DirkGently

Funniest one yet! Uncle t1!

@jeff wow! way to go addressing solid points! When a guy is backed into a corner and has no real arguments to rely on they frequently resort to personal attacks. Like you did here... "He's got a bird on his shoulder! What a noob!" How easy would it have been for me to MAKE FUN OF YOU?- for being a bearded, lisping, xanex head? I DIDN'T tho did I? You point to that twitter (one of many, although I don't have as many as you or scott lol) account and say that everything from me is irrelevant. This amuses me. You act like a teenage girl... really. I just threw you the only bone you'll get and you blatantly exploited it. (predictable much?) You really shouldn't get all exited and worked up (i'm sure your friends will tell you the same) about the internet. It's bad for your soul. You seem to have too much invested in peoples opinions who differ from your own. You're VERY upset... clearly. Otherwise you'd simply not respond to my comments and just let them bounce off you- and let your minions criticize me instead. (The first real indicator was when you immediately jumped in and said you were sleeping with elizebeth laime! methinks tho doth protest too much!) You may not be aware but the internet is made of TUBES (lol). I can put any goddamn picture I want up and claim I'm anyone I want. If I choose to , I can make multiple earwolf accounts (like you have) and post from proxies all day long. I'm not that petty tho. (well I COULD be that petty if you really want) But way to go dude! You truly are a 'winner' (like that brian? Those quotations? Your argument about the notifications is BS BTW and I don't even need to point out why- you know it. I know it. I've only ever developed software for private entities- specifically the US census bureau- otherwise i'd be happy to point you at my 'apps'. I'm tempted to develop some trivial thing just to prove you wrong but I just don't care enough at this point. ) or... not... The reason you got traffic on the podcast with LHR elimination is because you weren't 'policing' the forums and regulating people who don't agree with you. As soon as Scott stepped in and said 'only one comment per show' your traffic immediately dried up. You can argue all day, but it's a statistic you're arguing with and not me this time. When you 'moderate' you immediately lose the traffic. It's that simple. I think Matt even explained on this last show how there tends to be as many 'haters' as 'lovers' of 'reality' shows. let it go. If you want traffic (I heard scott bragging about 'clicks' recently lol! have you guys turned a profit yet?) you should prolly just keep classy and not make gibberish personal attacks on your patrons. Just sayin.... Anyway... Your last post lacked class. This is constructive criticism. I'm pointing out a fact. I could easily post a picture of your pill-face and trash you on a PERSONAL level all day long, but I don't. If you don't believe it's within my power to do the same thing as you..., try me. Ban me. Block my IP. It's all easy to get around. I'm just don't care enough to resort to those kind of tactics. I wonder how much traffic I just gave you... This post was PG-13.

