# The Big Bang Theory [03/14/13] - "The Closet Reconfiguration"



## ScubaCat (Jun 26, 2003)

Could I please get Sheldon to organize my closet? 

Bernadette: Sheldon, I've been cooking all day.
Sheldon: Well ... now don't you feel silly.
Bernadette [to Howard]: Show him the closet​


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I thought that was a very creative and sweet solution to the conundrum.


----------



## rosieambles (Jan 22, 2013)

Hunter Green said:


> I thought that was a very creative and sweet solution to the conundrum.


But why would Howard's dad have a map to Pirate Treasure?


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I thought it was the worst of the season, other than a few good lines here and there.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

zordude said:


> I thought it was the worst of the season, other than a few good lines here and there.


Probably because it's one of those "special feelings" episode that occurs once or twice a season.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I thought the two dinner parties were a great opportunity to bring in Lucy in situations where Raj could actually talk to her. They could have done it easily without detracting from the main plot.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

Hank said:


> I thought the two dinner parties were a great opportunity to bring in Lucy in situations where Raj could actually talk to her. They could have done it easily without detracting from the main plot.


The second dinner party turned into something very personal with Howard. Lucy would have been out of place in that story.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Hank said:


> I thought the two dinner parties were a great opportunity to bring in Lucy in situations where Raj could actually talk to her. They could have done it easily without detracting from the main plot.


Kind of hard to do since they said she suffers from severe social anxiety. No way she would attend a dinner party like that.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I liked it a lot-and I'm usually blah on emotional episodes.

I even got choked up and that never happens.

I do wish they'd turned down the Sheldon a smidge.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Do you guys just argue for the sake of arguing? WTF?

1. She already said she's trying to do one thing a day that scares her.
2. She already went to the comic books store valentines day party *by herself* 
3. She introduced herself to Raj *by herself* without any other prompting.

So yea, she might have a social anxiety, but it's clear that she can overcome it and is trying to take steps to do so. So I think attending a dinner party with Raj and a known group of people, in a safe environment isn't that much of a stretch for a fricking SITCOM. Sheesh.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

And what about Penny throwing a party at her place, just so she could drink herself silly without having to worry about getting back home? Shameless!

BTW, I'd like to think that all the things they claimed in the letter were actually in the letter. Well, other than the map.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Hank said:


> Do you guys just argue for the sake of arguing? WTF?


Isn't that what all online forums are for


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> I thought that was a very creative and sweet solution to the conundrum.


It was sweet (Sheldon not withstanding) but if Howard had remembered something Sheldon said earlier it would have eliminated most of their stories.

When first showing the letter to Howard, Sheldon mentioned he wasn't sure if it should be filed under correspondence or memorabilia. Of the stories only the newborn picture or the birthday card (or I guess the treasure map; had it be real) would possibly be considered memorabilia by Sheldon.

Although there is the possibility that more than one of the stories could be true. None the less _I'm_ sure Bernadette got to tell Howard the real contents.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> Isn't that what all online forums are for


Discussion, yes. But picking an argument just to argue? No.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Jonathan_S said:


> It was sweet (Sheldon not withstanding) but if Howard had remembered something Sheldon said earlier it would have eliminated most of their stories.
> 
> When first showing the letter to Howard, Sheldon mentioned he wasn't sure if it should be filed under correspondence or memorabilia. Of the stories only the newborn picture or the birthday card (or I guess the treasure map; had it be real) would possibly be considered memorabilia by Sheldon.


But wouldn't the other stories classify as "correspondence"? So they all still could be true (except for the pirate).


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Jonathan_S said:


> When first showing the letter to Howard, Sheldon mentioned he wasn't sure if it should be filed under correspondence or memorabilia. Of the stories only the newborn picture or the birthday card (or I guess the treasure map; had it be real) would possibly be considered memorabilia by Sheldon.


He couldn't file it without knowing the contents. He had to open it to determine where it went. Once he did, he knew where to file it (although we are not told where that was).


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Jonathan_S said:


> It was sweet (Sheldon not withstanding) but if Howard had remembered something Sheldon said earlier it would have eliminated most of their stories.
> 
> When first showing the letter to Howard, Sheldon mentioned he wasn't sure if it should be filed under correspondence or memorabilia. Of the stories only the newborn picture or the birthday card (or I guess the treasure map; had it be real) would possibly be considered memorabilia by Sheldon.
> 
> Although there is the possibility that more than one of the stories could be true. None the less _I'm_ sure Bernadette got to tell Howard the real contents.


