Mark1326657704

One last thing: for the record, I am not one of those people taking out my anger at the judges on iTunes. It would be extremely hypocritical to rate down a show you've never listened to because of something one of the hosts did on another show. All my ire has been expressed in the Earwolf Challenge forums...and I regret none of it.

One last thing: for the record, I am not one of those people taking out my anger at the judges on iTunes. It would be extremely hypocritical to rate down a show you've never listened to because of something one of the hosts did on another show. All my ire has been expressed in the Earwolf Challenge forums...and I regret none of it.

I admire the graciousness that you and your team have shown, Adam, but it doesn't change the fact that you were handicapped in this challenge in a way the others weren't. And while Totally Laime received special consideration every time something was out of their WHEELHOUSE, you guys not only didn't receive any consideration, you were criticized for being professional and creative. While I like your show, it isn't really about you guys, for me. It's not about hating TL, either. It's the fact that the challenge was unfair and unfairly judged, and Earwolf is insisting it wasn't. Anyone who listened to you guys pick apart every negative thing the judges said while they were eliminating you can see that. It's not really about you, but I will respect your wishes and let it go, from here on.

I admire the graciousness that you and your team have shown, Adam, but it doesn't change the fact that you were handicapped in this challenge in a way the others weren't. And while Totally Laime received special consideration every time something was out of their WHEELHOUSE, you guys not only didn't receive any consideration, you were criticized for being professional and creative. While I like your show, it isn't really about you guys, for me. It's not about hating TL, either. It's the fact that the challenge was unfair and unfairly judged, and Earwolf is insisting it wasn't. Anyone who listened to you guys pick apart every negative thing the judges said while they were eliminating you can see that. It's not really about you, but I will respect your wishes and let it go, from here on.

@Scott: "when you boil it down to its basics, the contenders could have submitted anything they wanted this week - as long as it was completed in a half hour. And to me, that's not only fair, it's what constantly happens" Except that if this had happened for real, LHR would have picked up one of the scripts they had banked, or even a bit they'd already produced that they had on ice, and plugged that in. But you guys told them specifically they couldn't do that. You gave them a completely different challenge then the other podcasts had. They had to create material from SCRATCH, IN 30 MINUTES. The chat shows didn't have to do a single thing different then what they normally do: talk to each other. Far be it from me to belittle the extensive creativity involved in asking questions like "when did you lose your virginity?", but this challenge was in no way "fair". Bottom line: you guys deliberately fucked over LHR, and you won't admit it.

@Scott: "when you boil it down to its basics, the contenders could have submitted anything they wanted this week - as long as it was completed in a half hour. And to me, that's not only fair, it's what constantly happens" Except that if this had happened for real, LHR would have picked up one of the scripts they had banked, or even a bit they'd already produced that they had on ice, and plugged that in. But you guys told them specifically they couldn't do that. You gave them a completely different challenge then the other podcasts had. They had to create material from SCRATCH, IN 30 MINUTES. The chat shows didn't have to do a single thing different then what they normally do: talk to each other. Far be it from me to belittle the extensive creativity involved in asking questions like "when did you lose your virginity?", but this challenge was in no way "fair". Bottom line: you guys deliberately fucked over LHR, and you won't admit it.

That's a fair point, and for what it's worth, I apologize. I actually do understand that some people like TL AND LHR. I shouldn't have responded to Ron's post at all; I'm just still smarting from the shitty judging this week. Sorry, Ron.

That's a fair point, and for what it's worth, I apologize. I actually do understand that some people like TL AND LHR. I shouldn't have responded to Ron's post at all; I'm just still smarting from the shitty judging this week. Sorry, Ron.

The fact that you were "fooled" about who was going to eliminated this week, when it was painfully obvious to EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO HEARD THE PODCAST, automatically renders your opinion moot. And that's BEFORE you called some of the best judges horrible and some of the horrible judges great. You MUST be a Totally Laime fan.

The fact that you were "fooled" about who was going to eliminated this week, when it was painfully obvious to EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO HEARD THE PODCAST, automatically renders your opinion moot. And that's BEFORE you called some of the best judges horrible and some of the horrible judges great. You MUST be a Totally Laime fan.