@Elliot Imes You wish "Dirk didn't respond to Jeff" Did 'Jeff' call me out or something? I must have missed that. I can go back and listen... maybe.... I listened to to the final LDDC, and I listened to most of the TLR submission. LDDC preamble was funnier than TLR. I got at least 3, possibly 4 emails from Frank asking that I skype chat them (as I'm sure you all did?) but it was only ONE DAY notice, and I didn't feel like contributing free content to a show I feel is as phoney as all the rest of reality shows... with one day notice... I have work to do after all! Thanks for caring about my well being tho lol So I didn't listen to the final episode... the ACTUAL last episode... I'd already read the results on twitter and didn't particularly feel like listening to Scott and Jeff 'lie' into a microphone for 2 hours. Meh. I listened to all the rest tho. And I Just NOW listened to the epilogue... just to have SOMETHING on in the background. Tapped out a few notes as it went along. I'll post them here knowing that scott will label them as a /manifesto/ lol I'm really only posting this as a shout out to everyone! Everyone that's been talking about this challenge on other forums. After hearing the cravens that they/you got to call in (sorry guys you sounds pretty weak!) , I regret not volunteering. What was it... 2 out of 3 were rooting for TLR from the get go>? Even if I don't 'care' I'm not going to be less entertaining than you guys! I've heard a lot of 'judges' and 'producers' explain that LHR wasn't funny enough to compete... and they've even partially explained why. I haven't heard ANYONE explain exactly WHAT THE FUCK was funny about the final TLR submission. The easiest thing to do, to dodge reality, is ignore it. Much like the opposite of love isn't HATE, it's indifference. Sorry If I lost interest in the entire production after that BS LHR week. Get real guys. At least explain WHAT WAS FUNNY about TLR. Was it the tiny cock talk? Was is the highschool musical vibe? It's all subjective right? Just explain what was funny about TLR! I won't edit them, but here are the few notes I jotted down during this final episode... between getting blowjobs and bong hits... @Chris I found myself tending to agree with a lot of your opinions. They shut you down pretty well, and you're a little bit nonsensical, but I agreed on a few. I DISAGREE about the skype with 10 people being 'undoable'. GET REAL. Earwolf pays $100 a month for internet? That's what I pay and I'm not even a bandwidth hog. I typically talk to 20+ people on computer games!- and the sound quality is better! LOL Scott Aukerman - Wow.... just WOW @Frank At the beginning you said LHR was the the 'hardest elimination' (or something like that) but you fail to realize the reason it got the most traffic was because it was the turning point for folks like me who thought this was a 'legit' podcast. Turns out it's just as fake as every other 'reality' show out there. If you didn't get as much traffic after that episode it's because me and a bunch of other folks just left. derp derp. @Matt .... uhhhggg.... Matt Matt Matt. ...... MATTY B BABY! You think it would be a good Idea to have a bimbo young girl keep track of all the shit you fail to keep track of? GOOD IDEA. I love it. All podcasts can benefit from this. Yes... we need that. Maybe even get Kulap? Matt I love you bro... BUT... I think your burning out a little bit (a lot?). I'm sure your smoking copious amounts of bud now that you've got a 'card' but damn man... give your head a shake! Jeez Laweez I AM a doctor, and if your not eating any- I prescribe a 1 dose regiment, 3 days a week of L S D baby! For at least 2-3 weeks. Get your head together man! LSD is GOOD FOR YOU! As far as the format goes... it's clear you should let them ALL stay on the line (All ten of them) during the coaching. @Jeff You really are flattering yourself to say that you bent over backwards getting all the judges that you got. Half of them had shows on earwolf anyway (more than half) Also, it sounds a 'little' daft to say that a 'monday, tuesday, wensday' format is unrealistic or is 'unorthodox' in any way. Please look at your competition... daily shows BAY-BEE! So yea. I'm beyond caring about this... I just thought I'd throw my two cents in with the rest of you. How bout if you do a season two call it the 'EarWolf Farce'? Then maybe put a disclaimer at the front of each episode that mentions that it's all bullshit and predetermined. Or at least explain your BS reasoning to keep TLR around. I 'may' look back at this forum- but I might not. If you really need to retort this send it to @lordthree on twitter. I'll read it at least. maybe. @jeff I know SOMEONE at earwolf will read this eventually (frank?).... Has anyone pointed out to you that your 'earwolf app' doesn't send 'push' notifications on the correct day? It's aways one day late. It's been that way for a while. I'm a IOS programmer (In addition to blowing glass pipes and selling e-cigs to highschool kids lol) and this is getting old. Throw me a couple bucks and I'll fix your shit for you. It's a matter of changing a SINGLE LINE OF CODE... GG

(attachment doesn't work!)

(attachment doesn't work!)

i hate this kinda stuff... I think the host love this kinda stuff.... I think you might mix the drums and music lower and the vocals up? It was hard to hear .... 'plugs' (Harry Chapin came on the playlist after this for some reason...)

i hate this kinda stuff... I think the host love this kinda stuff.... I think you might mix the drums and music lower and the vocals up? It was hard to hear .... 'plugs' (Harry Chapin came on the playlist after this for some reason...)