I thought he said he had to _open_ the envelope and read the letter to figure out how to categorize it. In other words, it was still sealed when he found it. That doesn't rule anything out. When it was a sealed envelope, its contents easily could have been memorabilia or correspondence, and without opening the envelope, he couldn't tell which.

ETA: Or, what Eddy said.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

Hank said:


> Do you guys just argue for the sake of arguing? WTF?
> 
> 1. She already said she's trying to do one thing a day that scares her.
> 2. She already went to the comic books store valentines day party *by herself*
> ...


Has she been introduced to the group? I don't recall that happening, nor has there really been much time for her to consider the group a safe environment.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

eddyj said:


> He couldn't file it without knowing the contents. He had to open it to determine where it went. Once he did, he knew where to file it (although we are not told where that was).


Sheldon could not determine the category of the letter. So I thought Sheldon was asking Howard to make the final determination (giving him those two options). Sheldon was just saying he didn't know how to classify it, not that he had chosen one or the other. So all options are still possible.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

He could not determine it without opening it. He opened it, determined it, and filed it. He was just explaining why he had to open it in the first place.


----------



## mdougie (Mar 9, 2009)

Pretty good episode. 

Penny has improved as a character. She has learned to take a shower and do her hair while drunk.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

MarkofT said:


> Has she been introduced to the group? I don't recall that happening, nor has there really been much time for her to consider the group a safe environment.


Not everything that happens in the BBT Universe is shown on the program so your point is irrelevant. Whatever the case may be, BBT not being the REAL WORLD, all I'm saying is that if she is to become a recurring character, it would have been entirely plausible to include her in the dinner party.


----------



## d-dub (Mar 8, 2005)

Hank said:


> Do you guys just argue for the sake of arguing? WTF?


You must be new here.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

d-dub said:


> You must be new here.


I feel like if I posted "Whew, glad they didn't include Lucy in any of these dinner party scenes" you guys would be arguing the point I'm trying to make. I don't mind having a valid back and forth discussion, but not with people who just take an opposing side just to argue.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

eddyj said:


> He couldn't file it without knowing the contents. He had to open it to determine where it went. Once he did, he knew where to file it (although we are not told where that was).


No, if he'd known how to file it he wouldn't have asked Howard about it; he'd have just filed it away. (Like everything else in the closet)

My recollection is that his phrasing was pretty much "I wasn't sure how to file this because it could be catagorized as either correspondance or memorabilia". I went back once last night and listened again; I was left with the impression that after reading it Sheldon had narrowed it to one of those two categories but needed Howards input to be sure which it better fit into.


eddyj said:


> He could not determine it without opening it. He opened it, determined it, and filed it. He was just explaining why he had to open it in the first place.


But since Sheldon saw nothing wrong with opening it to determine the contents I can't see that he'd set that one thing aside to explain he'd had to open it. If he could have been sure of the catigorization he'd have filed it and never said a word because, in his mind, that's just what you do when you're organizing.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hank said:


> Do you guys just argue for the sake of arguing? WTF?
> 
> 1. She already said she's trying to do one thing a day that scares her.
> 2. She already went to the comic books store valentines day party *by herself*
> ...


So because two others offered responses that disagreed with your post, that means that they're "arguing for the sake of arguing"? WTF?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> So because two others offered responses that disagreed with your post, that means that they're "arguing for the sake of arguing"? WTF?


See post 24

It's tiring that everytime someone posts something just as I did "it would have been nice if..." that there are a cadre of people who will waste no time taking the opposing side JUST TO ARGUE IT. I didn't post that in order to start an argument, but apparently many people see any and every post on this forum (and others) as a reason JUST TO START ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING -- ANYTHING. They don't have an opinion before hand, but god dammit, they just take the opposing view for the F of it. I already posted three SIMPLE reasons why their arguments are flawed.. so I can only conclude that people jump on other peoples' posts just for the LULZ. It's childish troll behavior.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

For a guy who's opposed to arguments, somebody is awfully argumentative...


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For a guy who's opposed to arguments, somebody is awfully argumentative...


----------



## Michael S (Jan 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For a guy who's opposed to arguments, somebody is awfully argumentative...


Maybe he should go to the Argument Clinic.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

eddyj said:


> BTW, I'd like to think that all the things they claimed in the letter were actually in the letter. Well, other than the map.


