General TV trivia

onomatopoeia said:

I'm genuinely flabbergasted that you would ask ME that question. One would assume that only Doug Miller himself would know his motivation, with any certainty whatsoever.

Click to expand...

You can unflabber your gasts.
Why would asking your opinion about why something happened be odd?

I can count on fingers the number of times I've heard a man ask a question like that to another man, and in all but one case the answer was "How the fuck should I know?'

Women, of course, ask each other questions like this multiple times daily, and they never say "How the fuck should I know?", unless both are 'street people'.

Click to expand...

What an utterly bizarre outbreak of random sexism.
Wait, aren't you the one who thought "woman logic" was a thing?

What is 'a beauty pageant answer', Alex.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Show me the link. 'Seem' is a 'feel word'. Give us a link, any link at all, which supports your conclusion reached without evidence.

Click to expand...

You kept coming back to it.
It is sad that you think "seem" is a "feel word".
I hate to break this to you, but humans interpret each other's behavior all the time.
You're doing it now and coming across as very emotional about it, too.

There is some possibility that Doug Miller meant that The Five Chinese Brothers was 'banned' from mainstream chains which sell only new books by what was once called a 'gentlemen's agreement', (and I have no idea what the weasel word for THAT would be now); he might not have actually used the word 'library'. That's a trivial difference to anyone who isn't a lawyer.

If you can find a store within an 80 kilometre radius of where you live which has even one copy of The Five Chinese Brothers in stock OR on order prior to your inquiry, the store or chain's web homepage will qualify as a link, but I'd need the address with that outlet, unless it's a .'mom and pop '. Amazon and any other online only services are excluded, as are digital copies. We're talking about real books, which can't be altered after they're published.

Click to expand...

Do you think a book being out of print or no longer carried is "banned"?

Neither the Left nor the Right has a monopoly on book banning; you know that. They just ban different kinds of books.

If you re-read your posts and mine re: The Five Chinese Brothers "without prejudice", and I mean that in the legal sense, ie: objectively, what did I say which lead you to 'feel' that I was mad?

Is it perhaps understandable that I might legitimately be mildly annoyed by off topic 'chat' while I'm working?

Click to expand...

We could take it to another thread.
You made a statement in your thread, I looked into it.
Then you massively derailed your own thread.

The only reason The Five Chinese Brothers was mentioned was because it was part of one of unassuming's questions on the same page as some of my unanswered questions from months ago. My motive was only to notify the readership of where this difficult-to-find book may be purchased in Toronto.

I was, to a small extent, shilling Doug Miller Books, but with no motive for personal gain.

Click to expand...

And good on you.
Supporting used book sellers is a fine thing.

You don't even live in Toronto, so your motive to involve yourself in this may be called into question. Any suggestion that I WANTED the book to be banned is entirely a fabrication of your imagination, if you don't see it in MY WRITTEN WORDS.

If you can quote anything which I said on the subject which is inconsistent with my version of motive, then so do, but your interpretation of 'what you felt I meant' isn't evidence. That's called bias. Don't give me no bias.

Click to expand...

Dude.
If you didn't care about the banning part, you would have said "Oh! I guess I was wrong about that. Good to know. and moved on.
(I could quote CS Lewis from Mere Christianity here.)

You should just drop the whole thing at this point.
It's clearly upsetting you.

onomatopeia: What is 'a beauty pageant answer', Alex.

Vacazar: I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

You know exactly what that means. I asked you to provide a link which doesn't exist, and you dodge the question by posting a whole lot of other stuff.

Spit or swallow, man, but don't stand there gargling.

^^^^
say 'uncle', and this ends. Kissing the hand is optional.

onomatopoeia said:

^^^^
say 'uncle', and this ends. Kissing the hand is optional.

Click to expand...

Why would I say uncle?
You're the one keeping it going.
You could have stopped at any time.
It seems this really bothers you, though.
I don't know why you are so attached to the "They banned the books, isn't that horrible."
It's a TV-trivia thread.
It's your TV-trivia thread.
You seem very invested in these trivia threads.
You have rules and points and all kinds of things which seem to matter to you about it.
Why are you keeping this going?

^^^^^^^^^^

onomatopoeia said:

^^^^^^^^^^
View attachment 664901

Click to expand...

This entire thread is the example.
That you don't seem to understand that is unfortunate, but can't be helped.

This would bother you much less if you just dismissed it and moved on.
You could have avoided the entire Streisand effect here.

Also, I strongly recommend reading Mere Christianity, Book III, Chapter 7, as it might help you.

unassuming said:

Who guest starred on The Carol Burnett Show the most, 29 times?

Click to expand...

Tim Conway?

Valcazar said:

This entire thread is the example.
That you don't seem to understand that is unfortunate, but can't be helped.

This would bother you much less if you just dismissed it and moved on.
You could have avoided the entire Streisand effect here.

Also, I strongly recommend reading Mere Christianity, Book III, Chapter 7, as it might help you.

Click to expand...

You were challenged to provide a LINK as evidence of your accusation. You and I and anyone reading this thread know that you are dodging the issue with distraction.

My opinion of you has waned considerably because of your reluctance to take personal responsibility for your actions. In my neighbourhood, we call this 'sucking and blowing' or 'writing cheques your ass can't cash'.

Your mother and I are very disappointed, young man.



Do eet! Do it NOW!

onomatopoeia said:

You were challenged to provide a LINK as evidence of your accusation. You and I and anyone reading this thread know that you are dodging the issue with distraction.

Click to expand...

Your obsession with "it must be a LINK" is very odd.
So fine, in link form.

Valcazar said:

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/general-tv-trivia.745019/post-9614569

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/general-tv-trivia.745019/post-9614613

Your obsession with "it must be a LINK" is very odd.
So fine, in link form.

Click to expand...

onomatopoeia said:





Those two links show NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that I have ever supported censorship.

Valcazar said:



I've already explained that the "I don't care" referred to you wanting to chat while I was working. Each of your posts was in between a post in which I gave the correct answer to a question which had gone unanswered for many months. If a child interrupts while his father is working, anything the child had to say would not be well received, unless it was related to an emergency. Your contribution to the thread at that time had no immediate urgency. While you are not my son, there is merit in the analogy. You could have 'held your water' until a more appropriate time.

The only reason the subject of The Five Chinese Brothers came up was because the book was mentioned in a question post made by unassuming, which was answered on the same page where I was quoting myself to claim stump points. I quoted unassuming's question post, and effectively I was engaged in a dialogue with him. You were not a party to that dialogue.

My statement that the book had been banned from libraries came from Doug Miller, either as an indirect quote, or as an incomplete memory. I mentioned that my conversation with Doug had been in 2017. As a seller of books, Doug may well seldom visit libraries, because he sells books but doesn't lend them. It may be true that The Five Chinese Brothers is no longer in stock at any bookstore which sells new books. You have, as yet, not provided a link to any retailer of new books in your vicinity which has at least one copy on display or on order. The list of previously published books which are now out of print likely far exceeds the number of titles easily found, hence the existence of, and the need for, secondary market shops.

Your information that the book was not banned in Toronto libraries was news to me. I only visit the library to make photocopies. I have plenty of books to read in my own personal library. As Doug is the owner of the only store, (to my knowledge), of second-hand books in Toronto which specializes in children's books, I assumed that his statement was true.

You don't even live in Toronto. It's good that you looked into whether or not the book was, indeed, available in some Toronto libraries. I have no interest in having a copy of The Five Chinese Brothers transferred to my local branch because I have two copies in my person library, and Doug owes me two more from a trade.

The 'evidence' which you have been asked to provide refers specifically to the quote next to the red arrow in the screen cap above.

When have I EVER written ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, which would lead YOU to believe that I have EVER supported censorship OF ANY KIND, in ANY POST which I have made on the Internet, ANYWHERE?