I feel like scott will use it... didn't he just do a CYE?

I feel like scott will use it... didn't he just do a CYE?

Very surprised Weewee could pull this off... far... fucking... out man..... I've always loved the dude but honestly thought he was too much of a player who slid by with more charm than skills... this episode proved I was completely wrong. Props Howard.

Very surprised Weewee could pull this off... far... fucking... out man..... I've always loved the dude but honestly thought he was too much of a player who slid by with more charm than skills... this episode proved I was completely wrong. Props Howard.

Fantastic episode. Just thought I'd leave this here for those who didn't see it already... http://www.theonion.com/articles/gigli-focus-groups-demand-new-ending-in-which-both,606/

Fantastic episode. Just thought I'd leave this here for those who didn't see it already... http://www.theonion.com/articles/gigli-focus-groups-demand-new-ending-in-which-both,606/

@Raymond "Carefull with the abbreviations, now. You wouldn't want to look like a common Troll. The gentleman Internet Contrarian must answer to a higher code of ethics, and when you cross that line, you move from "just kind of a dick" to "legitimately bad person". " Gimme a break! lol. I woke up and read all that and I couldn't stop laughing. Most of it doesn't make any sense! @Robstraws says - "I like to think it's Dirk Nowitzki and he is doing this because of the lockout." What's that mean? Did he just scan the post and see 'lock-out' and then throw his 2-cents with the others? Then there is this @dave anthony says - "Your comments toward Scott, Jeff, myself, and both Matts was over the line." Without citing any comment... It went on to say more... but he edited it out. I did a double take when I went to qoute it and it wasn't there... but my iPhone still had it in the cache. http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/lordthree/Screenshot2011-09-09at122246PM.png "People on other forums describe you as a horrible troll here." - dave I mean it's certainly not true (I only use this name on earwolf) and I'm glad you edited that out dave, but sheeeeiiitt.... why did you type that in the first place? So yea... I can't help but laugh-my-ass-off... sorry- I typed it all out this time. "By the way, I feel like this thread is probably stale enough by now that it's OK to start over-posting, right? I mean, it FEELS like a long time since Wednesday... " I agree. let's shut this one down. This has gone on longer than any of the other days. They don't need anymore traffic here... move along. @Mark Thompson "If "poor" Mark Watson went to the trouble of registering just so he could post that he's going to stop posting, I think he's too busy enjoying his own self-satisfaction to be too bothered by anything posted here." It occurs to me that he's probably Raymond or someone under a different screen name? I rarely use the term, but I think it's reasonable to say that some of these people are just 'butt-hurt' about people disagreeing with them and feel the need to exacerbate by making multiple accounts. @Diggler F OFF - You think the highschool musical totally lame was funnier than Borat Robot? fat fucking chance. Nice caps tho fiend.

@Raymond "Carefull with the abbreviations, now. You wouldn't want to look like a common Troll. The gentleman Internet Contrarian must answer to a higher code of ethics, and when you cross that line, you move from "just kind of a dick" to "legitimately bad person". " Gimme a break! lol. I woke up and read all that and I couldn't stop laughing. Most of it doesn't make any sense! @Robstraws says - "I like to think it's Dirk Nowitzki and he is doing this because of the lockout." What's that mean? Did he just scan the post and see 'lock-out' and then throw his 2-cents with the others? Then there is this @dave anthony says - "Your comments toward Scott, Jeff, myself, and both Matts was over the line." Without citing any comment... It went on to say more... but he edited it out. I did a double take when I went to qoute it and it wasn't there... but my iPhone still had it in the cache. http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/lordthree/Screenshot2011-09-09at122246PM.png "People on other forums describe you as a horrible troll here." - dave I mean it's certainly not true (I only use this name on earwolf) and I'm glad you edited that out dave, but sheeeeiiitt.... why did you type that in the first place? So yea... I can't help but laugh-my-ass-off... sorry- I typed it all out this time. "By the way, I feel like this thread is probably stale enough by now that it's OK to start over-posting, right? I mean, it FEELS like a long time since Wednesday... " I agree. let's shut this one down. This has gone on longer than any of the other days. They don't need anymore traffic here... move along. @Mark Thompson "If "poor" Mark Watson went to the trouble of registering just so he could post that he's going to stop posting, I think he's too busy enjoying his own self-satisfaction to be too bothered by anything posted here." It occurs to me that he's probably Raymond or someone under a different screen name? I rarely use the term, but I think it's reasonable to say that some of these people are just 'butt-hurt' about people disagreeing with them and feel the need to exacerbate by making multiple accounts. @Diggler F OFF - You think the highschool musical totally lame was funnier than Borat Robot? fat fucking chance. Nice caps tho fiend.

Just logged in to say... ROFLMFAO!

Just logged in to say... ROFLMFAO!

@ Raymond uhhh. Yes, I 'enjoy' argument - as I see it, that and the 'Socratic method' are the key's to furthering intellectual development. I can argue with the best and would welcome a point for point debate but you say you want to do it elsewhere? I'm not sure that's really fair to Scottabot, as he seems to enjoy the back-and-forth on the forums here... "I am not telling anyone not to complain - we like it! In fact, I welcome the several cranks who are going to yell at me for this post. Go ahead! I love that you're passionate about the show" -Scott How bout this tho Ray... next time, on Earwolf Challenge #2... Me and you will start our own podcast where we debate the merits and legitimacy of each event- nit-pick and 'judge the judges' so to speak. We'd be an iTunes HIT! I appreciate that you're an intellectual as well... and your 'Svladcjelli' reference. props. And since Scott asked for it... how bout this? @ Scott Aukerman "LHR turned in a very professionally written and sounding sketch that, at its core, was basically an amusing trifle (which I think they would agree with). This is the kind of premise that, when working in the Mr. Show writers' room, was pitched often. Bob would say, "very funny - now go back to the drawing board." This doesn't make it any less of an achievement that they put it together - but it doesn't make it a great sketch." (while I'm not a 'crank'-) Granted Scott, this sketch didn't have the comedic depth of 'Take'n a Plane Break' (/s), but I ask you this then- What was amusing to you about the penis talk of TL? Was it where the condom fell off inside the girl? was is how small his dick was reported to be? I don't get it. If it was a 'be funny or be professional' challenge, I don't see that TL was either. I'm not saying this as a fan of LHR, I didn't know they existed before this, and YES, I am now subscribed... but I just find it hard to believe that anyone who does comedy as a profession could conceivably put forth the proposition that TL (this challenge specifically) was funny in any way. @ Zach "Really who are the megacunts going and giving bad reviews and 1 stars to WTR, thats the most not cool thing I've ever heard of. Seriously I know you butt suckers are looking at this forum and are reading this and i want you all to know that you are in fact butt suckers and very rude and this is not how your parents raised you. " I admit that I mentioned doing this, but fact of the matter is, I didn't actually follow thru. My life seems full of things where I say I'm going to do something and then never actually get around to doing it. Soooooo, I feel a bit guilty about raising that 'call to arms', but I never actually left any review of the show myself. I listened to it, I thought it was shit, and then I realized that I couldn't review or rate shows on my iPhone and that I'd have to get up, go to the computer, boot iTunes, do some 'super search' nonsense to find the podcast... frankly I'm just too lazy. So yea, I've checked the show rankings since then. I've seen the (couple of) bad reviews. I didn't