Defender on this one - the buzzer definately spins the same way Strong Bad pushes it. He pushes to the right with his left hand, meaning it should spin clockwise, and it does. --Belthazar 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- He moves his hand downward. The side of the buzzer he spins it from begins to spin upward. I'm with It's Dot Com. --71.157.173.166 02:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I am agreeing with DeFender and Belthazar. Strongking
homsarsmith 02:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- i don't know what "clockwise" means in terms of something spinning laterally, but the direction doesn't matter as much as the fact that i see it going the same way. Let me put it like this, strong bad pushes the end on the left toward the camera. It then turns such that the part on the left moves in front while the part on the right moves behind. As it should be. — Defender1031*Talk 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm starting to wonder if The Brothers Chaps are trying to mimic the "Wagon-wheel effect" instead of producing an intentional goof. Would this make sense? --71.157.173.166 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it makes sense, but I don't think that's the case. Look at the accompanying image.
- In the first panel, Strong Bad is about to spin Homestar's buzzer. His hand is behind it. If he brings his hand forward, the buzzer will spin counterclockwise.
- In the next panel, Strong Bad brings his arm down and in. Instead of spinning counterclockwise, the buzzer spins clockwise. The direction the buzzer spins is easily determined by the ghost images that trail behind the direction of spin.
- In the last panel, we see a close-up of Homestar as the buzzer continues to spin clockwise.
- Thus, the buzzer spins the opposite way it should, and this is a goof. — It's dot com 03:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think both the lack of a third dimension and the relatively low frame-rate are causing the confusion here. In the space of a single frame, Strong Bad's hand goes from being on the buzzer to being most of the way back by his side. Rather than down and in, why couldn't he have moved his arm right and down? If anything, it's clear that Strong Bad is meant to be flicking it to the right, because animating the spin the wrong way is kind of an odd goof. --Belthazar 03:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it makes sense, but I don't think that's the case. Look at the accompanying image.
- I'm starting to wonder if The Brothers Chaps are trying to mimic the "Wagon-wheel effect" instead of producing an intentional goof. Would this make sense? --71.157.173.166 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- i don't know what "clockwise" means in terms of something spinning laterally, but the direction doesn't matter as much as the fact that i see it going the same way. Let me put it like this, strong bad pushes the end on the left toward the camera. It then turns such that the part on the left moves in front while the part on the right moves behind. As it should be. — Defender1031*Talk 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I am agreeing with DeFender and Belthazar. Strongking
- I see the problem here. You're looking at the top part of the elliptical motion as being farther away from the camera, while i see it as being the part closer to it. it's similar to the spinning woman illusion (my FAVORITE optical illusion of all time, by the way.) — Defender1031*Talk 03:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Belthazar and DeFender: Both of your arguments are unsupported by the animation. Belthazar: You're trying to make it more complex than it is, and the natural spinning motion from where Strong Bad positions his glove would be to draw his arm in. DeFender: That's impossible based on when the spindle and cap are obscured by the blade. — It's dot com 03:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at this image to see what i mean. Also, from the angle at which his head is, it makes sense to view the buzzer's motion in the fashion i describe. If anything, the goof is that the buzzer appears over the cap, which seems much more likely a mistake to make. — Defender1031*Talk 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dot com's right. OptimisticFool 03:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- You guys are trying to make this overcomplicated, I'm afraid. Dot com is right: this is a clear goof. --Jay (Talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- DeFender: Okay, I see what you're saying, but like Jay said I also still think you're making it more complex than it needs to be. If you agree that the blade covers the cap and spindle where I think it does, then it must follow that the blades are spinning clockwise. I think TBC animated the blades in the wrong order; you think the layering is wrong—either way, by calling it a goof in your post there you're at least saying that there's no way the animation can be correct as it is. — It's dot com 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay okay, it's a goof. This was a refreshing debate. Thanks. — Defender1031*Talk 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, now that you've pointed out which direction the buzzer is actually angled, the thing is spinning the wrong way regardless of whether he flicked to the right or down, because both motions (with the buzzer angled as it is) should make an anti-clockwise spin. I'm vaguely pondering whether it's also a goof that the buzzer is angled towards the viewer when the front of his hat is angled away. --Belthazar 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, fixing the layering would fix the angle as well. — It's dot com 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why i said that i think the goof is the layering and not the direction... — Defender1031*Talk 14:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I still see it a little bit differently. I think they intended to represent the top of his buzzer, and created several problems in the process. Fixing the layering would fix the problems, but I think the current layering is what they were going for. I do realize my argument is something of a distinction without a difference. — It's dot com 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why i said that i think the goof is the layering and not the direction... — Defender1031*Talk 14:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, fixing the layering would fix the angle as well. — It's dot com 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, now that you've pointed out which direction the buzzer is actually angled, the thing is spinning the wrong way regardless of whether he flicked to the right or down, because both motions (with the buzzer angled as it is) should make an anti-clockwise spin. I'm vaguely pondering whether it's also a goof that the buzzer is angled towards the viewer when the front of his hat is angled away. --Belthazar 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay okay, it's a goof. This was a refreshing debate. Thanks. — Defender1031*Talk 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- DeFender: Okay, I see what you're saying, but like Jay said I also still think you're making it more complex than it needs to be. If you agree that the blade covers the cap and spindle where I think it does, then it must follow that the blades are spinning clockwise. I think TBC animated the blades in the wrong order; you think the layering is wrong—either way, by calling it a goof in your post there you're at least saying that there's no way the animation can be correct as it is. — It's dot com 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- You guys are trying to make this overcomplicated, I'm afraid. Dot com is right: this is a clear goof. --Jay (Talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dot com's right.
- Take a look at this image to see what i mean. Also, from the angle at which his head is, it makes sense to view the buzzer's motion in the fashion i describe. If anything, the goof is that the buzzer appears over the cap, which seems much more likely a mistake to make. — Defender1031*Talk 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Belthazar and DeFender: Both of your arguments are unsupported by the animation. Belthazar: You're trying to make it more complex than it is, and the natural spinning motion from where Strong Bad positions his glove would be to draw his arm in. DeFender: That's impossible based on when the spindle and cap are obscured by the blade. — It's dot com 03:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see the problem here. You're looking at the top part of the elliptical motion as being farther away from the camera, while i see it as being the part closer to it. it's similar to the spinning woman illusion (my FAVORITE optical illusion of all time, by the way.) — Defender1031*Talk 03:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Homestar the Synaesthesic
Homestar remarks that 'doing' and 'doing' are spelled the same, based on Strong Bad's speech alone. This could indicate that Homestar has a form of speech-to-text synaesthesia, whereby spoken words appear in his perception as printed text.
-Hey, I think I may have written the above comment here some years ago. I just wanted to note one other example of Homestar as possibly having synaesthesia: in 79 Seconds Left, the words 'Cow leg' come out of Homestar's mouth, which he speaks to and addresses as 'little guy'. I guess I'm just putting this here to see if anyone else has noticed other examples of Homestar visualizing words, and to see if maybe this theory deserves its own page.
