View Single Post
Old 10-24-2009, 01:49 AM   #86 (permalink)
Christ
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Doesn't that last part kind of defeat the purpose of your entire post?

I mean, first you want us to believe that the testing was accurate, and we should believe you because we "didn't watch the show", as you claim... but then you say "It's just TV" and "It can't stand up to peer review"... Contradictory, at best.

Forgive me if you never thought the testing was actually accurate, although that would lead one to believe you were only trolling to get a rise based on someone else's premise that we had commented on something we hadn't physically seen... is that the case?

Lastly, it's plainly irresponsible for Jamie and Adam to think that they should be able to get away with not properly applying the Scientific Method to a test that could have a result which would garner such enthusiastic fodder. Especially when said test is performed on a channel of TV which likes to keep the image of being a channel that one can learn from, or "Discover" new things. What have we "discovered" here? That MythBusters' quality has definitely gone down.

In fact, I'd venture to compare them to a gold digging woman. Sure, she'll cook, clean, take care of you, etc... get married to her, and it's out the window. She knows that she doesn't have to impress you any more, because she's married to you. The game changes.

It's the same way with TV. Do things that people like, and do them well, until you build a client base, then don't bother anymore. You'll get more clients from the first set's brainwashed opinions.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote