Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 2,607 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Flap Jack
    Participant

    Well, whether the point is that ChatGPT is terrible at producing responses that are true or it’s that ChatGPT is terrible at producing responses that are funny, I think we can all agree on one thing: we need new Red Dwarf announced and we need it announced yesterday.

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I mean, yeah, I wasn’t made to do it.

    But when you say it was an experiment, you mean a social experiment, right? Hypothesis: if you get ChatGPT to produce some nonsense, and imply that at least some of it might be accurate (“which of these are accurate” suggests at least one must be) yet announce you’re not going to check, then someone will feel compelled to check it for you. Conclusion: yep.

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    The mistake would be assuming that they’re accurate rather than asking.
    They could be but I shall leave that to anyone who is inclined to check
    to actually confirm :)

    No, the mistake is definitely asking. Because you could spend the time it takes to fact check just looking up the information yourself, and even if doing that takes longer, you’ll actually have real info when you’re done. It’s only worth doing if you don’t actually want to learn anything.

    But let’s entertain the notion and do some fact checking:

    – 2021 Radio Times poll of the best British TV show of all time = doesn’t exist.

    – 2020 RadioTimes.com poll of the 100 greatest British TV shows = doesn’t exist.

    – 2004 Channel 4 “100 Greatest Comedy Shows” programme = doesn’t exist.

    – 2009 Digital Spy poll of the best British sci-fi or cult TV shows ever = doesn’t exist.

    – 1999 British Film Institute “100 Greatest TV Programs of the 20th Century” list = doesn’t exist. (The “BFI TV 100” from 2000 – note the entirely different name and different year – is a thing, but Red Dwarf was not on that list at all.)

    – 2015 British Film Institute list of popular archive-worthy TV programs from 1980-2004 = doesn’t exist.

    So yeah, that ChatGPT query yielded literally no pieces of correct information and only succeeded in wasting my time. I’m sure you’ll forgive me if I don’t acknowledge the merit in typing legitimate questions into the Automatic Lying Machine.

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I’ve fired a question to ChatGPT and this is what it has come out with (I have not verified which of these are accurate or not):

    Asking ChatGPT for facts, that’s a rookie mistake. Like using random.org/clock-times to find out what the current time is.

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Every entry here is English-language, right? (I didn’t read the whole list, only most of it, could’ve missed one.)

    You did, they included a sole non-English entry – The Bridge. Still, that’s a pretty huge English language bias, it’s not just anime that wasn’t included.

    Overall it seems like a solid list, but the choices are all very conventional. I was expecting to see one or two shows I hadn’t really heard of, but nope. Guess the 100 best ever TV shows also happen to be ones that got due critical recognition at the time, that’s lucky.

    Plus the unspoken genre limitations were pretty disappointing. No documentaries, no game shows, no variety/light entertainment, no children’s shows, no panel shows, no chat shows, no reality shows (… OK, maybe that one’s fair), and only one sketch show.

    Also, 

    – As exciting as it is to beat the likes of Cheers and Father Ted (get fucked, Graham Linehan), Red Dwarf obviously should have been the highest ranked sitcom.

    – What the hell is Sherlock doing here? Series 3 and 4 should really have disqualified it.

    – Sad not to see Pushing Daisies. Criminally underrated.

    – Andor deserved its place, but seeing it in the list just made me annoyed that I have to wait so long to see the next season of Andor.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294279
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Well you made the initial comment, but it was me that turned it into an actual argument. Let’s call it a team effort.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294266
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Yeah, I get that for sure.

    For what it’s worth, I’m sorry for derailing the thread like this. I could have just let “well, reboot seems like a correct word to me” remain in my head, or just said it once and left it, but internet forums create a compulsion… at the very least I could have derailed it with something more fun than semantic argument.

