justin

My name is Scott Aukerman and if I'm ever charged with murder I definitely did it regardless of whatever I say.

penis in pig is the hardest i've laughed in a while. idk if that's sad or not.

So Jake Fogelnest just did an episode of his podcast with Chris Gethard talking about public access televisions and he played this clip of this show called Studio 59. At 5:07 there is a caller that sounds exactly like Doug Levison. This was a call in show in Manhattan in 1996 so I think it's possible it could be him.

I will always regret not going to the Detroit show...

I'll just say what we've all been thinking... Women aren't funny!

I also haven't received the Portland e-mail yet. edit: logging into gumroad.com and re-downloading the entire zip file of shows worked. it's kind of dumb if i have to download the entire zip file every week, but whatever. edit 2: immediately after making this post i received two emails for the Portland show.

Does anyone know the name of the freestyle rap battle song used on the show? Specifically this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18-KQ_wF2e8 Thanks!

Stop with the shameless plugs.

It might be marketing for that whole television series thing he has going on right now...

Calling the guest an asshole/hypocrite/attention whore isn't feedback.

You're all whiny little bitches. It's a fucking free podcast. Steve-O referred to this as an interview, it's obvious he's not familiar with the format of the show. He's been conditioned to talk a lot and elaborate in interviews because that's what shitty morning radio station interviewers want. I can't believe anyone could get their jimmies so rustled over a free podcast; some of you must not have much else worthwhile in your lives. It's sad.

When did the Earwolf forum turn into the comment section of the AV Club?

It seemed like once Dave started talking with Matt he slowly realized he hadn't completely thought out where he was coming from but was too stubborn to admit it and just kept repeating the same illogical things over and over again. I might do the same thing in that situation, it's probably intimidating.

Hey Jeff, I hope this isn't too intrusive of a question. Is Earwolf turning a profit yet? I remember the last time I heard you speak on the financials of the company you were still losing money (that was probably over a year ago). Again if this is something you don't want to answer I understand.

This episode really stood out to me as being one of the funniest yet. Maybe it's just because I could hear everyone laughing in the background of every scene (which adds to the funny).

Three old ladies react to Kardashian sex tape http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mYbLFD_BwE&feature=youtu.be

Don't go to www.ultimatedrummingtechnique.com. You have been warned.

Yeah Jeff knows exactly how each show does but he's said he wants to keep that info private, as to not create any competition.

I really like the new look.

Just a heads up for whoever is doing the work on the forums, the icons to the left of each thread are broken images for me. Also the quote box color and the text color are both too similiar. I'm sure you guys already know this but I thought I'd bring it up anyway. In my opinion, the old color scheme worked best with the dark gray background and the white text. But whatever's fine.

The colors are kinda whacky. Quote and Multi-quote buttons are unreadable because of the color combo.

@Roy Ziegler I shot them an email to explain that to them. David responded, and it seemed like he got offended that I brought it up and he wasn't open to learn about the logical mistakes he was making. - From: Justin To: Professor Blastoff So it seems David loves to say that if something isn't able to be explained that it's pointing to proof of a god. I wanted to let you guys know that this is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) and it is very annoying to hear it time after time. Just a friendly heads up. - From: Professor Blastoff To: Justin i think the idea is more that it leads me to believe there might be a god. as much as there is a burden of proof needed to explain how water formed on earth, or just exactly how gravity works - there is also a burden of proof needed to prove that god doesn't exist. david - From: Justin To: Professor Blastoff What you have just stated is also a logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). You're getting the burden of proof backwards. - From: Professor Blastoff To: Justin not exactly. i was saying there is a burden of proof required for other things than just god (gravity, water on earth, etc) and since you, unless you're a secret genius keeping all this sweet info to yourself, or the rest of earth's inhabitants don't seem to know have a concrete answer - it may lead to people saying either, "who knows?" or "maybe there is a god" in some cases. i guess i've done the latter more than you care for over the course of the podcast. in my defense, that is sort of the theme of the podcast. - From: Justin To: Professor Blastoff It is a logical fallacy, it's explained here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html (I don't know if you saw that link the first time). All you can really say is "who knows?" because nobody knows. Saying that it may be proof of a god makes as much sense as saying it may be proof of aliens. You're forming a theory based on lack of evidence. "Nobody knows what causes X, therefore X might be caused by god." That doesn't really make any sense, because nobody knows what causes X, so to draw a conclusion based on the lack of a conclusion is fallacious. I don't have anything against any of you guys. I feel like you, doing a science/philosophy based podcast, would like to be as informative to the audience as possible. I just wanted to give you a heads up because I would hope you wouldn't want to misinform your audience or put them in a thought process that is illogical. - From: Professor Blastoff To: Justin i did see the link. thanks for passing it along. i never said there was proof of a god. certain times, a lack of evidence makes me lean toward thinking there may be one. i've never seen a quark, but it seems reasonable. is the burden of proof on science to produce a visual image of a quark and how it works? or should we just trust math? and if you were the size of a quark, what does the space around you look like? does it just continue getting infinitely smaller, never reaching an end? if people were to sit around a table and offer their thoughts on any of these questions, we would never condemn them for having thoughts deemed illogical. if there is not a known answer, saying a hypothesis is illogical seems silly. thinking the earth was round was at one point a logical fallacy. we really do appreciate your input. we try to be somewhat informative, usually when we have guests, but more so we try to ask questions that listeners might enjoy hearing discussed. hope you are able to continue listening despite our constant assertions that christ is the almighty lord and savior. - From: Justin To: Professor Blastoff "certain times, a lack of evidence makes me lean toward thinking there may be one." All I'm trying to do is let you know that drawing a conclusion (even if it's a possible one, hell, ANY conclusion is possible really) based on lack of evidence IS illogical. I would just hope you wouldn't want your audience forming that type of thought process. Sorry for bringing it up as it seems I've offended you.

I would suggest running the forums with vBulletin (https://www.vbulletin.com/), which is pretty much the best forum software on the internet.