write any of them and my hands are tied about deleting them. I honestly feel a 'little' guilty about this (despite that I would have given the show 1 star- had I actually pulled the trigger) but I can only assume that others here on the forum read my statement and had more motivation than I did. Since I can't unreview what I never reviewed, and Jeff and Scott and everyone are pleading for it to stop, I figured the only thing I could do would be to edit my post and remove that statement. Apparently day two challenge posts are locked and I cannot edit it out. Sorry dave. If Scott, Jeff, or one of the moderators want to unlock the posts for day 2 I'd be glad to wade thru the forum and find my comment and edit that out. Hell, feel free to delete the comment entirely! I hope it helps, but the damage may already be done. The people who read that 'probably' haven't read the following 10+ pages of comments afterward. If they did, and are READING THIS RIGHT NOW then HEAR THIS - You should amend your comments about the Walking the Room podcast if you didn't actually listen to it and just trashed it based on your feelings about this show. The valid point is that it WILL hurt the EWC next season if judges are afraid to judge! @ wain weldin shhhhhhhhhhhh! You can't say stuff like that around here! @ dave anthony "I voted based on laughs per minute and nothing else. I'm sorry many of you feel TL was less funny than LHR. I disagree. My opinion was only based on the five minutes I heard. I did NOT take into account my belief that LHR should have brought up Zach dropping out. That's my own personal opinion and I still believe it to be true but I voted based simply on who made me laugh in the end. Some of you refuse to believe TL could have been funnier than LHR. You're wrong. It was.' The microphones were recording you while the submission aired. I don't recall hearing you laugh at all at totally lame. I've listen to it twice. These were silent laughs I guess? I DID HEAR that it's 'engaging', but last I checked engaging does not equate to 'funny' So, I'd like to ask everyone that agrees with this weeks decision, exactly what WAS 'funny' or 'professional' about totally lame? Be specific- of all the 'cute' and 'charming' banter, which exact part made you laugh? I see lots of people dissecting LHR (and those classy guys are to nice to even achknowledge that they were shafted) and saying it 'simply wasn't funny', yet I don't see ANYONE (and believe me I've read thru all these comments) pointing to what part of TL was funny in any way. Pathetic? Sad? maybe... I mean... it's almost depressing hearing these folks talk about their horrible first times... Are you ALL into 'schadenfreude'? what was funny about this? honestly- be specific! So sorry dave if you're pissed about bad reviews, but shit man... I'd un-do it if I could. On the plus side you traded a bunch of extra d/l's and subscribers for a 'couple' bad reviews. It's not like those couple people who gave you one star are going to doom the show. Sorry if a lot of you HATE me and don't agree, I think 'controversy' is what powers internet debate and traffic.