    Last year someone made a post on the Last of Us subreddit, that was a picture of Ellie as made in the Hogwarts Legacy character creator, and just by pointing out the obvious irony of it, I turned the comments section into a nuclear disaster area in under a couple of hours. This was, in my unbiased opinion, a rare and precious example of Virtuous Thread Derailment. But “there’s no virtuous thread derailment on the Ganymede & Titan forums”, as my great great grandmother used to say.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294257
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Right, usually you would only say you’re rebooting a PC when you’re switching it off but switching it back on immediately. There aren’t many TV series that feels analogous to. Maybe shows that were cancelled by their original network but then very quickly picked by another one? I don’t think many people would describe e.g. Brooklyn Nine-Nine Seasons 6-8 as a revival to be honest, let alone a reboot.

    That’s why what the words have come to mean via popular usage is most important… but then of course we just end up disagreeing about whether or not said usage is actually popular enough to be recognised as a correct definition.

    in reply to: Unseen Bottom #294248
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    OK, but I’d prefer it if Ed Bye chatted with Paul Tanter’s sister.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294229
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Reboot is clearly starting over whereas revival is bringing something back from the metaphorical dead 
    Language and usage might change but that’s how those phrases ought to be used really. 

    “Ought to” is an interesting thing to throw in there. Why ought they?

    Because if the way they’re actually used isn’t the key, then what’s left is just the earlier, generic meanings of the words. And on that front:

    To reboot = to switch something on after it’s been fully switched off.

    To revive = to bring back something from death or near death, or alternatively to wake something up.

    Those are pretty darn similar concepts. That’s a part of why it feels silly to insist they must be hugely different things when applied to media properties.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294215
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    See my later post about how a revival can also act as a soft reboot sometimes. 

    OK, so to summarise:

    Me – revival is a subset of reboot.

    Moonlight – revival and reboot are mutually exclusive.

    You – Venn diagram.

    Glad we could clear that one up. 😅

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294210
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I’d say a soft reboot is more signified by non-story elements like starting with a new “season 1”, and by a minimising of continuity links, but without actually contradicting what went before – like New Who. Whereas a hard reboot would be free to make wholesale changes and re-imagine a property completely.

    Wherever you stand on reboots vs. revivals, that seems like a weird way to categorise things. If New Who – which is commonly referred to as a revival – is not a revival but a reboot, despite being a continuation, then where’s the line? If they had called its first series “Season 27” would that have been enough to shift it into revival territory, or if they had brought back Paul McGann, or both? At least with the “if it’s a continuation, it’s not a reboot” definition, it’s not so unclear about which is which.

    I agree that usage can change language (even incorrect usage), but given that it’s so useful to have Reboot and Revival mean different things, and it’s not very useful (and can be actively confusing) to use them interchangeably, I prefer to keep the distinct meanings.

    I can see where you’re coming from, but for me it’s more useful to have a single word to describe the phenomenon of media properties being brought back after being cancelled or ended (I even keep reflexively wanting to say “rebooted” when describing it) than it is to have single words to distinguish them. Essentially, I’d rather say “hard reboot” and “soft reboot” to describe the sub-types than “reboots and revivals” to describe the general case.

    Also, you can see how it came from practicality. When it gets announced that a long dead TV show is coming back, they don’t always reveal straight away how many of the original writers and cast will be involved, whether it’s a new continuity etc., but people still need ways to describe it.

    Plus, although it doesn’t really matter, the broader definition of reboot does fit better etymologically. I don’t know about anyone else, but when I reboot my PC, at least 3/4 of the time it doesn’t lose all my files in the process.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294195
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    @ Dave

    The problem with that logic is that it takes it as a given that the definition of ‘reboot’ precludes revivals, when that definition is the very thing we’re disagreeing on.

    As long as you categorise it as a revival rather than a sequel series, Still Open All Hours is absolutely a reboot, by the much broader way the word “reboot” is actually applied. Ditto Dave Dwarf, 2000s Doctor Who, the recent-ish X Files series, Twin Peaks: The Return, the Comedy Central and Hulu eras of Futurama, and so many other examples.