It would have been funny to listen to the judges bending over backwards trying to defend their paper-thin arguments against LHR, while LHR politely shredded every single one of those arguments, if the judges had then manned up and admitted that they were completely full of shit and had no idea what they were doing. "If that's the case, do you not have a sketch that's laying around?" "We were told that it had to be totally original content." "Oh, I didn't know that. I would have cheated." - No consistency. No firm criteria. No effort. Clear bias toward Totally Laime. TOTALLY half-assed. - This podcast is an embarrassment.

It would have been funny to listen to the judges bending over backwards trying to defend their paper-thin arguments against LHR, while LHR politely shredded every single one of those arguments, if the judges had then manned up and admitted that they were completely full of shit and had no idea what they were doing. "If that's the case, do you not have a sketch that's laying around?" "We were told that it had to be totally original content." "Oh, I didn't know that. I would have cheated." - No consistency. No firm criteria. No effort. Clear bias toward Totally Laime. TOTALLY half-assed. - This podcast is an embarrassment.

@Chester Douglas: No, LHR's sketch wasn't very funny. It almost sounded like it was put together in 30 minutes. And it was still funnier than TL's high school sex show.

@Chester Douglas: No, LHR's sketch wasn't very funny. It almost sounded like it was put together in 30 minutes. And it was still funnier than TL's high school sex show.

Matt, if the judges were only voting based on how funny the submission was, what was the point of the time crunch challenge? Why didn't you just say, "send us five minutes of your funniest stuff?" - Based on the judges reaction, you all clearly thought LDDC was the funniest submission. So, given your criteria, should we assume they will be declared safe tomorrow? I went back and listened to the judges comments for Totally Laime. You all called the segment of the man and woman talking about penis size "engaging", "honest", and "relatable". You did not once call the submission "funny". Should we assume that Totally Laime is in danger of being eliminated tomorrow, even though you all jizzed all over their segment? You said on Monday that the extra effort LHR would need should be taken into consideration. You did not mention this today. Should we assume you told the judges that off air, and that they chose to ignore you and focus on the fact that LHR didn't do what they themselves would have done? - No consistency. No firm criteria. No effort. Clear bias toward Totally Laime. Half-assed.

Matt, if the judges were only voting based on how funny the submission was, what was the point of the time crunch challenge? Why didn't you just say, "send us five minutes of your funniest stuff?" - Based on the judges reaction, you all clearly thought LDDC was the funniest submission. So, given your criteria, should we assume they will be declared safe tomorrow? I went back and listened to the judges comments for Totally Laime. You all called the segment of the man and woman talking about penis size "engaging", "honest", and "relatable". You did not once call the submission "funny". Should we assume that Totally Laime is in danger of being eliminated tomorrow, even though you all jizzed all over their segment? You said on Monday that the extra effort LHR would need should be taken into consideration. You did not mention this today. Should we assume you told the judges that off air, and that they chose to ignore you and focus on the fact that LHR didn't do what they themselves would have done? - No consistency. No firm criteria. No effort. Clear bias toward Totally Laime. Half-assed.