Me too.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Hank said:


> Do you guys just argue for the sake of arguing? WTF?... Sheesh.


Is that a rhetorical question?


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

Hank said:


> See post 24
> 
> It's tiring that everytime someone posts something just as I did "it would have been nice if..." that there are a cadre of people who will waste no time taking the opposing side JUST TO ARGUE IT. I didn't post that in order to start an argument, but apparently many people see any and every post on this forum (and others) as a reason JUST TO START ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING -- ANYTHING. They don't have an opinion before hand, but god dammit, they just take the opposing view for the F of it. I already posted three SIMPLE reasons why their arguments are flawed.. so I can only conclude that people jump on other peoples' posts just for the LULZ. It's childish troll behavior.


My comment was in response to your line _They could have done it easily without detracting from the main plot._

Given that the writers turned the second party into a personal thing about Howard, the character of Lucy would not have fit in.Someone with her anxiety issues would have freaked out over Howard's entrance and reaction.

Also the character of Lucy would not have been privy to the contents of the letter, and her playing a part in the ending, given she doesn't know Howard, would have been awkward.

In a real world sense, her being asked to attend is a good idea. But given how the story was structured, she didn't fit.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For a guy who's opposed to arguments, somebody is awfully argumentative...


....and.....WE HAVE A WINNER


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hank said:


> See post 24


I see post 24, but again, I don't see anyone doing anything other than what is to be expected in a discussion. You expressed an idea, two others disagreed with your idea. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe internet forums aren't the thing for you.


Hank said:


> It's tiring that everytime someone posts something just as I did "it would have been nice if..." that there are a cadre of people who will waste no time taking the opposing side JUST TO ARGUE IT.


They're not arguing just to argue. They happen to have a different opinion than you do. Guess what - everyone has an opinion, and they aren't all the same.


Hank said:


> I didn't post that in order to start an argument...


So, what... you don't want anyone to respond to any of your posts unless they express full-voiced agreement with every one of your ideas?


Hank said:


> They don't have an opinion before hand, but god dammit, they just take the opposing view for the F of it.


No, they took the opposing view because they happen to disagree with you.


Hank said:


> I already posted three SIMPLE reasons why their arguments are flawed.


And others might not agree with your reasoning. FWIW, I don't agree with your reasoning either.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> No, they took the opposing view because they happen to disagree with you.


But if they continue to hold the opposing view after it's been explained that they're wrong, then clearly they're insane.


LoadStar said:


> And others might not agree with your reasoning. FWIW, I don't agree with your reasoning either.


Clearly, you're insane.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But if they continue to hold the opposing view after it's been explained that they're wrong, then clearly they're insane.


Huh. I thought only I held that opinion. Good work, Loadstar!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For a guy who's opposed to arguments, somebody is awfully argumentative...


You're confusing "awfully argumentative" with "frustrated with trolls."


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> They're not arguing just to argue.





LoadStar said:


> No, they took the opposing view because they happen to disagree with you.


And you know this because you're clairvoyant?


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

Hank said:


> They don't have an opinion before hand, but god dammit, they just take the opposing view for the F of it.


And you know this because you're clairvoyant?


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Hank said:


> And you know this because you're clairvoyant?


Maybe they're not clairvoyant... but I cetainly hope you aren't claiming _YOU _are, eh?

Why assign motives? What does that accomplish? For whatever reason, those posters took the positions they did.

Either they agree with your assessment or they don't. It matters little _why_.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Hank said:


> I feel like if I posted "Whew, glad they didn't include Lucy in any of these dinner party scenes" you guys would be arguing the point I'm trying to make. I don't mind having a valid back and forth discussion, but not with people who just take an opposing side just to argue.


I actually said out loud I wondered why she wasn't there. (I didn't remember the name Lucy.. I just think of her as the woman who suddenly showed up on lots of shows starting a few years ago, including guesting on 'Til Death, then a few episodes later showing up as the replacement actress playing the daughter!)


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

MikeCC said:


> Either they agree with your assessment or they don't. It matters little _why_.


Sure it matters. It matters because nowhere on the internet anymore can someone just post a simple comment ("gee, I would have liked to seen X") without it becoming a huge f*cking argument. Nowhere.

NOT EVERY COMMENT MADE ON EVERY THREAD ON EVERY FORUM ON THE INTERNET NEEDS TO BE ARGUED. It's not a competition on who can better argue some point about a SITCOM. It's not like we're talking about religion or politics or something that actually matters. But whatever, if people have to pick arguments with everyone else on the internet just to make themselves feel better, so be it. I'm just saying that it's not possible to just share a simple comment without being blasted by people who just want to argue -- regardless of the actual positions being taken. I could have posted "Gee, I sure would like to see Penny wear more green" and people would pick a fight about that. What are we left with? Only posting comments we're willing to debate and argue for days? We can't post simple comments, preferences, or observances without having some DB come along and try to start and argument over it? That's a sad state if true (which it is, apparently).


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Hank said:


> Sure it matters. It matters because nowhere on the internet anymore can someone just post a simple comment .


I guess nowhere on the internet anymore can someone just post a simple comment disagreeing with Hank.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

verdugan said:


> I guess nowhere on the internet anymore can someone just post a simple comment disagreeing with Hank.


You can disagree with me, just make it about something actually worth arguing over.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Hank said:


> I thought the two dinner parties were a great opportunity to bring in Lucy in situations where Raj could actually talk to her. They could have done it easily without detracting from the main plot.





Hank said:


> Sure it matters. It matters because nowhere on the internet anymore can someone just post a simple comment ("gee, I would have liked to seen X") without it becoming a huge f*cking argument. Nowhere.
> 
> NOT EVERY COMMENT MADE ON EVERY THREAD ON EVERY FORUM ON THE INTERNET NEEDS TO BE ARGUED. It's not a competition on who can better argue some point about a SITCOM. It's not like we're talking about religion or politics or something that actually matters. But whatever, if people have to pick arguments with everyone else on the internet just to make themselves feel better, so be it. I'm just saying that it's not possible to just share a simple comment without being blasted by people who just want to argue -- regardless of the actual positions being taken. I could have posted "Gee, I sure would like to see Penny wear more green" and people would pick a fight about that. What are we left with? Only posting comments we're willing to debate and argue for days? We can't post simple comments, preferences, or observances without having some DB come along and try to start and argument over it? That's a sad state if true (which it is, apparently).


Given the feelings you had and expressed in Post #6 (and what has transpired since), I'm REALLY kind of curious - had someone posted before that:

_"I'm really glad they didn't bring Lucy into the dinner parties - it would have been incredibly awkward given that she had just had her first date with Raj in a library - a text date no less - and probably didn't even know Raj's friends yet. No way would that have worked."_

...would you have had any comment on that post, given how you felt? And if you had posted something that contradicted their feeling, would you have done it just to take a contrary position for the sake of argument?

(For the record, the hypothetical post above is pretty much my viewpoint on any idea of Lucy being involved in the dinner parties. It is not a viewpoint developed just for the sake of being contrary and argumentative. It is the viewpoint I would have had had someone asked the question, "How would you feel about seeing Lucy with the guys at the dinner party?)

And as far as any thought of "There's no way of knowing that was their only date - they don't actually SHOW everything that goes on in the sitcom universe", well, we likewise don't know that that WASN'T their only date - especially given that the one date is all we've seen so far.

But, ya, I'm curious whether you may have posted a contradictory viewpoint on the hypothetical post - which is your every right?


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Wow. I knew the BBT discussion would eventually go off topic... but who could have guessed the topic would be "Hank going off the rails..."

_Please_: we must refrain from taking a position other than *his*; he has clearly seen through us, and realizes we only _ever _do that to be contrary. And he will argue incessantly that others should not argue.

I do love that fellow posters have pointed out the hypocrisy involved in arguing that _*others *_are only arguing for the sake of argument.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hank said:


> You can disagree with me, just make it about something actually worth arguing over.


Stop it, Hank! That's the third Irony Meter you've broken since yesterday!


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

MikeCC said:


> Wow. I knew the BBT discussion would eventually go off topic... but who could have guessed the topic would be "Hank going off the rails..."


Where "eventually" means "within the first few posts"; it's impressive how it's always something that comes up immediately, but you can't always tell which it will be. But even for a BBT thread, this one is particularly sad.

It's been a while since we saw the walking-up-the-stairs scene (and it was nice how they also lampshaded that fact).


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Hunter Green said:


> But even for a BBT thread, this one is particularly sad.


What you see as sad I see as vastly entertaining.
It's always fun to watch an over-reaction and its fallout that doesn't involve me


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> What you see as sad I see as vastly entertaining.
> It's always fun to watch an over-reaction and its fallout that doesn't involve me


I totally disagree with you!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> I totally disagree with you!


This isn't an argument! It's just contradiction!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Hank said:


> You can disagree with me, just make it about something actually worth arguing over.


And, of course YOU are the only one who decides that?


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Hank said:


> I feel like if I posted "Whew, glad they didn't include Lucy in any of these dinner party scenes" you guys would be arguing the point I'm trying to make. I don't mind having a valid back and forth discussion, but not with people who just take an opposing side just to argue.


[Python]
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
[/Python]



ETA:
Aaaaaaaaaaand I finally caught up to the end of the thread to find out I'm WAAAAAAAAY late to the argument party.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Aaaaaaaaaaaand if you'd read the entire thread first, you would have avoided this awful embarrassment.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> What you see as sad I see as vastly entertaining.
> It's always fun to watch an over-reaction and its fallout that doesn't involve me


I'm going to buck the trend and agree, as long as it's not me or my fault, I'm down with it...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I've been thinking about dropping the show.

But either way, I will NEVER drop the threads!


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

scooterboy said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaand if you'd read the entire thread first, you would have avoided this awful embarrassment.


Buuuuuuuutttttt reading the entire thread is a waste of time when you are trying to be contrary just for the sake of argument.


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

Flop said:


> Buuuuuuuutttttt reading the entire thread is a waste of time when you are trying to be contrary just for the sake of argument.


I disagree.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

ThreeSoFar'sBro said:


> I disagree.


Well, you're wrong.

Unless Hank says you aren't, in which case, apparently he is always right.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

You guys crack me up every day. I love this place!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Flop said:


> Buuuuuuuutttttt reading the entire thread is a waste of time when you are trying to be contrary just for the sake of argument.


If you don't read the whole thread, how will you know what to be contrary to?

You'll end up like Smeeker, being contrary by accident.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If you don't read the whole thread, how will you know what to be contrary _*to*_?


You ended a sentence with a preposition....and that's WRONG!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> You ended a sentence with a preposition....and that's WRONG!


That is the sort of rubbish up with which you will not put?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> You ended a sentence with a preposition....and that's WRONG!


Actually, that's just a myth

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Hank said:


> Actually, that's just a myth
> 
> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/


Quit arguing.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Hank said:


> Actually, that's just a myth
> 
> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/


Did you thoroughly read that linked page? You are WRONG.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hank said:


> Actually, that's just a myth
> 
> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/


That's a good explanation.

When I studied Latin in college, it was interesting to see that all those stupid, senseless grammatical rules actually make perfect sense...in Latin.

(Oh, crap, wait...I'm supposed to argue with you just for the sake of being contrary.)

You're WRONG.

And so is Bierboy.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If you don't read the whole thread, how will you know what to be contrary to?





Bierboy said:


> You ended a sentence with a preposition....and that's WRONG!


Ok.

If you don't read the whole thread, how will you know what to be contrary to, *****?

Better?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> Ok.
> 
> If you don't read the whole thread, how will you know what to be contrary to, *****?
> 
> Better?


Much! Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

If it's Oxford, it just applies to Brits, not Americans...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

So the Oxford American Dictionary explains how American English is spoken in England?


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

Somebody wake me if you guys start talking about BBT again.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

What is the meaning of Sheldon's shirt that has a circle and 73 in the middle of it?


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

tiams said:


> What is the meaning of Sheldon's shirt that has a circle and 73 in the middle of it?


Google search found this:
_The 73 reference is from Season 4, Episode 10 (The Alien Parasite Hypothesis), when Sheldon says "The best number is 73&#8230;. 73 is the twenty-first prime number. Its mirror, 37, is the twelfth and its mirror, 21, is the product of multiplying (hang on to your hats) 7 and 3&#8230;. In binary, 73 is a palindrome: 1-0-0-1-0-0-1, which backwards is 1-0-0-1-0-0-1._

I'll stick with this until someone tells me I'm wrong--which will happen quickly, I assume.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

73 T-Shirt

from TV Store Online

As worn by Sheldon in Season 4, Episode 13 (The Thespian Catalyst) and Season 5, Episode 6 (The Rhinitis Revelation)

73 reference is from Season 4, Episode 10 (The Alien Parasite Hypothesis), when Sheldon says "The best number is 73&#8230;. 73 is the twenty-first prime number. Its mirror, 37, is the twelfth and its mirror, 21, is the product of multiplying (hang on to your hats) 7 and 3&#8230;. In binary, 73 is a palindrome: 1-0-0-1-0-0-1, which backwards is 1-0-0-1-0-0-1."