    For the times this has come up as an actual argument, nobody has been able to answer why the terms “soft reboot” and “hard reboot” exist, when by your definition, anything that would qualify as a soft reboot would not be a reboot at all.

    You can disagree with a word being “misused”, but ultimately if the supposed misuse becomes widespread enough (which is surely the case for reboot), then that usage forges the definition. Like you can rage against people using “literally” to mean figuratively or “nonplussed” to mean unimpressed or “gaslighting” to mean lying, but after a point you can only express dislike, not deny that these definitions are real. We could all agree on G&T right now that a reboot must be an absolute continuity reset, no exceptions, but it would change nothing; the broader definition would continue unabated.

    People might use “reboot” and “revival” interchangeably but I don’t think they have quite the same meaning.

    Right, just like “rectangle” and “square” don’t have quite the same meaning. 😉

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294186
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    A revival is a type of reboot.

    I know that people often insist upon the revival/reboot mutual exclusion, but language is defined by usage, and people have long been using “reboot” for both things, maybe even for as long as it’s been a common term in media.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294181
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I’m on Tom Harris’s side with this one. A reboot being with the same people (or at least a lot of them) and being a direct continuation can still be a reboot, just a soft reboot instead of a hard one. The key aspect is just that it’s brought back after a long absence where it was presumed dead. The Dave era fits the definition as far as I’m concerned, especially with the change in network.

    Plus Dave Dwarf wasn’t even a direct continuation. A 9 year time skip that doesn’t even resolve the cliffhanger it left us on is pretty indirect!

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #294177
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Light cannot escape a black hole, so while the black hole is 2,000 light years away from Earth, Earth is Ꝏ light years away from the black hole.

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Cool. 1200 signatures isn’t bad for less than a day. Whether it can get to 100K in 6 months is another matter, but we’ll just have to see.

    in reply to: Smugle or Strugle? – Dispatches From Smegle #294158
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    16/04/2024 


    X/6 ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛

    It’s weird to think that I once broke a 100 streak. Nowadays I’m lucky if I reach 20.

    in reply to: Bobby on YouTube #294132
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Petition to have him rename his channel to ‘Everything Electric’, and then start posting exclusively from a brand new channel called ‘Actual Kryten’.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #294115
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Fun fact: “Starship Titanic” was the working title of that Doctor Who episode, until someone pointed out to Russell T Davies that it was already the title of the Douglas Adams game.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #294101
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    That idea doesn’t really make sense. Holly has no particular obligation to The Cat, and Cat doesn’t exactly act like he’s in desperate need of human companionship.

    He says “I couldn’t release you until the radiation reached a safe background level”, so the clear implication is that Holly is more or less compelled by his programming to release Lister as soon as it’s safe to do so (as long as he’s completed his sentence). It may be cruel to wake him up, or it may not be, but that’s not for Holly to decide.

    Although I don’t personally think it is cruel. Lister’s situation isn’t going to become less bleak just from him being left in stasis for some more centuries or millennia. Sure, hypothetically Holly could make the decision to go back to Earth himself and only revive Lister when they got there, but even if Earth is still there and still populated, it won’t change the fact that it’s millions of years in the future and everyone Lister’s ever met is dead. And if Earth isn’t still alive, Holly may have stolen Lister’s last chance to have a living humanoid companion in The Cat. If Lister wants to go back into stasis for the return journey he can choose that. It doesn’t help Lister in any way to take the choice away from him.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #294099
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Holly does also pull out the “Hell is being locked forever in a room with your friends” quote when justifying his decision, which suggests that the nature of Lister and Rimmer’s relationship – not just the quantity of it – may have been a factor.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #294074
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Well the relationships between them are different in the two different universes. In Kochanski’s universe they’re a couple, not exes.

    They’re only confirmed to be a couple in the present day though. You can fan theory it, but given in the flashback the context is that they had just broken up, and also given what KK says about her Lister becoming more sensitive as a softlight hologram, I really don’t think we’re meant to infer that they got back together in between Kochanski taking Young Frankenstein and her getting put into stasis. Rather that it was a post mortem romance revival.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #294072
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I wouldn’t say that Kochanski was judged by Holly as being bad for Lister necessarily, just not as good for him as Rimmer. Whereas alt-Kochanski doesn’t have a ‘Rimmer’ figure in her life, so Lister is her best option.

