Last post wins!!!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

You've written far more than I ever have... don't try and label me as the one continuing on this damn post.

The sheer hypocrisy of you writing another multi-paragraph tantrum to complain about me continuing the argument is staggering. The length of my posts is a direct measure of the sheer number of your logical fallacies that need to be dismantled. If you want shorter replies, present better arguments.

But you literally missed the biggest point of all - you didn't answer the question that was asked. You can try and dress it up, and claim moral superiority by claiming your response was a better answer... it wasn't.

Your "biggest point" is the most pathetic and arrogant part of your entire argument. Who are you to demand that your trivial, low-effort questions be answered in one specific, simplistic format? Are you some kind of grand inquisitor whose rules are absolute? This is a forum, not your personal fiefdom.
I didn't fail to answer your question; I transcended it. I demonstrated a superior level of knowledge, and your fragile ego has been in a week-long meltdown ever since because you cannot handle being intellectually outplayed.

And you were dismissive... to claim that nothing I said had any merit is of itself you just dismissing the logic I presented to you... or it's just ignorance.

Let's be clear about your fundamental misuse of the word "dismissive." Your arguments were not dismissed; they were refuted, dismantled, and proven to be fallacious. I exposed your lie about your initial "Damn... not bad" reaction. I exposed your flawed analogies. I exposed your staggering hypocrisy. You have not addressed a single one of these refutations. Your inability to distinguish between a logical takedown and a "dismissal" is the only ignorance here.

And may I present the biggest piece of damning evidence... I asked for the name of the episode... For someone who labels me as "pedantic"... you sure have taken this to the nth degree to "try" and prove how correct they are.

You are absolutely right. This is the "biggest piece of damning evidence." The fact that your strongest, most triumphant point is a trivial, pedantic rule about format is damning evidence of how intellectually bankrupt your entire position is. It is the last refuge of a defeated mind clinging to a rulebook that no one but you cares about.

This was never about a sitcom. It was about your fragile ego being unable to cope with being so thoroughly and publicly outmaneuvered.
This charade is over. Your arguments have been exhausted and refuted.
I win.

[perfect_pitch]

Who are you to demand that your trivial, low-effort questions be answered in one specific, simplistic format?

I originally just wanted the answer... to which it was 'The Red Dot'... you didn't provide it.

That WAS the answer, and you didn't say it. The fact that you got so offended when I correctly stated that you didn't correctly identify the answer is what started your blithering these past 2 weeks.

No matter what you say - your answer did not state the name of the episode.

Don't give us that pompous "I transcended it" bullshit that spews from your mouth; there is no transcending the answer - either it answers the question, or it doesn't... you didn't answer the question, and since then your fragile little ego has done everything it can to try and argue that you did...

...but you didn't.

[lostinidlewonder]

I originally just wanted the answer... to which it was 'The Red Dot'... you didn't provide it. That WAS the answer, and you didn't say it.

You are still clinging to that one, sad, little point because it's the only thing you have left after your entire argument has been systematically dismantled.
I didn't just provide the answer; I demonstrated it. I gave you a video clip of the central joke of the episode, the very event that gives the episode its title, "The Red Dot." To see the joke is to know the name. It was a more sophisticated and comprehensive answer that proved I knew the material, not just a title I could have pulled from a two-second Google search.

Furthermore the video also connected to my initial image where George was getting in trouble for what he did with the cleaner Evie, so the video I provided was perfectly in harmony not only with your question but my initial picture which initiated the question. Checkmate.

Don't give us that pompous "I transcended it" bullshit that spews from your mouth; there is no transcending the answer - either it answers the question, or it doesn't... you didn't answer the question...

"There is no transcending the answer - either it answers the question, or it doesn't."
Thank you. This is the single most revealing sentence you have written in this entire exchange. It is the full confession of a pedant, a perfect summary of a mind that is incapable of seeing beyond a simplistic, black-and-white checklist. You see a test, I see an opportunity for mastery. You see a checklist, I see a canvas. This isn't "pompous bullshit"; it's an accurate description of providing a superior answer that your limited, procedural mind cannot process.
This is why you lost.

and since then your fragile little ego has done everything it can to try and argue that you did...

Let's talk about fragile egos. A fragile ego is one that cannot handle being impressed. A fragile ego says "Damn... not bad" and then immediately backtracks with pedantry because it can't stand that someone else was clever. A fragile ego spends over a week obsessively arguing a trivial point, resorting to a tirade of insults ("psychotic," "troll," "nutjob") because its logic has failed.
Your entire week-long meltdown has been a desperate attempt to protect your own fragile ego from the simple fact that you were intellectually outmaneuvered from the very first reply.
This was never about a sitcom. It was about your arrogant refusal to acknowledge a better answer.
I win.

[j_tour]

So when you guys play snooker or pool, do you go Scotch doubles or regular?

Also, NB:  the term "deconstruct" was used incorrectly, or imprecisely, at least once here.

I blame computers.

[perfect_pitch]

I gave you a video clip of the central joke of the episode, the very event that gives the episode its title, "The Red Dot." To see the joke is to know the name.

No... it alluded to it maybe, but in order for it to be the correct answer it needs to provide the information needed for those who may not KNOW the answer. I know the answer because I recognised the scene and I know the answer.

To see the joke isn't to know the name, if you're someone who DOESN'T know the joke, or hasn't seen the episode; so by providing another scene from the episode - sure you demonstrated you what episode the original meme was from, but you in no way imparted information to those who were unaware of the joke.

You see while the video clip you posted in regards to Frodo's answer at least identified the episode name and season, and IN the title and the episode, the word apartment is mentioned multiple times.

It is the full confession of a pedant

Nope, it's called being correct. Your video you posted to me however didn't once state the words or dialogue referring to 'The Red Dot'. As far as people looking at that video clip - one could assume it was called 'The Sweater' or 'The Maid' (although, that's a different season entirely).

It was about your arrogant refusal to acknowledge a better answer.

No... in a question like this - either you have the correct answer or an incorrect answer. And your ""I transcended the answer" IS bullshit. If I ask you what 3 + 4 equals? When the question is this simple (as you stated outright many times), then you can't 'transcend it'. Either you state the answer is 7, or you don't.

To see the joke is to know the name. It was a more sophisticated and comprehensive answer that proved I knew the material, not just a title I could have pulled from a two-second Google search.

Again, wouldn't have known or probably cared if you HAD google-searched it (and again, for the record - I didn't). I do know some of my favourite episodes by season and episode because I watched them repeatedly through Uni when I got them on DVD box set. (What else is a guy in university to do in his spare time if he's not out drinking)...

...but you didn't answer the question. You may have alluded to it, but that's only because I already have an in-depth knowledge of Seinfeld over the last 20-something years. To anyone who doesn't know the sitcom or the shows episodes... it didn't provide...

the answer.

Checkmate.

No, I believe that's what is called as pseudo-checkmate. Nice try though.

[lostinidlewonder]

No... it alluded to it maybe...

This is the sound of a failing argument. The weakness of your position is laid bare in your own words. "Alluded to it maybe"? This isn't a confident refutation; it's a pathetic attempt to diminish a superior answer because you cannot accept that your question was answered. It didn't "maybe allude" to the answer; it demonstrated it. My clip showed the central joke that is the title. Your unwillingness to accept this logically irrefutable point is the core of your failure in this debate.

...in order for it to be the correct answer it needs to provide the information needed for those who may not KNOW the answer...

First of all we are not dealing with people who know nothing about Seinfeld.
Secondly you are now claiming that an answer is only correct if it "imparts information to those who are unaware." Fine. Let's apply this new, self-serving standard and the "information". First, let's test your preferred answer:
Imagine someone who has never seen Seinfeld. If I simply type the words "The Red Dot" to them, what information have I imparted? Just a title. It is a meaningless phrase with no context, no character, no plot. By your own rule, your preferred answer is a catastrophic failure.