ETA

Gah! That's what I get for embedding a link


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Awesome! I have a new favorite number.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

PT-73 was also the boat McHale and his crew manned.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> Well, you're wrong.
> 
> Unless Hank says you aren't, in which case, apparently he is always right.


I have changed my opinion. I now agree with Hank.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hank said:


> You can disagree with me, just make it about something actually worth arguing over.


I would say that if it's worth posting, then it's worth arguing about. So why are you posting anything that you don't think is argue-worthy? 



tiams said:


> What is the meaning of Sheldon's shirt that has a circle and 73 in the middle of it?


In addition to what the others said, Jim Parsons was born in 1973 (he'll be 40 on March 24), so that's as good of an explanation as any.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So the Oxford American Dictionary explains how American English is spoken in England?


No, silly...how English is spoken in England. Must I disagree with everybody on everything?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> No, silly...how English is spoken in England. Must I disagree with everybody on everything?


No, everybody must disagree with Hank on everything.

Haven't you been paying attention?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I would say that if it's worth posting, then it's worth arguing about. So why are you posting anything that you don't think is argue-worthy?


If I am understanding things correctly he wants to comment on things without anyone commenting on his comments.

Sheer folly, sir.
That's not how the internets work.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

eddyj said:


> BTW, I'd like to think that all the things they claimed in the letter were actually in the letter. Well, other than the map.


But why not the map too?



vman41 said:


> PT-73 was also the boat McHale and his crew manned.


I'm impressed that McHale's crew were such big fans of primes and binary numbers.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Wait, whose side am I on again?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Gaunt's side...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Goth!

(Why are you always wrong about that?!?)


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

eddyj said:


> He could not determine it without opening it. He opened it, determined it, and filed it. He was just explaining why he had to open it in the first place.


No. He opened it, planning to file it once he ascertained its contents. However, once he read it, he was not sure if it qualified as "correspondence" or "memorabilia" so he set it aside to consult with Howard once everything else as organized. At that point, Howard took it from him. It was never actually filed.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm with Eddy.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Polcamilla is correct.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Flop said:


> Polcamilla is correct.


She can't be, because I'm with Eddy.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Then you are wrong. Very very wrong. Extremely wrong. Unabashedly and completely wrong. So wrong that it defines wrong.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Which was the real story behind the letter?

Was it...

Raj's 18th birthday card?
Sheldon's Goonies treasure map?
Amy's graduation story?
Penny's double-life story?
Leonard's message about not throwing away family?
Bernadette's baby photo story and gift message?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Amy's was perfect and delivered wonderfully. I kind of want all of them to be part of the truth, so that each of them mentioned a portion of the whole story. Well, except for Sheldon's story. I bet they all just told him to make something up himself. I loved both Amy and Leonard's stories for the letter.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Flop said:


> Then you are wrong. Very very wrong. Extremely wrong. Unabashedly and completely wrong. So wrong that it defines wrong.


Soooo...I don't understand.

Are you saying you haven't decided yet that I'm right?


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

Aren't we all Spartacus?
Oh wait, I have been reading peoples titles instead of paying attention to current conversation. 

I really liked each one having their version of the letter from Howards' dad. It was a good way to solve the problem of what to tell Howard. 

I am just glad that someone didn't club Sheldon with one of the juggling pins, even though he richly deserved it. Bernadette was the most likely to.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

replaytv said:


> Aren't we all Spartacus?
> Oh wait, I have been reading peoples titles instead of paying attention to current conversation.


I'm not Spartacus. I'm up here.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Soooo...I don't understand.
> 
> Are you saying you haven't decided yet that I'm right?


If by "right" you mean utterly wrong, then yes, yes you are right.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Flop said:


> If by "right" you mean utterly wrong, then yes, yes you are right.


So if right is wrong, then wrong must be right. So when you say he is right, is he wrong, or right? Right?


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

SeanC said:


> 73 reference is from Season 4, Episode 10 (The Alien Parasite Hypothesis),


...overall episode 73, discounting the original unaired pilot.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Which was the real story behind the letter?
> 
> Was it...
> 
> ...