    It’s hard to see how Kochanski could be bad for Lister without Lister ultimately also being bad for Kochanski. Living with someone who’s getting progressively worse due to your influence doesn’t sound especially healthy.

    Of course the real reason is that The End was written when Lister and Kochanski barely knew each other, but by the time of Ouroboros they had been retconned to exes. But obviously that doesn’t satisfy from an in-universe (or multiverse) perspective.

    One other possibility is that as Kochanski is an officer, Holly let her choose who to revive as a hologram, or she was able to override his initial choice. They said that Holly brought Lister back as a hologram in the other universe, but they didn’t explicitly say that it was Holly’s choice to do so, right?

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I will never forgive Quegg for abandoning all of his party’s election pledges once he was in a quoalition.

    in reply to: Russell Two Davies #294021
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    So why not just say both? Colin Baker/Sylvester McCoy eras

    Because it fit with the rhythm of the rest of the sentence to just say the one name, like with Tennant, Hartnell and Smith. It’s true I could have said “and characters from the Colin Baker/Sylvester McCoy and Matt Smith/Peter Capaldi/Jodie Whittaker eras”, but (A) that’s overly wordy, and (B) by casting the net wide it might have sounded like I was trying to imply more characters returning than just the 2.

    Also like I said, I really thought “originally from” had me covered. 😅

    Of course, the 60th anniversary specials didn’t have the biggest throwbacks in terms of returning classic cast members. The Power of The Doctor featured the return of Tom Baker era companion Tegan Jovanka.

    in reply to: Russell Two Davies #294015
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Well those are some awfully convenient lines of reasoning!

    You say the days of better ratings are GONE, yet those days can apparently be easily recaptured with nostalgic casting, generally offering new stuff, and promoting it well? Something which of course they would never do for the main series. No no, the secret sauce for good ratings can only apply to those 4 episodes, and if the Serieson 14-1 episodes also start getting good ratings (even if not as good as the specials), I’m sure you’ll be ready and waiting to explain why those episodes actually have other unique features to draw in crowds that can’t be repeated, and how the episodes after will be the ones to tank for sure.

    And Disney is huge so the only way is down… ? Come on. You can’t pretend you’re making an actual assessment here if a company’s failure and success are both signs of its imminent collapse. This is what’s known as “confirmation bias”.


    Just saying in the past Disney like Netflix have been ruthless at dropping shows even with bit solid fan bases and not too shabby viewing. I just can’t see DW taking off as much as it is popular in the UK that’s all.

    OK, but my point is that the stakes aren’t that high, because if Disney drop Doctor Who, the BBC will likely still make more of it, it’ll just be on different networks in other countries. I know that streaming services do have a habit of pouring tons of money into something and then cancelling it after a couple of seasons, but the risk there is for shows they actually MAKE.

    It’s also just silly to treat Doctor Who as a huge gamble for Disney, and not something with decades of proven, consistent popularity all over the world.

    in reply to: Russell Two Davies #294008
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Bonnie was only in like two full stories with Colin, and one of those was a two-parter. I’d really consider her more a Sylvester McCoy era companion.

    Right, but I just didn’t want to make it a subjective judgement, and added “originally from” to make it clear what I meant. Ironically I was originally going to say “Sylvester McCoy era” but I was worried someone would correct me.

    The online and broadcast release is a useful tool to hide the fact the days of better ratings are long gone.

    If you mean the days of Doctor Who regularly getting 8-10 million viewers in the overnights, then yes they’re over, but that’s a medium wide shift. Doctor Who did very well in the ratings for the 4 RTD2 episodes so far. They’re certainly giving Disney priority for the timings, but it’s not to hide bad ratings.