Now, let's test the answer I actually provided: My answer was a video clip showing the climactic scene: George, the cashmere sweater, and the cleaner Evie discovering the flaw. While the words "red dot" are not spoken, the visual information is undeniable, the joke is memorable. An unaware person learns:
The characters involved. The central conflict of the episode (a flawed cashmere gift). The visual origin of the episode's title. They see the thing that is the red dot, making the title instantly understandable once it's known. Most importantly, they are given a wealth of searchable keywords and notably "cashmere".

My answer is the only one that actually passes your test. It provides context, character, and the very visual information that gives the episode its name. You are clinging to a demand for a specific text string while I provided the far more sophisticated visual proof of the answer.

You have been defeated by your own flawed logic.

Again, wouldn't have known or probably cared if you HAD google-searched it (and again, for the record - I didn't).

For the record this make no sense that you didn't google it. You already admitted you are not a no 1 Seinfeld fan yet you can pluck from your mind not only an episodes name (which isn't that impressive) but the exact season number and episode number. As if that's a thing people who are not top fans do lol. Sorry your story is filled with cognitive dissonance.

You see while the video clip you posted in regards to Frodo's answer at least identified the episode name and season, and IN the title and the episode, the word apartment is mentioned multiple times.

Your comparison to Frodo's answer is a breathtaking display of hypocrisy. Yes, the video title had the information in code the S and E number, but did the dialogue or title answer your pedantic question with, "The name of this episode is 'The Apartment'"? No. And would someone "unaware of the joke" know that the word "apartment" was the title, just from hearing it spoken? Of course not. It would be just as simple to extract the episode name by typing in the S and E number vs typing something like "Cashmere Seinfeld", zero difference in difficulty.

You are being conveniently flexible for the Frodo question/answer because it suits your narrative, but rigidly pedantic with me because your ego is on the line. This is a double standard, and it exposes your entire argument as intellectually dishonest.

Let's return to the facts you've so desperately tried to ignore. I didn't just provide an answer; I provided the perfect answer. I gave you a video clip of the central joke of the episode, the very event that gives the episode its title, "The Red Dot." To see the joke is to know the name. It was a more sophisticated and comprehensive answer that proved I knew the material, not just a title I could have pulled from a two-second Google search.

Furthermore, the video perfectly connected to my initial image where George was getting in trouble with the cleaner, Evie. My response was in perfect harmony not only with your question but with the post that initiated it.
And you obviously know nothing about chess, there is no such things as a pseudo checkmate.

Checkmate.
I win.

[perfect_pitch]

Secondly you are now claiming that an answer is only correct if it "imparts information to those who are unaware." Fine. Let's apply this new, self-serving standard and the "information". First, let's test your preferred answer:
Imagine someone who has never seen Seinfeld. If I simply type the words "The Red Dot" to them, what information have I imparted? Just a title. It is a meaningless phrase with no context, no character, no plot.

But then, they would know exactly which episode it was from and wouldn't have to infer from the video or to google the image in order to find the answer because you've PROVIDED them with the answer. You've literally just proven my point.

THIS IS WHAT I ASKED... 'The Red Dot' is the answer to the question... the ONLY answer to the question I asked.

Think about it - if someone else had asked the EXACT same question, but had never seen the Seinfeld TV show... would THIS:

...have answered their question? No... it wouldn't have. You may have provided different information, but again they would have had to google 'Cashmere Seinfeld' in order to get the answer... which they could have easily identified had they just googled 'was that wrong Seinfeld' from the original picture...

In both cases however, you didn't state the answer... they had to google it. GOOGLE provided them with the answer... you didn't.

My answer was a video clip showing the climactic scene: George, the cashmere sweater, and the cleaner Evie discovering the flaw. While the words "red dot" are not spoken, the visual information is undeniable, the joke is memorable.