I think it was Bernadette. But they don't know and well never know.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

What - no ragging on Penny this week?

I only watched this episode last night and have already forgotten half of it. At the risk of disagreeing with the wrong person, I'll just say that it was good and not so good. 

I did like the whole Howard's Dad's letter thing and loved their solution. I would also agree with another poster that it wouldn't break my heart to see Sheldon be a little less Sheldony sometimes. He's turning less and less likable.


----------



## McGonigle (Nov 7, 2001)

So Sheldon had the shirt custom-made because its his favorite number?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Hank said:


> Not everything that happens in the BBT Universe is shown on the program so your point is irrelevant. Whatever the case may be, BBT not being the REAL WORLD, all I'm saying is that if she is to become a recurring character, it would have been entirely plausible to include her in the dinner party.


It would have entirely taken focus off the main story because raj's budding romance is a big current plot line and has not advanced to the point where it would make sense to have her essentially just be in the background of the entire episode. It would have detracted from the tone and story of the episode.

Such a co mingling will likely happen at some point but if will probably be the main focus of the storyline or at least secondary story line.

In short it would have likely been pointless and confusing at best to have her there.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

He probably just bought it online:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bang-Theory-Sheldon/dp/B008QYCK28


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

sharkster said:


> What - no ragging on Penny this week?


Back on the first page:



eddyj said:


> And what about Penny throwing a party at her place, just so she could drink herself silly without having to worry about getting back home? Shameless!


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

marksman said:


> It would have entirely taken focus off the main story because raj's budding romance is a big current plot line and has not advanced to the point where it would make sense to have her essentially just be in the background of the entire episode. It would have detracted from the tone and story of the episode.
> 
> Such a co mingling will likely happen at some point but if will probably be the main focus of the storyline or at least secondary story line.
> 
> In short it would have likely been pointless and confusing at best to have her there.


Ohhh, now you've done it. How dare you argue for the sake of arguing (your logical and excellent arguments notwithstanding)?


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

sharkster said:


> What - no ragging on Penny this week?
> 
> I only watched this episode last night and have already forgotten half of it. At the risk of disagreeing with the wrong person, I'll just say that it was good and not so good.
> 
> I did like the whole Howard's Dad's letter thing and loved their solution. I would also agree with another poster that it wouldn't break my heart to see Sheldon be a little less Sheldony sometimes. He's turning less and less likable.


I was watching BBT episode and thinking 'Penny is really looking good and that IS a cute outfit' but then I realized it was an old episode when she was not a drunk with bad hair.

I am loving Sheldon more all the time. It is funny because the boss in THE Office I hate and can't stand watching the show because of him, and feel the same way about other obnoxious characters on other sitcoms, but I love Sheldon a little more each episode.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

betts4 said:


> Which was the real story behind the letter?
> 
> Was it...
> 
> ...


Given Sheldon's memory, I am going to believe that it was a combination of Raj's, Amy's, Leonard's and Bernadette's. Weave those 4 ideas together and you have one heck of a letter.

Assuming that Howard graduated high school before turning 18, it works. I discounted the double life thing as too far fetched even for BBT.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Win Joy Jr said:


> Given Sheldon's memory, I am going to believe that it was a combination of Raj's, Amy's, Leonard's and Bernadette's. Weave those 4 ideas together and you have one heck of a letter.
> 
> Assuming that Howard graduated high school before turning 18, it works. I discounted the double life thing as too far fetched even for BBT.


I watched it when I was very tired. Did Sheldon say "ONE" of the stories was correct. No way he would say that if more than one was. He'd say something like, "You have to decide WHAT is correct and WHAT is not."

BTW, you are assuming the double life was something involving spies or such. It could just be he had two families and thought the "other" wife would extract revenge on Howard and his mother or some such.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> I watched it when I was very tired. Did Sheldon say "ONE" of the stories was correct. No way he would say that if more than one was. He'd say something like, "You have to decide WHAT is correct and WHAT is not."
> 
> BTW, you are assuming the double life was something involving spies or such. It could just be he had two families and thought the "other" wife would extract revenge on Howard and his mother or some such.


He was pretty clear that "only one" was correct, and at the end said something like "and you don't know which one is true".