Worst. Episode. Ever. - Besser says one thing on Monday, disregards it completely on Tuesday. The judges yell at one podcast for making a big deal about the prank, yell at another podcast for not mentioning the prank, and say that the lamest one was smart to fall back on sex talk. - This was the most unprofessional piece of shit I have ever heard. There is not a single podcast that has been featured on this program that had a single submission that was less professional than this show. This "let's make up the rules as we go along" shit has finally lost whatever charm it had. How dare you host a contest for people, claim to be serious about it, and then subject them to this shitty treatment? - And I'm not talking about the "prank". It's a good idea to build a challenge around a guest dropping out, as I'd imagine that happens all the time to people who don't pay their guests for appearing on their shows. What was shitty about it was that the judges had no clue what they were looking for, no consistency, and no appreciation for genuine effort. - I have never listened to Walking the Room or Never Not Funny, and these clowns certainly didn't provide any incentive to do so. They were far and away the least competent assholes you've featured as judges on this program. They call LHR liars and say that they didn't pull their sketch together in thirty minutes, basically because LHR didn't do what they would do in that situation. And what did they want LHR to do? Make a sketch about how their guest ditched them, which is something absolutely NO PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM WOULD EVER DO. They rip LDDC for spending too much time being funny about their prank, which is all they wanted LHR to do. And I have no doubt that the two guest judges (I can't be bothered to remember their names) have the sense of humor of middle-school boys, but really, Besser? You're going to tell me that if ANY OTHER PODCAST had fallen back on that unbearably tedious "when did you lose your virginity" shit that you wouldn't be calling them out for being a lazy sack of shit? - They rip LHR because they can't get a decent sketch together in 30 minutes without using some canned jokes, but they have no problem with Totally Stupid just asking themselves the same inane question they were supposedly going to ask Galifiniakis? (Sidenote: I actually would have LOVED to have seen how that question would have gone over with Zach, who is hands-down the least engaging, "can't be bothered" guest on every podcast he's ever visited. Seriously. Go listen to his appearances on CDR and Mike Detective.) So it's cheating for a sketch show to have something in the can for an emergency, but it's downright NOBLE for a chat show to just breeze on with the same "material" they've done a thousand times, except instead of boring a guest AND an audience with their trite bullshit, they're just boring an audience? This is assuming that LHR DIDN'T create their sketch from scratch in 30 minutes, which is not an assumption I have made. If they had, however, I'd say they were still acting in the spirit of the challenge. You're going to tell me Super Ego doesn't have a sketch or two on ice for emergencies? The challenge was Time Crunch, not Make Up Something New But This Only Applies To Sketch Shows. And I guess Besser just forgot the bit about cutting LHR extra slack for EXACTLY THIS REASON? How many times did we hear excuses when Totally Dull turned in a substandard entry? That the challenge was outside their WHEELHOUSE? OFTEN. LHR had to write, perform, produce and edit a sketch in 30 FUCKING MINUTES. Totally Horseshit had to talk about the husband's penis. But THEY were smart to "fall back on dirty." - Seriously. Seriously. Everyone involved with this debacle should be ashamed of themselves. Why do you even bother doing this if you won't take it seriously? How dare you presume to judge others when your own product is so completely, thoroughly half-assed? - This thing has always teetered on the edge of fiasco, and with this episode, you've rushed headlong over the edge. I'm truly resentful I've wasted any time on this shit. At least if there's a season two, I know I only need to listen to the first one: after this season, I have all the clues I need to spot the podcast you've chosen to give preferential treatment to in every challenge, before you declare them the winner.

Worst. Episode. Ever. - Besser says one thing on Monday, disregards it completely on Tuesday. The judges yell at one podcast for making a big deal about the prank, yell at another podcast for not mentioning the prank, and say that the lamest one was smart to fall back on sex talk. - This was the most unprofessional piece of shit I have ever heard. There is not a single podcast that has been featured on this program that had a single submission that was less professional than this show. This "let's make up the rules as we go along" shit has finally lost whatever charm it had. How dare you host a contest for people, claim to be serious about it, and then subject them to this shitty treatment? - And I'm not talking about the "prank". It's a good idea to build a challenge around a guest dropping out, as I'd imagine that happens all the time to people who don't pay their guests for appearing on their shows. What was shitty about it was that the judges had no clue what they were looking for, no consistency, and no appreciation for genuine effort. - I have never listened to Walking the Room or Never Not Funny, and these clowns certainly didn't provide any incentive to do so. They were far and away the least competent assholes you've featured as judges on this program. They call LHR liars and say that they didn't pull their sketch together in thirty minutes, basically because LHR didn't do what they would do in that situation. And what did they want LHR to do? Make a sketch about how their guest ditched them, which is something absolutely NO PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM WOULD EVER DO. They rip LDDC for spending too much time being funny about their prank, which is all they wanted LHR to do. And I have no doubt that the two guest judges (I can't be bothered to remember their names) have the sense of humor of middle-school boys, but really, Besser? You're going to tell me that if ANY OTHER PODCAST had fallen back on that unbearably tedious "when did you lose your virginity" shit that you wouldn't be calling them out for being a lazy sack of shit? - They rip LHR because they can't get a decent sketch together in 30 minutes without using some canned jokes, but they have no problem with Totally Stupid just asking themselves the same inane question they were supposedly going to ask Galifiniakis? (Sidenote: I actually would have LOVED to have seen how that question would have gone over with Zach, who is hands-down the least engaging, "can't be bothered" guest on every podcast he's ever visited. Seriously. Go listen to his appearances on CDR and Mike Detective.) So it's cheating for a sketch show to have something in the can for an emergency, but it's downright NOBLE for a chat show to just breeze on with the same "material" they've done a thousand times, except instead of boring a guest AND an audience with their trite bullshit, they're just boring an audience? This is assuming that LHR DIDN'T create their sketch from scratch in 30 minutes, which is not an assumption I have made. If they had, however, I'd say they were still acting in the spirit of the challenge. You're going to tell me Super Ego doesn't have a sketch or two on ice for emergencies? The challenge was Time Crunch, not Make Up Something New But This Only Applies To Sketch Shows. And I guess Besser just forgot the bit about cutting LHR extra slack for EXACTLY THIS REASON? How many times did we hear excuses when Totally Dull turned in a substandard entry? That the challenge was outside their WHEELHOUSE? OFTEN. LHR had to write, perform, produce and edit a sketch in 30 FUCKING MINUTES. Totally Horseshit had to talk about the husband's penis. But THEY were smart to "fall back on dirty." - Seriously. Seriously. Everyone involved with this debacle should be ashamed of themselves. Why do you even bother doing this if you won't take it seriously? How dare you presume to judge others when your own product is so completely, thoroughly half-assed? - This thing has always teetered on the edge of fiasco, and with this episode, you've rushed headlong over the edge. I'm truly resentful I've wasted any time on this shit. At least if there's a season two, I know I only need to listen to the first one: after this season, I have all the clues I need to spot the podcast you've chosen to give preferential treatment to in every challenge, before you declare them the winner.