@ Raymond uhhh. Yes, I 'enjoy' argument - as I see it, that and the 'Socratic method' are the key's to furthering intellectual development. I can argue with the best and would welcome a point for point debate but you say you want to do it elsewhere? I'm not sure that's really fair to Scottabot, as he seems to enjoy the back-and-forth on the forums here... "I am not telling anyone not to complain - we like it! In fact, I welcome the several cranks who are going to yell at me for this post. Go ahead! I love that you're passionate about the show" -Scott How bout this tho Ray... next time, on Earwolf Challenge #2... Me and you will start our own podcast where we debate the merits and legitimacy of each event- nit-pick and 'judge the judges' so to speak. We'd be an iTunes HIT! I appreciate that you're an intellectual as well... and your 'Svladcjelli' reference. props. And since Scott asked for it... how bout this? @ Scott Aukerman "LHR turned in a very professionally written and sounding sketch that, at its core, was basically an amusing trifle (which I think they would agree with). This is the kind of premise that, when working in the Mr. Show writers' room, was pitched often. Bob would say, "very funny - now go back to the drawing board." This doesn't make it any less of an achievement that they put it together - but it doesn't make it a great sketch." (while I'm not a 'crank'-) Granted Scott, this sketch didn't have the comedic depth of 'Take'n a Plane Break' (/s), but I ask you this then- What was amusing to you about the penis talk of TL? Was it where the condom fell off inside the girl? was is how small his dick was reported to be? I don't get it. If it was a 'be funny or be professional' challenge, I don't see that TL was either. I'm not saying this as a fan of LHR, I didn't know they existed before this, and YES, I am now subscribed... but I just find it hard to believe that anyone who does comedy as a profession could conceivably put forth the proposition that TL (this challenge specifically) was funny in any way. @ Zach "Really who are the megacunts going and giving bad reviews and 1 stars to WTR, thats the most not cool thing I've ever heard of. Seriously I know you butt suckers are looking at this forum and are reading this and i want you all to know that you are in fact butt suckers and very rude and this is not how your parents raised you. " I admit that I mentioned doing this, but fact of the matter is, I didn't actually follow thru. My life seems full of things where I say I'm going to do something and then never actually get around to doing it. Soooooo, I feel a bit guilty about raising that 'call to arms', but I never actually left any review of the show myself. I listened to it, I thought it was shit, and then I realized that I couldn't review or rate shows on my iPhone and that I'd have to get up, go to the computer, boot iTunes, do some 'super search' nonsense to find the podcast... frankly I'm just too lazy. So yea, I've checked the show rankings since then. I've seen the (couple of) bad reviews. I didn't write any of them and my hands are tied about deleting them. I honestly feel a 'little' guilty about this (despite that I would have given the show 1 star- had I actually pulled the trigger) but I can only assume that others here on the forum read my statement and had more motivation than I did. Since I can't unreview what I never reviewed, and Jeff and Scott and everyone are pleading for it to stop, I figured the only thing I could do would be to edit my post and remove that statement. Apparently day two challenge posts are locked and I cannot edit it out. Sorry dave. If Scott, Jeff, or one of the moderators want to unlock the posts for day 2 I'd be glad to wade thru the forum and find my comment and edit that out. Hell, feel free to delete the comment entirely! I hope it helps, but the damage may already be done. The people who read that 'probably' haven't read the following 10+ pages of comments afterward. If they did, and are READING THIS RIGHT NOW then HEAR THIS - You should amend your comments about the Walking the Room podcast if you didn't actually listen to it and just trashed it based on your feelings about this show. The valid point is that it WILL hurt the EWC next season if judges are afraid to judge! @ wain weldin shhhhhhhhhhhh! You can't say stuff like that around here! @ dave anthony "I voted based on laughs per minute and nothing else. I'm sorry many of you feel TL was less funny than LHR. I disagree. My opinion was only based on the five minutes I heard. I did NOT take into account my belief that LHR should have brought up Zach dropping out. That's my own personal opinion and I still believe it to be true but I voted based simply on who made me laugh in the end. Some of you refuse to believe TL could have been funnier than LHR. You're wrong. It was.' The microphones were recording you while the submission aired. I don't recall hearing you laugh at all at totally lame. I've listen to it twice. These were silent laughs I guess? I DID HEAR that it's 'engaging', but last I checked engaging does not equate to 'funny' So, I'd like to ask everyone that agrees with this weeks decision, exactly what WAS 'funny' or 'professional' about totally lame? Be specific- of all the 'cute' and 'charming' banter, which exact part made you laugh? I see lots of people dissecting LHR (and those classy guys are to nice to even achknowledge that they were shafted) and saying it 'simply wasn't funny', yet I don't see ANYONE (and believe me I've read thru all these comments) pointing to what part of TL was funny in any way. Pathetic? Sad? maybe... I mean... it's almost depressing hearing these folks talk about their horrible first times... Are you ALL into 'schadenfreude'? what was funny about this? honestly- be specific! So sorry dave if you're pissed about bad reviews, but shit man... I'd un-do it if I could. On the plus side you traded a bunch of extra d/l's and subscribers for a 'couple' bad reviews. It's not like those couple people who gave you one star are going to doom the show. Sorry if a lot of you HATE me and don't agree, I think 'controversy' is what powers internet debate and traffic.