...but that's only memorable to people who HAVE ALREADY seen the episode and know the episode. To those who don't... it's meaningless. They would then have to take an extra step and continue googling in order to find the answer, and in that case - Google would have provided them with the answer... not you...

ERGO... you didn't provide the answer. Also, what visual information? You don't even see the red dot in the video.

My answer is the only one that actually passes your test.

No. You just simply assumed you were right.

For the record this make no sense that you didn't google it. You already admitted you are not a no 1 Seinfeld fan yet you can pluck from your mind not only an episodes name (which isn't that impressive) but the exact season number and episode number.

I said I wasn't the No 1 fan... and declared I wasn't the biggest fan in the world... but I have watched it too many times to count. It might not make me the biggest fan in the world, but I've watched it many more times than most people.
Also - I stated this very clearly. I watched it on DVD multiple times and then on streaming TV (again, all of which label the episodes by season and number each time you watch them), I never stated I had all the episode numbers memorised, but I'd say about 15 of my favourite episodes I do remember the season and episode. The seasons are easy to remember as there are significant characters introduced into each one.
Episodes aren't that hard either... I have a head for numbers.

You only claim it's filled with cognitive dissonance because you just dismissed my knowledge about the Seinfeld TV show.

And you obviously know nothing about chess, there is no such things as a pseudo checkmate.

A false checkmate, also known as a “pseudo-checkmate,” occurs when a player makes a move that looks like a checkmate but isn’t valid because the opponent’s king can escape or defend against the threat on the next move.

Furthermore, the video perfectly connected to my initial image where George was getting in trouble with the cleaner, Evie.

...but it still didn't answer the question. It was a simple question with a simple answer, and you didn't do it.

Stop arguing you did, because you didn't.
Stop trying to say you 'transcended the answer' because you didn't.
It may have alluded to it, but that's only relevant to those who ALREADY know the episode.
For those that didn't... and many people probably don't know the episode...

...it didn't answer the question.

You got so defensive when you did everything but 'name the episode', that you've carried this pathetic charade on for over 2 weeks now. From someone who claims to be as intelligent as they are, I don't understand how you can't see this very basic flaw in your argument.

[lostinidlewonder]

But then, they would know exactly which episode it was from and wouldn't have to infer from the video or to google the image in order to find the answer because you've PROVIDED them with the answer... To see the joke isn't to know the name, if you're someone who DOESN'T know the joke...

This is the central, fatal flaw in your entire argument. You claim my answer is invalid because it requires an extra step (a Google search) for an uninformed person. Yet, you brazenly ignore the fact that the only reason you asked the question in the first place was in response to an image I posted. By your own logic, my initial post was an invalid prompt because it required you to infer, recognize, and then search your memory for the answer. You are applying a completely different, hypocritical standard to my response than you do to the very context of the conversation.
Furthermore, your new, self-serving rule that an answer must "impart information to those who are unaware" only proves my superiority. If I simply type "The Red Dot," an uninformed person learns nothing. It's a meaningless phrase. My video clip, however, provides a wealth of searchable keywords, context, character, and plot. It is the only answer that actually passes your own test. You have been defeated by the very criteria you just invented.

Also, what visual information? You don't even see the red dot in the video.

This is a stunning admission of your own failure of comprehension. The entire scene is about the consequences of the red dot. The visual information is the entire context of the joke: George's panic, Evie's reaction, the sweater itself. This is the very substance of the episode. Your focus on whether the literal dot is visible is the most pathetic and pedantic nitpick you have yet produced. It is not needed to give full understanding of the climax of the central joke of the entire episode. One is informed, oh so theres an episode of Seinfeld that is about a cashmere sweater which has something on it, plenty of information to inform and highly searchable, just as good as the episode and season number in my response to Frodo which you accepted as valid, yet illogically you dismiss my answer  to you with your pedantic behaviour (only after you were impressed saying Damn.... not bad).

