|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"WAM Alert!!!"
Right now on fox new gameshoow called BOOM! Involves an explosive device full of gunge.
Never press the red button unless you are prepared
We know.....
https://umd.net/forums/boom-gameshow
https://umd.net/forums/boom-on-fox
https://umd.net/forums/tv-alert-messy-gameshow-comin
... but if you're able to do screengrabs or clips, I'm sure they'd be appreciated. The black ladies in that first thread ain't bad looking.
https://umd.net/forums/boom-gameshow
https://umd.net/forums/boom-on-fox
https://umd.net/forums/tv-alert-messy-gameshow-comin
... but if you're able to do screengrabs or clips, I'm sure they'd be appreciated. The black ladies in that first thread ain't bad looking.
Well now I feel like the triple posting asshole lol.
Never press the red button unless you are prepared
Well, don't feel like an asshole .... I'm just pointing out that it may actually be constructive to repeat these, if it prods someone to capture them. One of the few regrets I have about cutting the cord is that it leaves me largely defenseless when a wam alert comes along.
RegisPurchase1 said: Well, don't feel like an asshole .... I'm just pointing out that it may actually be constructive to repeat these, if it prods someone to capture them. One of the few regrets I have about cutting the cord is that it leaves me largely defenseless when a wam alert comes along.
Fox is a terrestrial broadcaster. What does "cutting the cord" have to do with receiving an OTA signal?
On a related note, if someone is a vegan (or paleo) crossfitter who drives a hybrid and cut the cord, what do they tell you about first?
My critique of your repetitive WAM Altert isn't that it simply exists. No, it's really not a big deal and you meant well. I only roll my eyes when people make repetitive finds or alerts and then have an attitude when it's pointed out. You did not do this, and in fact you were overly apologetic about it with your self-critical response when this was pointed out.
However, I do have a minor complaint, and that is in the thread title you picked. It is completely non-descriptive other than the use of three exclamation points, which implies this alert has an extreme amount of potential.
- Given my knowledge of this show, I would say the potential is limited at best. I would suggest that it warrants no exclamation points.
- As I said, a more descriptive threat title would have been appreciated. The title of the show and perhaps even a brief description of the anticipated WAM.
A far better title would have been: "WAM Alert: Boom gameshow gunge", here we see the title of the show, we see that the anticipated WAM is gunge and there are also not far, far too many exclamation points to alert people of what is surely going to be a fairly middling scene at best (assuming this alert warns of scenes of the same fairly low caliber that the show has already produced).
An exclamation point or more would be called for a scene that involved copious amounts of WAM, involved an attractive celebrity or something along those lines. Multiple exclamation points would involve both, or perhaps a celebrity that was historically previously un-WAMmed and would be hotly anticipated. Something along those lines.
Either way, thank you for your attempt to alert the community.
However, I do have a minor complaint, and that is in the thread title you picked. It is completely non-descriptive other than the use of three exclamation points, which implies this alert has an extreme amount of potential.
- Given my knowledge of this show, I would say the potential is limited at best. I would suggest that it warrants no exclamation points.
- As I said, a more descriptive threat title would have been appreciated. The title of the show and perhaps even a brief description of the anticipated WAM.
A far better title would have been: "WAM Alert: Boom gameshow gunge", here we see the title of the show, we see that the anticipated WAM is gunge and there are also not far, far too many exclamation points to alert people of what is surely going to be a fairly middling scene at best (assuming this alert warns of scenes of the same fairly low caliber that the show has already produced).
An exclamation point or more would be called for a scene that involved copious amounts of WAM, involved an attractive celebrity or something along those lines. Multiple exclamation points would involve both, or perhaps a celebrity that was historically previously un-WAMmed and would be hotly anticipated. Something along those lines.
Either way, thank you for your attempt to alert the community.
Yeah see what you mean about the title should have provided better details. Was kinda in a hurry to post it after seeing the commercial.
Never press the red button unless you are prepared
Enigmahood said: My critique of your repetitive WAM Altert isn't that it simply exists. No, it's really not a big deal and you meant well. I only roll my eyes when people make repetitive finds or alerts and then have an attitude when it's pointed out. You did not do this, and in fact you were overly apologetic about it with your self-critical response when this was pointed out.
However, I do have a minor complaint, and that is in the thread title you picked. It is completely non-descriptive other than the use of three exclamation points, which implies this alert has an extreme amount of potential.
- Given my knowledge of this show, I would say the potential is limited at best. I would suggest that it warrants no exclamation points.
- As I said, a more descriptive threat title would have been appreciated. The title of the show and perhaps even a brief description of the anticipated WAM.
A far better title would have been: "WAM Alert: Boom gameshow gunge", here we see the title of the show, we see that the anticipated WAM is gunge and there are also not far, far too many exclamation points to alert people of what is surely going to be a fairly middling scene at best (assuming this alert warns of scenes of the same fairly low caliber that the show has already produced).
An exclamation point or more would be called for a scene that involved copious amounts of WAM, involved an attractive celebrity or something along those lines. Multiple exclamation points would involve both, or perhaps a celebrity that was historically previously un-WAMmed and would be hotly anticipated. Something along those lines.
Either way, thank you for your attempt to alert the community.
However, I do have a minor complaint, and that is in the thread title you picked. It is completely non-descriptive other than the use of three exclamation points, which implies this alert has an extreme amount of potential.
- Given my knowledge of this show, I would say the potential is limited at best. I would suggest that it warrants no exclamation points.
- As I said, a more descriptive threat title would have been appreciated. The title of the show and perhaps even a brief description of the anticipated WAM.
A far better title would have been: "WAM Alert: Boom gameshow gunge", here we see the title of the show, we see that the anticipated WAM is gunge and there are also not far, far too many exclamation points to alert people of what is surely going to be a fairly middling scene at best (assuming this alert warns of scenes of the same fairly low caliber that the show has already produced).
An exclamation point or more would be called for a scene that involved copious amounts of WAM, involved an attractive celebrity or something along those lines. Multiple exclamation points would involve both, or perhaps a celebrity that was historically previously un-WAMmed and would be hotly anticipated. Something along those lines.
Either way, thank you for your attempt to alert the community.
You forgot to include "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Never press the red button unless you are prepared
 Love you, too |
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In