@Matt Miller: I heard Besser cried when he read your initial wheelhouse comment. Meanwhile, I fucking love Doug Benson. Of all the judges we've heard, he seemed the most interested in the Challenge itself, which was very nice. I mean the other judges weren't assholes, but from almost all of them there was just the slightest wisp of condescension when they were talking about the podcasts. It's totally understandable why they'd feel that way, but it makes it all the more refreshing that we DIDN'T get that from Benson. He has a cynic's realism but he doesn't come across as cynical, and he appears to be the least pretentious person in Hollywood. He also considers "fairness" very important; regular listeners to Doug Loves Movies know that, while he clearly knows that the Leonard Maltin game IS just a game, he always takes pains to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake, to an almost obsessive degree. I was glad to see him bring that sense of fair play to the Challenge: I think he's been one of the most objective judges so far, if not the MOST objective. I thought nearly all his criticisms were dead on, and I agreed with just about all of his analysis. - Harris Wittles was adequate. - Left-Handed Radio: Awesome bounce back from last week. I thoroughly enjoyed that clip. I'll admit to a fondness for comedy about instructors who don't really know their subject, and I laughed out loud when Thune said "chord". I can see why the judges said they zoned out during the list, but I thought there was enough variety in it to keep it entertaining. Outside of Seth Morris, I haven't heard many people who could pull off a bit like that, but I liked it just fine. I don't know what Thune improvised vs what LHR wrote, and frankly, I don't care. I agree with Besser: the challenge was USING THE FAMOUS GUEST, not GETTING TO KNOW US AND ALSO HEARING A BIT FROM THE FAMOUS GUEST AS WELL. LHR radio clearly "used" Thune better than the rest. That said: it's not really Thune's fault, and it doesn't reflect on his performance, but I couldn't help wondering what Matt Gourley or Jeremy Carter could have done with that script. - Little Dum Dum Club: I liked how the boys kept up with Thune, but I thought some of the initial questions were awkwardly tossed out there. They came across as very stiff and mechanical, but they loosened up fairly quickly. I think of all the podcasts, LDDC suffered the most from everyone not being in the same room: I think it might have gone a bit better if Tommy and Karl at least were together: their rhythm appeared to be off a bit at first. I wasn't nearly as enamoured with the clip as several others here, but after a slightly shaky start, it ended up okay. I think it's a clear (if distant) #2 this week. - Bob & Dancast: I agree with the judges: really dull questions that we've heard asked of every podcast guest a hundred times. I also agree that the boys didn't bring much of themselves to the equation. But if we've learned anything about Bob and Dan over the course of this contest, it's that they don't perform well outside their WHEELHOUSE. The structure of their show is clearly the most fragile of any of the remaining podcasts, and they kind of seem at a loss when asked to incorporate new elements or approaches. This doesn't have to be a FLAW; it's a necessary conceit of the Challenge that all the podcasts are being asked to perform components "of a successful comedy podcast", but Bob & Dan have performed just fine left to their own devices, and if they won the challenge, I'd imagine that's what they'd continue to do. More importantly, given the unbelievable amount of extra consideration that Totally Laime always get whenever they perform outside their WHEELHOUSE, I think any criticism of Bob & Dan should take the fact that working with guests is outside *their* WHEELHOUSE into account, which should easily elevate them to third place this week. - Totally Laime: jarring shift in the beginning from the marriage topic to the "weird hobbies" question (and what the fuck is "dog agility"?). After listening to it twice, I can't agree with Benson that Elizabeth shifted the focus to herself too much; I only heard her do it once, when she stepped on Thune's tattoo story to tell her own (but that one instance was a pretty egregious focus shift)...and in her defense, I didn't think Thune was especially forthcoming. It seemed like his energy was lowest during this segment. Actually, since I think LDDC started out with a similarly subdued Thune and managed to successfully engage him, I think it IS the host's fault. Their questions were almost as dull as Bob & Dan's, and they didn't manage to get much interesting out of Thune besides the tattoo...which they pretty much abandoned instead of pursuing. I will give Elizabeth props for one thing: Nick Thune IS a good-looking man, and I'm glad she said so. - Given the WHEELHOUSE situation, Bob & Dan deserve to live to podcast another day, but I have no doubt that they'll be eliminated this week in favor of the undeserving-yet-again Totally Laime. I can only console myself with the knowledge that LHR and LDDC are both far superior shows, and unless one of them spectacularly crashes and burns next week, Totally Laime will finally be voted off the island.