You see while the video clip you posted in regards to Frodo's answer at least identified the episode name and season...

And here we have the maxim of your bad attitudes: the blatant hypocrisy. You graciously accepted Frodo's video answer, even though it didn't pedantically state the title within the dialogue, simply because the YouTube title had the information. You were flexible then because it suited you. Yet, you apply a rigid, impossible standard to me because your ego is on the line. This double standard exposes your entire argument as intellectually dishonest. This is an utter logical checkmate against you from which you have zero recovery. It perfectly highlights your irrationality. A wonderful trap I set for you which you fell for lol.

A false checkmate, also known as a “pseudo-checkmate,” occurs when a player makes a move that looks like a checkmate but isn’t valid...

No real chess player announces "checkmate" only for their opponent to cry "pseudo-checkmate." If you actually played, you'd know that. But thank you for Googling the definition and, in doing so, proving my entire point with spectacular clarity. Your entire argument, your pedantic insistence on a "technicality", is a pseudo-checkmate. It's a move that you thought had me cornered, but which I easily dismantled with superior logic. By using that term, you have accidentally and perfectly described the hollowness of your own position. It is a self-own of monumental proportions.
My checkmate, on the other hand, is real. My video response harmonized perfectly with the initial image, and it simultaneously demonstrated a superior knowledge of the episode's content. You have no logical refutation for this, so you lose convincingly.

I said I wasn't the No 1 fan... but I'd say about 15 of my favourite episodes I do remember the season and episode... I have a head for numbers.

This is a pathetic and laughably transparent attempt to rationalize a lie. You claim to be a casual fan, yet you just happen to have a near-eidetic, database-like memory for the exact season and episode number of this specific episode? The convenience is staggering. The truth is obvious: your ego was bruised after my superior answer made you say "Damn..." and you had to one-up me with information you almost certainly had to look up.

You got so defensive... you've carried this pathetic charade on for over 2 weeks now.

This is pure projection. The only person who has carried on a "pathetic charade" is you. A person who "didn't really care" would have acknowledged the superior, creative answer and moved on. Instead, you have engaged in a two-week meltdown, filled with insults, lies about your own quotes, and now, a self-defeating lesson in chess terminology.
Your entire case has collapsed under the weight of your own contradictions.
I win.

[lostinidlewonder]

It's telling that you had to go back and edit your response long after posting it. It's a clear admission that your initial arguments were so weak you needed to backfill them with new, equally flawed logic. Let's dismantle these panicked additions.

Think about it - if someone else had asked the EXACT same question... they would have had to google 'Cashmere Seinfeld' in order to get the answer... which they could have easily identified had they just googled 'was that wrong Seinfeld' from the original picture... In both cases however, you didn't state the answer... they had to google it. GOOGLE provided them with the answer... you didn't.

This new paragraph you've added is a spectacular self-own. In your desperation to create an equivalence, you have just admitted my central point from the very beginning: your question was a trivial, low-effort query that could be answered by Google.
Furthermore, you've once again demonstrated your complete lack of practical sense. A search for "'was that wrong Seinfeld'" can determine the episode yes just like a search for "cashmere Seinfeld " all keywords provided directly by my "useless" video, leads to the exact answer instantly. My answer provided superior, context-rich data for the very search you now claim is necessary. You've just proven, with your own edit, that my answer was useful to determine the answer and demonstrates exactly that it is in harmony with the exact picture I first posted. The fact that two different searches will reveal the same episode shows I exactly know which episode it was from. Winning.

[lostinidlewonder]

You got so defensive... From someone who claims to be as intelligent as they are, I don't understand how you can't see this very basic flaw in your argument.

And here is your other panicked edit: a direct, ad hominem attack on my intelligence. This is the last resort of a debater who has lost the logical battle and has nothing left but petty insults. It is the most glaring admission of your defeat.

