Max

"what are they avenging?" "Ray Fiennes' parents were killed by a good movie." all hail Tom

being hated in jersey is like not being able to find a urinal--sometimes you just gotta deal with it -- chris christie

hmmm, i believe it's pronounced "sean and hayesnongman"

finally, an earwolf podcast that hayes and sean can get themselves onto

world-historic episode. possibly best ever.

It's pretty obviously time for a Gordon Ramsay/Cake Boss showdown.

Is this broken for anyone else? Can't download or stream in Chrome or Firefox.

haven't listed yet, but i'd like to say something very nerdy: it's really really cool to see all those photos of you guys. is it weird to feel that? it's just really exciting to me (in a totally platonic way, i swear) to see nick kroll, bret gelman, james adomian, et al in a room together goofing around

"Cut to the house of the multiple referee" Cut to me spitting milk on my computer monitor. Thanks for nothing Besser

Hey, that Wave of Mutilation cover at the end was fantastic. Bravo

@Tom, I kept waiting for someone to mention that

I would personally like to hear Scott defend Billy Joel to Harris.

YOU need to submit some content, forum.

finally, a chat show that interviews famous american comedians on earwolf! a major gap in the programming has certainly been filled. . enjoy your one year contract, TL! you didn't earn it in my view but i'm willing to be proved wrong...

finally, a chat show that interviews famous american comedians on earwolf! a major gap in the programming has certainly been filled. . enjoy your one year contract, TL! you didn't earn it in my view but i'm willing to be proved wrong...

I hope Scott and Jeff will be on the podcast to talk about their impressions, I would hate not to hear them break down these podcasts. . I have also really enjoyed the series, despite being one of last week's complainers. I hope you absorb some of the criticism and bring it back even stronger next season. . This submission was pretty much exactly what I expected from Totally Laime. The questions were very surface-level, and the conversation inevitably tilted toward sex, Liz and hubby's personal life, and the point where these two things intersect - TL's center of gravity. . People seem to enjoy it, so why yuck someone's yum? I can't see myself subscribing, though. LDDC isn't necessarily much better, but after this listen TL just seems disposable.

I hope Scott and Jeff will be on the podcast to talk about their impressions, I would hate not to hear them break down these podcasts. . I have also really enjoyed the series, despite being one of last week's complainers. I hope you absorb some of the criticism and bring it back even stronger next season. . This submission was pretty much exactly what I expected from Totally Laime. The questions were very surface-level, and the conversation inevitably tilted toward sex, Liz and hubby's personal life, and the point where these two things intersect - TL's center of gravity. . People seem to enjoy it, so why yuck someone's yum? I can't see myself subscribing, though. LDDC isn't necessarily much better, but after this listen TL just seems disposable.

Golly that was one of the funniest in a while. Holy shit Paul F Tompkins is the wittiest man in the universe. Maybe it was a schtick but I thought I detected some honest to goodness frustration from Galifianakis from being word-bamboozled so many times. . And those Yo La Tengo songs were stellar. I am a huge fan of the band and even I cannot believe how good they sounded - especially the acoustic version of Sugar Cube. Really really cool. . Edit: Speaking of which, I know it's tradition to only have two clips pulled from the episode, but it would be pretty cool to be able to download those songs individually.

Golly that was one of the funniest in a while. Holy shit Paul F Tompkins is the wittiest man in the universe. Maybe it was a schtick but I thought I detected some honest to goodness frustration from Galifianakis from being word-bamboozled so many times. . And those Yo La Tengo songs were stellar. I am a huge fan of the band and even I cannot believe how good they sounded - especially the acoustic version of Sugar Cube. Really really cool. . Edit: Speaking of which, I know it's tradition to only have two clips pulled from the episode, but it would be pretty cool to be able to download those songs individually.

@Jeff . Well look, I'm not about to out myself as an American Idol viewer on this forum (the SkyNet comparison is apt.) But surely you can imagine a hypothetical scenario, in your mind, where the audience both learns a great deal about podcasting...AND the judging is haphazard and meant mostly for entertainment purposes? . Ok, allow it to exit the world of hypothesis. It's real! It's *this* show! . There is literally no way to listen to this show and come away believing that there are any standard judging/elimination criteria. I defy you or any other producer/judge to put something on e-paper that can prove otherwise. And that's ok! I'm just saying you guys should embrace it, that's all.

@Jeff . Well look, I'm not about to out myself as an American Idol viewer on this forum (the SkyNet comparison is apt.) But surely you can imagine a hypothetical scenario, in your mind, where the audience both learns a great deal about podcasting...AND the judging is haphazard and meant mostly for entertainment purposes? . Ok, allow it to exit the world of hypothesis. It's real! It's *this* show! . There is literally no way to listen to this show and come away believing that there are any standard judging/elimination criteria. I defy you or any other producer/judge to put something on e-paper that can prove otherwise. And that's ok! I'm just saying you guys should embrace it, that's all.