@Matt Miller: I heard Besser cried when he read your initial wheelhouse comment. Meanwhile, I fucking love Doug Benson. Of all the judges we've heard, he seemed the most interested in the Challenge itself, which was very nice. I mean the other judges weren't assholes, but from almost all of them there was just the slightest wisp of condescension when they were talking about the podcasts. It's totally understandable why they'd feel that way, but it makes it all the more refreshing that we DIDN'T get that from Benson. He has a cynic's realism but he doesn't come across as cynical, and he appears to be the least pretentious person in Hollywood. He also considers "fairness" very important; regular listeners to Doug Loves Movies know that, while he clearly knows that the Leonard Maltin game IS just a game, he always takes pains to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake, to an almost obsessive degree. I was glad to see him bring that sense of fair play to the Challenge: I think he's been one of the most objective judges so far, if not the MOST objective. I thought nearly all his criticisms were dead on, and I agreed with just about all of his analysis. - Harris Wittles was adequate. - Left-Handed Radio: Awesome bounce back from last week. I thoroughly enjoyed that clip. I'll admit to a fondness for comedy about instructors who don't really know their subject, and I laughed out loud when Thune said "chord". I can see why the judges said they zoned out during the list, but I thought there was enough variety in it to keep it entertaining. Outside of Seth Morris, I haven't heard many people who could pull off a bit like that, but I liked it just fine. I don't know what Thune improvised vs what LHR wrote, and frankly, I don't care. I agree with Besser: the challenge was USING THE FAMOUS GUEST, not GETTING TO KNOW US AND ALSO HEARING A BIT FROM THE FAMOUS GUEST AS WELL. LHR radio clearly "used" Thune better than the rest. That said: it's not really Thune's fault, and it doesn't reflect on his performance, but I couldn't help wondering what Matt Gourley or Jeremy Carter could have done with that script. - Little Dum Dum Club: I liked how the boys kept up with Thune, but I thought some of the initial questions were awkwardly tossed out there. They came across as very stiff and mechanical, but they loosened up fairly quickly. I think of all the podcasts, LDDC suffered the most from everyone not being in the same room: I think it might have gone a bit better if Tommy and Karl at least were together: their rhythm appeared to be off a bit at first. I wasn't nearly as enamoured with the clip as several others here, but after a slightly shaky start, it ended up okay. I think it's a clear (if distant) #2 this week. - Bob & Dancast: I agree with the judges: really dull questions that we've heard asked of every podcast guest a hundred times. I also agree that the boys didn't bring much of themselves to the equation. But if we've learned anything about Bob and Dan over the course of this contest, it's that they don't perform well outside their WHEELHOUSE. The structure of their show is clearly the most fragile of any of the remaining podcasts, and they kind of seem at a loss when asked to incorporate new elements or approaches. This doesn't have to be a FLAW; it's a necessary conceit of the Challenge that all the podcasts are being asked to perform components "of a successful comedy podcast", but Bob & Dan have performed just fine left to their own devices, and if they won the challenge, I'd imagine that's what they'd continue to do. More importantly, given the unbelievable amount of extra consideration that Totally Laime always get whenever they perform outside their WHEELHOUSE, I think any criticism of Bob & Dan should take the fact that working with guests is outside *their* WHEELHOUSE into account, which should easily elevate them to third place this week. - Totally Laime: jarring shift in the beginning from the marriage topic to the "weird hobbies" question (and what the fuck is "dog agility"?). After listening to it twice, I can't agree with Benson that Elizabeth shifted the focus to herself too much; I only heard her do it once, when she stepped on Thune's tattoo story to tell her own (but that one instance was a pretty egregious focus shift)...and in her defense, I didn't think Thune was especially forthcoming. It seemed like his energy was lowest during this segment. Actually, since I think LDDC started out with a similarly subdued Thune and managed to successfully engage him, I think it IS the host's fault. Their questions were almost as dull as Bob & Dan's, and they didn't manage to get much interesting out of Thune besides the tattoo...which they pretty much abandoned instead of pursuing. I will give Elizabeth props for one thing: Nick Thune IS a good-looking man, and I'm glad she said so. - Given the WHEELHOUSE situation, Bob & Dan deserve to live to podcast another day, but I have no doubt that they'll be eliminated this week in favor of the undeserving-yet-again Totally Laime. I can only console myself with the knowledge that LHR and LDDC are both far superior shows, and unless one of them spectacularly crashes and burns next week, Totally Laime will finally be voted off the island.