Your entire case has collapsed. You have been caught lying about your own words, applying hypocritical double standards, and now, editing your posts to add new, equally flawed arguments and personal attacks.


Oh and a quick listing of what you think you have proven but utterly failed because you have nothing to back yourself up with unlike my responses:

...but it still didn't answer the question. It was a simple question with a simple answer, and you didn't do it. Stop arguing you did, because you didn't. Stop trying to say you 'transcended the answer' because you didn't.

This is not an argument; it is a tantrum in text form. You are simply repeating a debunked premise with increasing desperation. I didn't fail to provide the "simple answer"; I chose to provide a superior one. Your inability to process a response that requires more than one-dimensional, literal thinking is the only "basic flaw" in this discussion.

It may have alluded to it, but that's only relevant to those who ALREADY know the episode. For those that didn't... it didn't answer the question.

This is the height of your hypocrisy. The entire exchange—starting with the image I posted—is only relevant to people who know the show. You are applying a standard to my answer that the very context of our conversation violates. You graciously accepted Frodo's video answer, which was also only "relevant to those who already know," because it suited your narrative. This blatant double standard exposes your entire argument as intellectually dishonest.

You got so defensive... From someone who claims to be as intelligent as they are, I don't understand how you can't see this very basic flaw in your argument.

And here is the final, panicked edit: a direct, ad hominem attack on my intelligence. This is the last resort of a debater who has lost the logical battle and has nothing left but petty insults. It is the most glaring admission of your defeat. You're not confused by my argument; you're frustrated that you can't refute it.
Your entire case has collapsed. You are now just repeating yourself and lashing out.
I win.

[perfect_pitch]

It's telling that you had to go back and edit your response long after posting it. It's a clear admission that your initial arguments were so weak you needed to backfill them with new, equally flawed logic.

Now, I know you're totally full of crap. You claim I typed this:



... a week ago??? Not even remotely close. Check the time stamps of all my messages. NONE of them line up with anything I posted even if you take into account the different time zones across the planet even NEAR or on the 27th August.

You're now posting lies about what I said to try and undermine what I said.

I only typed that just over an hour ago. You can see the message here:

Think about it - if someone else had asked the EXACT same question, but had never seen the Seinfeld TV show... would THIS:

...have answered their question? No... it wouldn't have. You may have provided different information, but again they would have had to google 'Cashmere Seinfeld' in order to get the answer... which they could have easily identified had they just googled 'was that wrong Seinfeld' from the original picture...

In both cases however, you didn't state the answer... they had to google it. GOOGLE provided them with the answer... you didn't.

You also redacted some parts to try and make my statement look flawed.

I haven't edited sh*t, and I dare you to show me which post I apparently edited and inserted that into, and I will SHOW you that I haven't edited it, because when we edit our posts, it SHOWS the DATE and TIMESTAMP of when it was last changed.

YOUR MOVE!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

The quote time stamps have error, thats not intentional. What I mean is that I responded to your last post, then refreshed and saw new additions, so responded to that too. Then refreshed then again you added more lol. It is very telling the content of which you decided you wanted to add to your posts lol thanks for the info, I pointed that all out clearly.  So don't try to distract with irrelevant timestamps, you even attributed my name to a quote I never said before, so errors like that happen. You continually edit your recent post and think I changed it, no I quoted you before you edited, so you lose, and it proves your very invested in trying to make yourself seem better than you really are ahhahaha. It takes me no time to do this, you on the other hand are wasting yours.

The fact you edit your posts and spend a lot of time trying to respond is lol. Waste your time, mission accomplished I win.

[perfect_pitch]

You continually edit your recent post and think I changed it, no I quoted you before you edited, so you lose, and it proves your very invested in trying to make yourself seem better than you really are ahhahaha.

No... I have never made that assumption. For once you screwed up and tried to fabricate something I said...

I'd say you've lost all credibility, but you never had any to begin with.