@Caroline "You give Jeff too much credit. I love him dearly, but his involvement in Earwolf has nothing to do with cleverness, either achieved or attempted." OK OK LOL. I believe you. Honesty is hard to argue with ROFL. @Jeff If you still haven't figured it out... I had to try it a couple times off the advice of Linus... What you do is after the paragraph, hit Return on your Mac and on the next line hold option and hit space at the same time. Then hit Return again to go to the next line to start the next paragraph. It's a pain in the ass, but It's also nice that you guys are building you're own message boards from scratch and not leaning on 'Disqus' or 'OpenID' or any of the other systems. I think this has a lot of potential. I'd like to see options in the future for e-mail notifications of responses, and easy methods for replying to a quote and kinda 'captioning' that quote within the response. I think a lot of traffic on message boards can be attributed to people having the option of 'subscribing' to a thread. I'm sure you're guys will get there soon. hope that helps (?)

@Caroline "You give Jeff too much credit. I love him dearly, but his involvement in Earwolf has nothing to do with cleverness, either achieved or attempted." OK OK LOL. I believe you. Honesty is hard to argue with ROFL. @Jeff If you still haven't figured it out... I had to try it a couple times off the advice of Linus... What you do is after the paragraph, hit Return on your Mac and on the next line hold option and hit space at the same time. Then hit Return again to go to the next line to start the next paragraph. It's a pain in the ass, but It's also nice that you guys are building you're own message boards from scratch and not leaning on 'Disqus' or 'OpenID' or any of the other systems. I think this has a lot of potential. I'd like to see options in the future for e-mail notifications of responses, and easy methods for replying to a quote and kinda 'captioning' that quote within the response. I think a lot of traffic on message boards can be attributed to people having the option of 'subscribing' to a thread. I'm sure you're guys will get there soon. hope that helps (?)

@Raymond "Seriously, anyone who thinks that this challenge is deliberately fixed or biased needs to take off their tinfoil hat and let the government satellites beam some reason into their heads." Perhaps not deliberately fixed, but you're kidding yourself and everyone else if you don't agree that the show has clearly been biased at times. It's simply undeniable, so you're going to have to do better than personal attacks about aluminum foil hats. Harris stated openly that he was bias towards Totally Lame. Sure the statement may have been tongue n cheek, but it's reasonable to assume that on some unconscious level that he was genuinely rooting for them. Other judges have been familiar with other podcasts, and some had even been guests. Whether you like it or not, this is going to effect their perception of the people behind the shows, and it could creep into their ultimate decisions. On shows like American Idol, you have judges who are considered experts to some degree or another in their field. The contestants are nobodies that the judges haven't been predisposed to in any way. The fact that they are all looking at these performances from the same perspective of the uninitiated lends to the judges credibility. Now, when you look at a show like Earwolf Challenge, the bias problem stems from the fact that SOME of the judges and people involved were familiar with the different teams while other judges were not. The contestants aren't necessarily unheard of up-and-comers either, but are actually the peers of the judges, often times with more experience and possibly more credits. Since podcasts are a relatively new art form, there isn't always a lot of difference in the stature of the judges and those being judged. As far as I know, this can't be helped, but as they're essentially judging the competition, bias is there and can't be helped. I'm not saying ANYONE was intentionally bias, but I'm not saying anyone wasn't either. The fact remains it's there and it's not worth denying. You saying that "anyone who thinks that this challenge is deliberately fixed or biased needs to take off their tinfoil hat" is akin to me saying "anyone who thinks that wrestling is scripted should be thrown in an asylum". This whole conspiracy thing was started when I mentioned bias for totally lame a few weeks ago and Jeff immediately went on defense with a elaborately sarcastic scenario in which the entire EWC was just a ruse to sleep with Elizibeth (or something like that). It was cleverly (?) crafted in a sensationalist way as to make it sound as if anyone that would even suggest there were forces at play beyond the surface was a 'conspiracy theorist' and should be discounted. That's what I mean when I say the only person talking conspiracy is Jeff, and he seemed to be joking. That said, why waste your time screaming about 'conspiracies' and that there 'is no bias' when it's clear that it's inescapable? A better thing to do would be explore ways that the framework of the challenge could be better structured to try and give the judges a more clearly defined criteria on which to base their decisions. That would put them in a 'walled-garden' so to speak, but it wouldn't be simply a random opinion from a random judge on a random week. There are ways to cripple the effects of built-in bias, they just need to be implemented. While the staff and most of the people involved seem to have integrity and are consciously trying to be as unbiased as possible, the mechanics of the show itself don't really have any structural integrity to speak of, and this lets in a certain amount of bias. If you continue to say otherwise, you're not worth responding to. If you have anything else to say about the 'conspiracy' of EWC, you'll need to address Mr. Ullrich, not I. good day sir.

@Raymond "Seriously, anyone who thinks that this challenge is deliberately fixed or biased needs to take off their tinfoil hat and let the government satellites beam some reason into their heads." Perhaps not deliberately fixed, but you're kidding yourself and everyone else if you don't agree that the show has clearly been biased at times. It's simply undeniable, so you're going to have to do better than personal attacks about aluminum foil hats. Harris stated openly that he was bias towards Totally Lame. Sure the statement may have been tongue n cheek, but it's reasonable to assume that on some unconscious level that he was genuinely rooting for them. Other judges have been familiar with other podcasts, and some had even been guests. Whether you like it or not, this is going to effect their perception of the people behind the shows, and it could creep into their ultimate decisions. On shows like American Idol, you have judges who are considered experts to some degree or another in their field. The contestants are nobodies that the judges haven't been predisposed to in any way. The fact that they are all looking at these performances from the same perspective of the uninitiated lends to the judges credibility. Now, when you look at a show like Earwolf Challenge, the bias problem stems from the fact that SOME of the judges and people involved were familiar with the different teams while other judges were not. The contestants aren't necessarily unheard of up-and-comers either, but are actually the peers of the judges, often times with more experience and possibly more credits. Since podcasts are a relatively new art form, there isn't always a lot of difference in the stature of the judges and those being judged. As far as I know, this can't be helped, but as they're essentially judging the competition, bias is there and can't be helped. I'm not saying ANYONE was intentionally bias, but I'm not saying anyone wasn't either. The fact remains it's there and it's not worth denying. You saying that "anyone who thinks that this challenge is deliberately fixed or biased needs to take off their tinfoil hat" is akin to me saying "anyone who thinks that wrestling is scripted should be thrown in an asylum". This whole conspiracy thing was started when I mentioned bias for totally lame a few weeks ago and Jeff immediately went on defense with a elaborately sarcastic scenario in which the entire EWC was just a ruse to sleep with Elizibeth (or something like that). It was cleverly (?) crafted in a sensationalist way as to make it sound as if anyone that would even suggest there were forces at play beyond the surface was a 'conspiracy theorist' and should be discounted. That's what I mean when I say the only person talking conspiracy is Jeff, and he seemed to be joking. That said, why waste your time screaming about 'conspiracies' and that there 'is no bias' when it's clear that it's inescapable? A better thing to do would be explore ways that the framework of the challenge could be better structured to try and give the judges a more clearly defined criteria on which to base their decisions. That would put them in a 'walled-garden' so to speak, but it wouldn't be simply a random opinion from a random judge on a random week. There are ways to cripple the effects of built-in bias, they just need to be implemented. While the staff and most of the people involved seem to have integrity and are consciously trying to be as unbiased as possible, the mechanics of the show itself don't really have any structural integrity to speak of, and this lets in a certain amount of bias. If you continue to say otherwise, you're not worth responding to. If you have anything else to say about the 'conspiracy' of EWC, you'll need to address Mr. Ullrich, not I. good day sir.