@Dan Telfer: I know it's crazy, but for some reason I feel like you might not think that Nick Thune is famous at all. @Bucho: Brown-nosers can be after nothing more than approval, you know.

Caroline, I just wrote a long and brilliant reply to your post which I tragically lost by stupidly flipping to another page before saving. I don't have the heart to try and recreate the whole thing, so I'll just boil it down to a few key points: 1. Your point about context is excellent; however, the very fact that the internet provides little to no context should make it easier, not harder, to disregard hurtful posts, no? If you don't "know" the person "speaking", they theoretically have less power to hurt you verbally. 2. Why people don't "go do something constructive": some people ENJOY begin assholes on the net. It's not an anger thing, it's recreation. While I wouldn't place myself in that category, I do enjoy using the internet to be blunter and more intellectually honest than I would otherwise be in a face-to-face conversation. The internet is a thing unprecedented in human experience: a way to interact anonymously with potentially millions of people. We're still figuring out the rules of the road here, but I'd rather take advantage of the freedom to speak unrestricted by traditional societal propriety than attempt to apply traditional societal propriety to a medium that exists, by definition, outside conventional standards of communication.

As a gay man who finds it more than a little annoying when people try to defend using the word gay to mean stupid or lame, I've had my struggles with the use of the word "retard". On the one hand, I want to say that it's overly PC to find it offensive. On the other hand, I hear people say the exact same thing about people who don't like hearing "that's so gay". So it's obvious to me that, just as straight people don't get to tell me not to find inappropriate uses of the word "gay" offensive, I don't have the right to tell mentally-challenged individuals (or those championing them) not to find inappropriate uses of the word "retard" offensive. - I think that Joel's request was very reasonable, and I find some of the responses to it more than a little distasteful. The bottom line is that no one has the right to decide what other people should find offensive, and that goes DOUBLE for people who are NOT members of the oppressed minority in question. You're free to feel however you want, and, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to SAY whatever you want. But if you believe you have the privilege to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't find offensive, then you should at least possess the self-awareness to realize that you're a huge fucking asshole. - I don't think there should be restrictions on what can be said on a comedy podcast, but I certainly don't see why a person can't ask people to THINK about what they say, which is what intelligent people should be doing anyway.

@Caroline: damn. I do that all the time. I have a mental block about "pool" vs "poll". However, I will totally bring my famous sour cream burgers to the BBQ, if someone tells me where the poll is.

I was a little disappointed that Matt chose to deal diplomatically with the good-natured ribbing of Howard, Kulap, and PFT rather than calling them out, but his response today was still as amusing as I'd hoped.