A person who "didn't really care" would have acknowledged the superior, creative answer and moved on.

I would have... had you actually answered the question... but you didn't.

I will admit, if I have an extra thought or argument 4 or 5 minutes after posting my initial statement, I will edit a post instead of triple posting (like a moron).

A search for "'was that wrong Seinfeld'" can determine the episode yes just like a search for "cashmere Seinfeld " all keywords provided directly by my "useless" video, leads to the exact answer instantly

Except you didn't provide the answer... if you've only given them a clue on where to find the information - that's not an answer. I asked YOU if you knew the answer... you didn't provide the answer.

Simple as that.

[lostinidlewonder]

No... I have never made that assumption. For once you screwed up and tried to fabricate something I said...

You have zero evidence to back that up at all. I quoted you exactly before you edited so thats why theres a difference, you realized you yourself made an error and changes your writing lol. Why would I change your writing to critique myself lol, id change it so it would agree with me or make you look even worse. Please use some logic lol... oh wait. yeah  you sorta fail in that department right lol.
 

I'd say you've lost all credibility, but you never had any to begin with.

What are you talking about, are you denying that you edited your posts? lol. The very fact I was responding while you where angrily editing your work is totally valid given the times in which we posted, there is not hours and hours difference. So try again, your attempt to try and discredit me merely makes you look worse because the circumstantial evidence is against you.

I would have... had you actually answered the question... but you didn't.

But you said I did with frodo since the episode number and season were in the video, but there is zero writing of the episodes title anywhere to be seen. You were satisfied it was good lol, you tried to use it against me but it hilariously backfired on you showing your double standards. My answer to you with the video was in harmony with my initial picture which encouraged your question and completely demonstrated knowledge of the episodes name. You even admit a simple google search could find the name lol, so your question really is as I said right at the start, simple. That is why I ignored it and answered in a much better way and interesting way, with a video. I win again.

I will admit, if I have an extra thought or argument 4 or 5 minutes after posting my initial statement, I will edit a post instead of triple posting (like a moron).

No lol don't minimise your editing time, look at my responses the times are there, you at least spent closer to 15 to 20 minutes lol!!!!!!!

Except you didn't provide the answer... you've made the user look up the answer - that's not an answer. I asked you if you knew the answer... you didn't provide the answer.

Simple as that.

I didn't make anyone do anything, I demonstrated clearly I knew where the initial picture came from by adding a video that harmonized absolutely perfectly with it. It explained why george got in trouble in that initial photo with the video which explained who he got in trouble with and showed the climax of the central joke of the entire episode. I win in so many ways, it is humorous how you try to wriggle out of it to try and diminish it, I really enjoy this, please let's continue on because this will be a post I can read back on one day and laugh very hard... at you   WIN!!!

[perfect_pitch]

That is why I ignored it and answered in a much better way and interesting way, with a video.

No... you didn't. You didn't provide the answer that was asked. How is it you can't see that???

I win in so many ways, it is humorous how you try to wriggle out of it

I've done no such thing - I haven't tried to diminish anything. I stated from the very beginning that you didn't answer the question and you've peddled this obsequious rant like some petulant, spoilt brat.

Claiming you win in so many ways, doesn't make you right. It just proves your ignorance.

please let's continue on because this will be a post I can read back on one day and laugh very hard... at you  

I'm not laughing... in fact, it's rather sad; disturbing almost looking back at the tirade you've gone on for the last 2 weeks. It says FAR more about you, than it does me.

You're the one desperately trying to claim that you're correct, when you couldn't do one simple thing...

...answer the question; and I've proven why it was wrong.

[lostinidlewonder]

No... you didn't. You didn't provide the answer that was asked. How is it you can't see that???

In fact I proclaimed that you should not ask such simple questions and then went about answering it in a more elaborate manner. Just how I answered Frodo to which you said was a better answer, to which I proved the searchable information for either that or the initial video is the same effectiveness thus highlighting your double standards and pedantic nature.