If the Like I gave you for the split post is evidence in your eyes, keep in mind that it was given to you AFTER your post, and it refers specifically to your first statement, and definitely NOT to the second.

I should not have had to restate the same challenge with more all caps words, but you have either misunderstood your task, or you are talking around the question, because you are unable to justify your accusation.

THAT'S what matters to me.

onomatopoeia said:

onomatopoeia said:

View attachment 665508

View attachment 665509

Those two links show NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that I have ever supported censorship.

Click to expand...

I have never accused you of supporting censorship.
I even told you its just the opposite.

You seem to be confusing me pointing out you seem to want it to be banned with you wanting to ban it.
Those are different things.

I've already explained that the "I don't care" referred to you wanting to chat while I was working. Each of your posts was in between a post in which I gave the correct answer to a question which had gone unanswered for many months. If a child interrupts while his father is working, anything the child had to say would not be well received, unless it was related to an emergency. Your contribution to the thread at that time had no immediate urgency. While you are not my son, there is merit in the analogy. You could have 'held your water' until a more appropriate time.

Click to expand...

Now THAT's some funny delusional shit.
That you think this is even remotely a useful analogy is wild.

The only reason the subject of The Five Chinese Brothers came up was because the book was mentioned in a question post made by unassuming, which was answered on the same page where I was quoting myself to claim stump points. I quoted unassuming's question post, and effectively I was engaged in a dialogue with him. You were not a party to that dialogue.

My statement that the book had been banned from libraries came from Doug Miller, either as an indirect quote, or as an incomplete memory. I mentioned that my conversation with Doug had been in 2017. As a seller of books, Doug may well seldom visit libraries, because he sells books but doesn't lend them. It may be true that The Five Chinese Brothers is no longer in stock at any bookstore which sells new books. You have, as yet, not provided a link to any retailer of new books in your vicinity which has at least one copy on display or on order. The list of previously published books which are now out of print likely far exceeds the number of titles easily found, hence the existence of, and the need for, secondary market shops.

Your information that the book was not banned in Toronto libraries was news to me. I only visit the library to make photocopies. I have plenty of books to read in my own personal library. As Doug is the owner of the only store, (to my knowledge), of second-hand books in Toronto which specializes in children's books, I assumed that his statement was true.

You don't even live in Toronto. It's good that you looked into whether or not the book was, indeed, available in some Toronto libraries. I have no interest in having a copy of The Five Chinese Brothers transferred to my local branch because I have two copies in my person library, and Doug owes me two more from a trade.

The 'evidence' which you have been asked to provide refers specifically to the quote next to the red arrow in the screen cap above.

When have I EVER written ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, which would lead YOU to believe that I have EVER supported censorship OF ANY KIND, in ANY POST which I have made on the Internet, ANYWHERE?

If the Like I gave you for the split post is evidence in your eyes, keep in mind that it was given to you AFTER your post, and it refers specifically to your first statement, and definitely NOT to the second.

I should not have had to restate the same challenge with more all caps words, but you have either misunderstood your task, or you are talking around the question, because you are unable to justify your accusation.

THAT'S what matters to me.

Click to expand...

I'll repeat, since you seem to be slow.
You seem to be confusing me pointing out you seem to want it to be banned with you wanting to ban it.
Those are different things.

I mean, look at this.
You have now completely derailed this thread, your own thread, a thread you are so dedicated to you think of it as "work" and are mad that I interrupted "daddy working". (Like I said, wild.)
You have now spent post after post defending against something I never accused you of, after coming up with reason after reason why you think the "banned" story must have been true.
Because it really seems it is important to you that it is true, because then you are brave and strong for having the book despite the ban, supporting your self-image of yourself involves being a mighty opponent of censorship.

Once again, the actual response to all this nonsense is

Valcazar said:

...I have never accused you of supporting censorship. ...

Click to expand...

Valcazar said:

It seems very important to you that it is banned.

Click to expand...