User talk:Armondikov/Bullshit

Hmmmmm, about time someone create an article about this show. Good job, Armondikov. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Evil EC. Yup, this looks pretty bloody good. ^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. So far I'm coming to the conclusion that they're more hit than miss, sort of an "inverse stopped clock". However, I've not seen the last few series in their entirety and titles like "being green" and "NASA" make me a little cautious; on the other hand, "lie detectors" and "astrology" seem like the right sort of thing. Too early to tell really. Also, should I mark them out of 10 for each episode or something simpler with stars out of 5? ^narchist 22:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So is this going to end up as a subpage of Penn & Teller or a stand alone article? ħuman 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It might also fit well in the essay: space. It's a great idea, by the way. ħuman 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Interesting. I haven't watched the show since Series 3, mostly because I didn't have Showtime and couldn't be arsed to rent the box set. I really grew disillusioned with them around the end of Series 2, as the show was being increasingly dominated by Gilette's politics (Same reason I stopped watching South Park, actually). I remember watching a re-run of episode 1.5 (second-hand smoke) and realizing that P&T were relying on poor-quality and out-of-date studies to make their point. Frankly, that made me doubt everything they were saying. Ultimately, I'll rely on your judgment since we seem to have similar perspectives on the show (the PETA episode was really good). Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 21:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They did recant their second-hand smoke thing at a conference that announced series 3 or 4 or something, because they said they found some new data. But if I remember rightly, their data in the episode wasn't particularly good. So yeah, they got the wrong end there, but they at least corrected themselves. An episode of "Bullshit is bullshit" might be good for them, to recount all the crap and errors they've made themselves, they're human, it's to be expected, and realising where their weaknesses lie is the type of humility they could do with some times. As for Human's question, I'm not sure where to put it. I'll keep it as a sub-page here so if I get bored of it, it'll just die out easy, although its own place will be good once it starts filling up or if a few others take an interest in adding. ^narchist 14:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New update?

Talk:NASA reminded me about this page. Any chance of new reviews? :) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. Thanks for the prod. It has been on my personal to-do list to add a few more but I have been distracted with other RW things as well as Thunderbirds, and chemistry, and teaching and so on... ^narchist 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace?

You should move this to Review: Bullshit - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and complete a series and then move it to a per-series page. ^narchist 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Crap

I've just totalled it up and realised I have about 30 hours of Bullshit to watch... ^narchist 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this dead?

Are we going to see any more BS reviews, or is this dead as a doornail?Ryantherebel (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's merely a case of "when I remember to re-watch Bullshit". It's not something I've put a lot of time into recently, not least because it's very easy to have P&T over-exposure if you do too much too quickly. It's technically not dead or on hiatus or anything like that, it's just that practically every project I do rarely every gets completed. Though feel free to add if you like or have any ideas. ADK^{...I'll optimize your Subaru!} 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)