I've done no such thing - I haven't tried to diminish anything. I stated from the very beginning that you didn't answer the question and you've peddled this obsequious rant like some petulant, spoilt brat.

You're very first response was "Damn.... not bad", showing honest surprise that I answered it. Then you immediately decided to be pedantic about it. Too bad you cannot take back your very first initial response. Hilarious actually But keep trying, I find it very amusing.
 

Claiming you win in so many ways, doesn't make you right. It just proves your ignorance.

It is just stating the facts, you have lost in so many ways, so all I can do is claim to win Winning!

I'm not laughing... in fact, it's rather sad; disturbing almost looking back at the tirade you've gone on for the last 2 weeks. It says FAR more about you, than it does me.

Lol, I am enjoying it and having fun, you instead are not and finding it irritating, That says a lot about you, why would you subject yourself to something you don't like? Masochistic? lol. Your guesses about me have been very wrong, there is a whole history of it, and all your insults also show the poor judgement you have, so who would take you seriously lol.

You're the one desperately trying to claim that you're correct, when you couldn't do one simple thing...

No desperation, it's extremely easy for me to respond and dismantle all your arguments, over and over again. You can't do one simple thing, let your initial impressed response "damn... not bad" be all that had to be said. Because you then started your pedantic ranting and then trying to explain what laymen and real Seinfeld fans are like lol, you get that thrown back in your face and lol'ed at. So lol in your face, I win again.

...answer the question; and I've proven why it was wrong.

But I did answer the question in a way which harmonized my initial picture which prompted you to ask the question. I answered in the only way that could explain why my first picture has George saying what he did, I identified the character he got in trouble with PLUS I identified the climax of the central joke of the entire episode, just saying the name would not do that, that is why my answer is so powerful and superior. Checkmate #.

[orgarnic]

lostinidlewonder, how many of your posts are on this thread?

[lostinidlewonder]

Far less than some other people who are obsessed with this thread of mine You can click my name and look at my post history, there's almost 21 years worth, LPW is only like 12 years old.

[j_tour]

Is the answer The Red Dot?

Could be.  But it's uncertain if an episode name should be italicized or placed between double inverted commas.

Can someone look that up, please?

[lostinidlewonder]

No the answer is THE BIG LOL, a good description of the debate that ensued over the name lol.

[j_tour]

No the answer is THE BIG LOL, a good description of the debate that ensued over the name lol.

So, we're going with THE RED DOT as a matter of style, as concerns formatting.

That is not traditional, in my experience, but acceptable.

[orgarnic]

There are almost 20,000 posts on this thread, and I would assume that you are the writer of 1/4 of all the posts on the thread(perfect_pitch, j_tour, and other miscellaneous users such as myself). This would mean that you have made 5,000 posts on this thread, a little more than half of your entire post count.

[lostinidlewonder]

There are almost 20,000 posts on this thread, and I would assume that you are the writer of 1/4 of all the posts on the thread(perfect_pitch, j_tour, and other miscellaneous users such as myself). This would mean that you have made 5,000 posts on this thread, a little more than half of your entire post count.

You'd be wrong. Go have a look at random pages from the beginning to end to get a better understanding of the contributors.

[perfect_pitch]

Is the answer The Red Dot?

Finally... someone with the correct answer. It wasn't that hard a question, was it?

I'd offer you the winning prize of a cookie... but I ate it.

[j_tour]

Finally... someone with the correct answer. It wasn't that hard a question, was it?

Good answer.  You are correct that I'm correct.

And also winning.  More than Uncles Day in a whorehouse.

[lostinidlewonder]

Finally... someone with the correct answer. It wasn't that hard a question, was it?

Well not really hard since you were in such a hurry to answer it yourself lol.

It was from Season 3, Episode 12 entitled 'The Red Dot'.

I think she got a red dot on her forehead


Press the red dot, do it.