@Jeff . Speaking for myself, my issue was not with this single episode of the podcast. This was much more of a "straw/camel's back" situation. Every week there has been confusion about the rules and standards of judging, so much so that Paul F. Tompkins was able to go on a quite funny riff about it on Who Charted the other week. Surely when other comedians - the people doing all that hard work you are talking about - are on *your network* making fun of this situation, you must realize something is amiss? . This week's voting just brought the underlying issues into sharp relief. I don't doubt that Matt, the producers, and the guest judges are working hard at hosting and producing the show. But how hard did they work at developing the challenges and the judging criteria? With all due respect...it doesn't seem like a whole lot of thought went into it. . Maybe that's ok. Part of what I like about this show over the inevitable American Idol/America's Got Talent comparisons is that it is sort of ramshackle. Certainly I wouldn't have the chance to complain to the producers of those shows directly, the way I can to you. In fact, it's for that reason that I'm happy to let your "well maybe we'll just take our ball and go home!" comment slide. That's unprofessional as hell, but that's part of your appeal. . I guess the bottom line for me is that, if you want to run a contest in this off the cuff sort of way, that could be entertaining - but you should probably be more explicit about it. Matt's approach as the host has been to take the competition *very* seriously. He offers real, biting criticism, frequently gets upset or at least agitated, and agonizes over the rules that he clearly spent very little time thinking over before going to air. His delivery - and the whole tenor of the show - don't really fit with the reality, which is that these podcasts are eliminated on a whim, and by no discernible standard at least 50% of the time. . Maybe "Earwolf Challenge: Where Anything Can Happen!" Something to convey that at a fundamental level this is a casual, comedic show that's not trying to imitate a serious American Idol kind of contest.

@Jeff . Speaking for myself, my issue was not with this single episode of the podcast. This was much more of a "straw/camel's back" situation. Every week there has been confusion about the rules and standards of judging, so much so that Paul F. Tompkins was able to go on a quite funny riff about it on Who Charted the other week. Surely when other comedians - the people doing all that hard work you are talking about - are on *your network* making fun of this situation, you must realize something is amiss? . This week's voting just brought the underlying issues into sharp relief. I don't doubt that Matt, the producers, and the guest judges are working hard at hosting and producing the show. But how hard did they work at developing the challenges and the judging criteria? With all due respect...it doesn't seem like a whole lot of thought went into it. . Maybe that's ok. Part of what I like about this show over the inevitable American Idol/America's Got Talent comparisons is that it is sort of ramshackle. Certainly I wouldn't have the chance to complain to the producers of those shows directly, the way I can to you. In fact, it's for that reason that I'm happy to let your "well maybe we'll just take our ball and go home!" comment slide. That's unprofessional as hell, but that's part of your appeal. . I guess the bottom line for me is that, if you want to run a contest in this off the cuff sort of way, that could be entertaining - but you should probably be more explicit about it. Matt's approach as the host has been to take the competition *very* seriously. He offers real, biting criticism, frequently gets upset or at least agitated, and agonizes over the rules that he clearly spent very little time thinking over before going to air. His delivery - and the whole tenor of the show - don't really fit with the reality, which is that these podcasts are eliminated on a whim, and by no discernible standard at least 50% of the time. . Maybe "Earwolf Challenge: Where Anything Can Happen!" Something to convey that at a fundamental level this is a casual, comedic show that's not trying to imitate a serious American Idol kind of contest.

@Joel, it's not even about focusing on the positive stuff to me. In fact, I thought Doug was quite negative at points. The difference was that he offered substantive negative comments that were, frankly, very merited. . I am of the school of thought that negative criticism is important, and I don't really believe it always needs to be constructive either. But it does need to be more than 'fuck you' if it's going to be worthy of a show that is *about critiquing podcasts*. And the icing on the hatred cake seems to have been indignation (shared by me) that these established, successful voices in podcasting (whatever that means) would grind up contestants in this way. . So, yeah, positive reinforcement = great. Constructive criticism = great. But even negative criticism = great if it's substantive and doesn't feel like laziness or arrogance on the part of the judges.

@Joel, it's not even about focusing on the positive stuff to me. In fact, I thought Doug was quite negative at points. The difference was that he offered substantive negative comments that were, frankly, very merited. . I am of the school of thought that negative criticism is important, and I don't really believe it always needs to be constructive either. But it does need to be more than 'fuck you' if it's going to be worthy of a show that is *about critiquing podcasts*. And the icing on the hatred cake seems to have been indignation (shared by me) that these established, successful voices in podcasting (whatever that means) would grind up contestants in this way. . So, yeah, positive reinforcement = great. Constructive criticism = great. But even negative criticism = great if it's substantive and doesn't feel like laziness or arrogance on the part of the judges.