Science 2.0 Episode By Episode

[hank hill]

I don't know who colonelcommand is.

I'm not him.

I have no idea how we got to this point. Can't anybody just give a legitimate evaluation?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ok, here's my legitimate evaluation:

My theory is you're trying too hard to drive traffic to your YouTube channel.

I would think you'd be VERY interested in colonelcommand since he has exactly the same obsessive compulsion about that same YouTube channel. Odd that you don't.

 

[hank hill]

I don't know. Maybe it has a cult following or something. Tell me what you think. That's what this thread is for.

 

[RoboTimbo]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12675194#post12675194

You should try Reddit.

 

[hank hill]

I could, but I'm trying here as I believe this forum is more specific and I waited a month to get in so I assumed I ought to direct any questions here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And yet here there is no interest in adding to your view count while on Reddit, there is someone (who is totally not you) with the exact same passion.

 

[hank hill]

Who? I don't get why nobody is willing to watch this crazy guy's videos. If you're worried about his view count so much, download it or something. I don't know. This thread is about the content, not the view count.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Maybe you could get colonelcommand (who is totally not you) to sign up here and you could discuss with him. He shares your passion down to asking the same exact questions.

 

[hank hill]

Interesting idea, but again, this thread isn't about colonelcommand, it's about Science 2.0.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do you think colonelcommand is the person behind that YouTube channel that nobody has an interest in adding views to? Did you get the idea he was trying to drive traffic to it?

 

[hank hill]

Perhaps, but I'm mainly interested in the videos themselves.

 

[Dr.Sid]

The channel is kinda rad. I dig it.

 

[hank hill]

Ok, elaborate. These dismissals and accusals are boring me.

 

[wasapi]

Perhaps, it comes down to the fact that most folks here don't seem to share the intensity and magnitude of your interest. It seems you are pushing for a response that you just are not going to get.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Who? I don't get why nobody is willing to watch this crazy guy's videos.

Because he's a crazy guy making crazy videos on Youtube.

 

[wasapi]

Total lack of interest in watching a crazy guy on YouTube.

That's why.

 

[Foolmewunz]

hank hill,

What is your obsession with this horrible channel? It's not the most insane, it's just the cheesiest and worst-executed. My son made a more coherent valedictorian speech when he graduated (from Kindergarten). Truly this is horrible stupid stuff. It's a person who is on or off medication, unable to follow his own script and clutching at words to finish sentences, much like Trump gets wrapped up in his own voice and follows his brainfarts around.

I'd vote for "clinically insane". Who the hell would put together the Anonymous Alien Visitor from Area 51. It's him, standing behind a chair and then using a voice distorter sitting in the chair and then him again without the voice distortion, standing behind the chair again and thanking his guest alien! It's like watching a bad magician.

No, it's not a spoof. He's serious. He's also quite crazy. Now give it a rest.

 

[Greebo]

]

Who? I don't get why nobody is willing to watch this crazy guy's videos. If you're worried about his view count so much, download it or something. I don't know. This thread is about the content, not the view count.

The highlight, for me, is enough information. I see enough crazy on the internet by chance. I don't feel the need to deliberately seek it out.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It saddens me to imagine that hank hill and colonelcommand are potentially the only two people on the entire planet sufficiently fascinated by the same crazy person on YouTube to want earnestly to discuss it and try to work out if it's parody or madness, and yet they might never connect with each other to talk about it.

In its small way, it would be something of a tragedy.


<edit to add> Pardon my ignorance but would the place to find like-minded persons interested in this YouTuber not be in comments posted below their videos?

 

[halleyscomet]

Because I figured other people could come up with more interesting, detailed theories than I can. Why not try?

As I said before, There's no "there" there. You can't build a detailed theory from a poorly executed comedy act. It's a crap attempt at a parody channel done by someone who has no sense of comedic timing or how to structure satire.

While it remains possible that the person responsible for the channel is mentally ill, it lacks the vibe I normally get from content produced by people with a mental illness. It comes across as someone trying to look mentally ill, not someone who genuinely is. Take Gail Chord Schuler for example. She's completely divorced from reality, with the variety in her content coming in part from the nasty trolls feeding into her delusional state. Despite the variety of inputs she's starting with, they all get filtered down to a baseline. There's a consistency to her videos arising from her mental illness.



The Science 2.0 Chanel on the other hand is just bad. It's a cringe fail at trying to be funny, not unlike the conservative efforts to steal The Daily Show's thunder. It's an attempt at satire and comedy by someone who doesn't understand satire or comedy but thinks they do. It's primary social value is as an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and even that value is dubious, as there are more entertaining examples available.

I honestly don't know why you keep trying to drum up an analysis of the "content." There's nothing of value to analyze. Your desperation to give this loser attention is perplexing for someone who lacks a financial interest in making it successful.