    In fact, I’m calling it now: the consolidated figures for “Season 1” on the BBC will be higher than the streaming numbers on Disney Plus.

    Disney won’t hold on to this for long given they themselves are in serious dire straits. This won’t get past two series…sorry seasons.

    Nah. Disney Plus is fragile – because of course it is, it’s a streaming service – but the Disney company as a whole is too huge and diverse to be at that kind of risk. Any TV series punches they can just no-sell using their theme park and merchandise profits.

    Also Disney may be putting a lot of money in, but they’re still just an international broadcaster. Even if Doctor Who disastrously fails on Disney Plus and they stop licensing it, the show’s future depends on the BBC not Disney.

    in reply to: Russell Two Davies #293993
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    It does seem like the series number reset – and in general the division of the revived series into “Doctor Who (2005-2022)” and “Doctor Who (2023-)” – is happening entirely for the benefit of Disney, and their probable worry that potential new viewers will be scared away if they see that the earliest series available on Disney+ is “Series 14”.

    Strong evidence for this is that the first episode of Doctor Who ’23 isn’t The Church on Ruby Road, but The Star Beast. If it was meant to be a soft reboot narratively, starting with such a direct sequel to the David Tennant era – that leads into a sequel to a William Hartnell story, featuring characters originally from the Colin Baker and Matt Smith eras – would be utterly insane.

    I get that you can also argue that there’s never been a Doctor/top producer changeover that entailed a gap between episodes of over a year in the revived series before, and therefore starting again at series 1 is warranted, but it feels like a very arbitrary line to draw. The gap was nothing compared to the 16 year hiatus that brought about the last Series 1 (whether or not you count the TV movie), and it wasn’t even as long as the mid 80s hiatus.

    It’s especially weird, because usually TV series only reset their season numbers if it’s an actual hard reboot with no shared continuity (e.g. Charmed), or if the show itself gets a slightly different title (e.g. Daredevil: Born Again). Doctor Who was already a major exception to that once, but at least up until now we’ve been able to make things clear with the Season/Series distinction. Not any longer. How dare RTD make every fan discussion of either the Gatwa or Hartnell eras of Doctor Who slightly more annoying for the sake of international broadcasters, honestly.

    So, in conclusion, Back to Earth is absolutely Series IX.

    in reply to: Russell Two Davies #293989
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I’m feeling the same for a few reasons. I’m concerned with RTD rebooting certain aspects of the show. It’s difficult to feel excited when they’re intentionally changing histories of characters.

    Wait, what aspects is he rebooting, other than the series numbering? (Not to say that isn’t stupid. “Season 1” is some blatant Doug Naylor-esque fuckery.)

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    If you listen carefully to the opening theme (Series III+ version), it actually has lyrics.

    The lyrics are “Reg Wharf” repeated over and over, a subtle tease of the off-screen character who would eventually play a part in Back to Earth.

    in reply to: Dedicated ‘Spaced’ thread. #293912
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I mean just look at this DVD cover. Flagrant false advertising. It would have been more honest to call Red Dwarf “The Fantastic Adventures of Frank Todhunter”.

    in reply to: Dedicated ‘Spaced’ thread. #293908
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I managed to catch a few episodes some years back, and I have to say, don’t believe the hype. Despite the name, it’s actually set in contemporary London, and they don’t go to space even once. At least not in the episodes I saw.

    If you really want to see Simon Pegg in space, there’s a whole trilogy of Star Trek movies that will do that for you. And if you specifically want it to be a comedy/have Nick Frost in it, ‘Paul’ has you covered (he doesn’t actually go to space in that, but he does meet a alion, so that’s just as good). Ergo ‘Spaced’ is pointless.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #293861
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Screenshot from the Red Dwarf episode Confidence & ParanoiaScreenshot from the Red Dwarf episode Confidence & ParanoiaScreenshot from the Red Dwarf episode Confidence & ParanoiaScreenshot from the Red Dwarf episode Confidence & Paranoia

    in reply to: Smugle or Strugle? – Dispatches From Smegle #293848
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Do they do the same joke or similar in both episodes ??

    Closest thing in Part 2 is probably the psi-scan telling Kryten that Mike Mellington is a pompous know-all, know-nothing idiot who incidentally has a very small penis. Similar idea of a machine giving an extremely subjective assessment of a person, but a very different way of telling it.

    in reply to: Smugle or Strugle? – Dispatches From Smegle #293845
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    No one to blame but yourself for not remembering the context for one of the funniest bits of Back to Earth, Quinn.

    The clue is that the readout says “BIT CRAP”, so of course it’s in the episode which is a bit crap.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #293836
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    What if RD had cast Don Warrington as his Holoship character to replace Rimmer.

    What if in Holoship itself, Jane Horrocks had played the condescending scout, and Don Warrington had played the one who fell in love with Rimmer?

    Then with just a couple of tweaks to the ending you could have had Binks replacing Rimmer 2 series early.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #293814
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Stoke is my 6th worst, which is some achievement considering there are more episodes than that in VIII alone.

    Always glad to hear from a fellow Stoke denier. I love that opening as much as the next guy, but a single amazing sequence can only uplift an otherwise poor episode, not outright save it. That’s also why Blue wasn’t as good in my RftM rewatch as I had remembered it to be.

    Though even I feel a bit more fondly towards Stoke than you do. In the CC I scored it a 3, better than a whopping 8 other episodes (all of Series VIII except Cassandra, and Timewave) and tied with 3 other episodes (Nanarchy, Entangled and Dear Dave).

    Flap Jack
    Participant

    JUSTICE FOR GEEK CHASE

    in reply to: The Worst of Red Dwarf Memes #293754
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I was disappointed that I couldn’t find a culturally important classic format represented in these memes, so I had no choice but to represent it myself.

    in reply to: The Worst of Red Dwarf Memes #293740
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    You’d think Mr. Data would know that there’s no such thing as upside down and right side up in space.

    Although obviously it’s Kryten in particular telling him to smeg off, because he’s still bitter about being plagiarised.

    in reply to: The Worst of Red Dwarf Memes #293732
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Clem’s are real memes too, I’m pretty sure. I saw that first “Was a hologram before it was cool” one in my search result.

    in reply to: The Worst of Red Dwarf Memes #293725
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    All real I assure you. I could never make something as perfect as Comic Sans “In space, nobody can hear you smeg! Which is kind of lucky for me right now!!”.

    in reply to: The Worst of Red Dwarf Memes #293722
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    So it seems that to quite a few meme pioneers, the main impression of the Red Dwarf crew as characters was “they’re overly aggressive assholes, insulting and murdering their way across deep space”.

    Special shout outs to the one who declared that the outter [sic] space setting was the “only thing” that made Red Dwarf Sci-Fi, and to the one who paired up a Hattie Holly quote with a screen grab of Norman. Dwarfers true.

    in reply to: The Worst of Red Dwarf Memes #293716
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    in reply to: Smugle or Strugle? – Dispatches From Smegle #293706
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    01/04/2024 


    3/6 🟨🟨🟩

    Ah ha. Knew it was Series 1 Holly straight away, but I should have known it would be this one. Clearly I was lulled into a false sense of security by the lack of Easter special.

    in reply to: Smugle or Strugle? – Dispatches From Smegle #293679
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    31/03/2024 


    3/6 ⬛🟨🟩

    Was wondering if it might have been fixed to Lemons, but it was clear straight away it wasn’t.

    in reply to: Smugle or Strugle? – Dispatches From Smegle #293662
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    30/03/2024 


    1/6 🟩

    😎

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #293637
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Cool, so if I am a madman at least I have company at the asylum.

    in reply to: Mundane observation dome #293634
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Tikka To Ride is, IMO, the best of VII by some distance

    In the Coral Canvass I gave Tikka to Ride the same score as Blue, and a lower score than Duct Soup and Epideme. Am I a madman or a genius?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 2,607 total)