hugLife

This is a place for people to gather if they are unable to participate in, or create a local study group. You already know the rules for the group, so discuss things as you see fit.

I doubt that we will...looking kind of slow this week In other news, Earwolf increased the undisclosed amount of likes so we can have even more likes (of an undisclosed bigger number)!!! Time for me to finally unveil me new catchphrase for the occasion: *ahem* I like it

Zach, what is your favorite weekend getaway to jetset to?

Fine... I'll say it to keep the integrity of the EFTSG... I hate Howard Kremer's voice, and it is the only reason that I can't listen to Who Charted.

Shame on the guy for getting offered maple syrup? 'Drew'drew, you are getting kind of sloppy out here. My advice: Step 1- Accept the maple syrup, and ask for as many free bottles as you can get. Step 2- Host a multi-cultural pancake breakfast with said delicious maple syrup. Step 3- Take tons of pictures of happy brown kids eating the racist juice. Step 4- Post them all over the t-shirt shop. Can I have this job now?

Zach, were you heartbroken that you didn't get the role of "John Conner" when you starred in Terminator 5?

Inflation #blameobama

That picture made me hungry! It reminded me of a more savory version of fresh pudding skins (a delicacy where I grew up). I am still a bit apprehensive to swan dive into this topic because I would really hate to come across as a complainer. I feel like the premise of airing out pet peeves was the entire concept of stand-up comedy in the 90s. I know that observational humor may have a certain hipster chic, but my mustache may not be big enough to pull that off. Therefore, what is there to talk about? Should we just exchange lists? Should we try to rank out the most universal peeves of all time? Should we mention a peeve that could undercut another Earwolf podcast? There are no rules, but there is such a thing as proper etiquette. I don't want to sully the good name of our study group.

I'm a real big Earwolf Dan too

So, who got the real (much cooler) table since Tim clearly got suckered into buying a cheap knockoff?

Mmm...astute observation there. I think that the Mikes are barely breaking the jelly too. I feel this way because in their previous seasons, it seemed like they expanded on the topics just a bit more than a creaky door and a loose roof. Furthermore, this topic seemed to flow a little bit too smoothly, making it seem like a rehearsed, or "cooked", ordeal. It is ironic that a cooked topic is represented by cold dusty Topic chowder, while a raw topic leaves us with a savory treat to ruminate over in our study groups... So, I think that the inauthenticity of this particular episode is a peeve of mine as well. I know, I know..."they were probably nervous to be in front of such a wretched audience," you would say. But, all I am saying is if they consider congealed oils and fats to be the 80% of a chowder....what expectation are they setting for the 20% beneath it?

Dan should donate some of his hair to Will.

If a peeve is an annoyance, why would one choose to keep it as a pet? I think that aside from Showalker "ding ding ding-ing" out far before 80%, I would say that one of my biggest peeves is the phrase "pet peeve". I don't believe that there is much of a demand for keeping pets that one would hate, otherwise more people would be raising their own mosquitos.

So, I guess I will be the only one brave enough to address the caucasian elephant in the room: Why wasn't Hayes allowed to sign the table? Agata, did your last name use up all the rest of the ink in the pen?

Hmm. Yes, this podcast is so full of giggles that I have had to pause several times to process all of the points being made. I think that this first time audience thinks that they are maybe in the audience for that Comedy Bag Bag show or something. I will have a more comprehensive analysis of the "pet peeve" topic...but I think that part of my discussion of the 20% will be this disrespectful audience. I mean, Paul Rudd was rightfully taken to task for his lackadaisical disposition on the show, but so far neither Michael has asked the audience to remember that Topics is not a comedy show. Perhaps these issues will be addressed before the podcast is over. I will try to harness my rage towards these Rice-a-Ronians, as they are now sinking down to Flagstaff levels of contempt.

Wonderful use of GIF in that last post. It really punctuated the emotion and provided a potent visual of a scowling Jack Nickelsman. Speaking of chaining our group together, I can't help but notice that we are the only 2 posting in here. It goes without saying that....well, I have to say it otherwise it wouldn't make sense... we are not the only people listening to the podcast. How can we bolster EFTSG membership? It seems like a waste of chain to shackle two willing participants to one another. I think that we need to find a way to "track" down (that is a little reference to the trains, trolleys, and trac'tor trailers) more Topics fans to contribute to our discussions. Perhaps tomorrow we will get the legendary "Double Michael bump" on air.

Agatafeelin', you are really good at finding out everyone's personal information. You really must be a computer program, otherwise your last name wouldn't be "ShjqxntoxUZGx9oauf"

Now...can anyone even get far enough into the video to hear what the hell she is talking about?

I think that we are now touching into some controversial waters here. As a fan of Mike & Tom Eat Snacks, I feel like MIB never had full closure to that podcast. It kind of just ended. It seems that through all of our digging, we have been able to map out the subconscious of MIB, and I believe that we are approaching Inception-level deconstruction. He seems to be yearning for something (maybe some snacks), and perhaps the trolley is really representing a streetcar... a streetcar named "desire."

Well, there have been a lot of changes over at the 'wolf: 1. Um hello, studio remodeling much? 2. Scott Awkwardman gave you an ad again. (called it) 3. Donations have been allocated toward the refunding of the "popcorn gallery" 4. Sean used some of that "to the dome" money to literally buy a #swagalert hat for his dome. Very trendy and stylish

Exhibit B: munchies

I think that I understand what may have played an influence in them diverting from your much better episode idea: Exhibit A: marijuana

Don't get me wrong, I like the movie as well. I just think that it will come off as campy because it is so old now. There aren't many things from that time period that don't seem cheesy these days, regardless of how good they were back then. But again, I agree that it was not, and still is not, a "bad" movie

I guess it would more of a commentary of what people thought was funny in the late 90's. Since it is 16 years old, the majority of the jokes would come off as campy and outdated, and the plot would seem pretty hacky (again, because of its age). I think that the late 90s was a bad period in time in which people didn't know how to act. Some embraced the futuristic 2000s vibe, some were fearful of it, but most people swore that they were super cool "generation X-ers", and that will always be, at minimum, as funny as the disco years.

Since we are clearly ignoring the # in the corner of these posts, I will join in on the fun too: 1000 !!!!!