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

marksman said:


> It would have entirely taken focus off the main story because raj's budding romance is a big current plot line and has not advanced to the point where it would make sense to have her essentially just be in the background of the entire episode. It would have detracted from the tone and story of the episode.
> 
> Such a co mingling will likely happen at some point but if will probably be the main focus of the storyline or at least secondary story line.
> 
> In short it would have likely been pointless and confusing at best to have her there.


Unless she was silent the entire time except that the one time she does speak was to come up with the idea to split up the stories for Howard.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Jonathan_S said:


> He was pretty clear that "only one" was correct, and at the end said something like "and you don't know which one is true".


Then I would pick Bernadette's if it was only one. She would be the one to tell him the truth. Hard to think that they were all true (except the treasure map) if Sheldon said "one" although I would negate the mention of "one" in reference to the treasure map as Sheldon would think that the treasure map and selling it would be a very clever ploy.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Either Penny's black dress was _very_ short in this episode, or she needs to be a little more deliberate when she's sitting down. Just sayin.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

madscientist said:


> Either Penny's black dress was _very_ short in this episode, or she needs to be a little more deliberate when she's sitting down. Just sayin.


Yikes!! did I miss something. Good thing I saved the episode. Maybe I shouldn't watch it, us old codgers have to be careful watching too many lascivious wenches in short skirts.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

replaytv said:


> Yikes!! did I miss something. Good thing I saved the episode. Maybe I shouldn't watch it, us old codgers have to be careful watching too many lascivious wrenches in short skirts.


Meh. In the scene in Howard and Bernadette's apartment, it looks like a white lining from her dress is showing.

It is an awfully short dress though.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

eddyj said:


> BTW, I'd like to think that all the things they claimed in the letter were actually in the letter. Well, other than the map.


Me three.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Meh. In the scene in Howard and Bernadette's apartment, it looks like a white lining from her dress is showing.
> 
> It is an awfully short dress though.


Wonderfully shot dress is more accurate.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

replaytv said:


> Yikes!! did I miss something. Good thing I saved the episode. Maybe I shouldn't watch it, us old codgers have to be careful watching too many _*lascivious wrenches*_ in short skirts.


Is what you would call a lascivious wrench?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

So penny is now lascivious too? I am losing track!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Meh. In the scene in Howard and Bernadette's apartment, it looks like a white lining from her dress is showing.
> 
> It is an awfully short dress though.


I thought so as well. But when she got up, it turned out to be part of her purse.

Not that I was moving the picture frame by frame or anything, of course!


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

I thought it was the jacket that goes with her dress. She was wearing it earlier in the guys' apartment.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Team Eddy.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> Is what you would call a lascivious wrench?


Last time I cavorted/contorted with a "lascivious wrench" I ended up violating my parole for having a unlawful relationship with a inanimate object and it was "back to the big house" for me.

Is Penny a lascivious wench in this clip? Is Sheldon a clown made of candy?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVqpwlB3MlM[/media]


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Penny masturbates.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Penny masturbates.


useless post without pictures or video!


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Anubys said:


> useless post without pictures or video!


I'm surprised it took 125 posts for somebody to comment on her toy.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

verdugan said:


> I'm surprised it took 125 posts for somebody to comment on her toy.


We were waiting for you to, we don't want to appear to be the 'designated perv' all the time.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

New episode tomorrow... Looks like it'll be very nice visually:


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Looks like the boys finally bought some nice wool suits!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hank said:


> Looks like the boys finally bought some nice wool suits!


There were suits in that picture?!?!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Hank said:


> Looks like the boys finally bought some nice wool suits!


I don't think most see the same "boys" as you are referring to.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Oh snap! A double zoommooz!


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

BrettStah said:


> New episode tomorrow... Looks like it'll be very nice visually:


You mean AFF showing ankle???


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

BrettStah said:


> New episode tomorrow... Looks like it'll be very nice visually:


And we are shown again of the beauty of the 'pretty little black dress'!


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Are they at a funeral???


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Are they at a funeral???


Why? Do you see any stiffs?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Are they at a funeral???


Something tells me Penny wouldn't wear _that_ dress to a funeral.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

Hank said:


> Something tells me Penny wouldn't wear _that_ dress to a funeral.


She might. She could leave the coat on during the funeral, and then take if off to get free drinks during the wake. She always has said that cloths (of the lack of them) pay their way in free drinks and dinner.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Penny looks drunk.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Are they at a funeral???


Who's dead? The mother from HIMYM?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Howard's mother.


----------

