Talk:Paula Poundstone/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Quiet?

In the opening paragraph it says that she is known for her 'quiet' style. Everytime I've seen this woman, she is the absolute opposite of quiet. Seems like it might be a statement from a blinded fan. Needs to be changed. She is definitely not quiet nor will she ever be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.225.214 (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk show

This article doesn't mention her very short lived 1933 late night talk show. Does anyone have any info on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.102.71 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

She wasn't alive in 1933. Or did you mean something else? --Objix (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT

Is she gay? Well, i am going to hang out with her and figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.219.144 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere here, she describes herself as asexual. She does make reference to dating men, but without much success. She also mentions, in discussion of her legal troubles, being asked her sexuality before being booked in jail, for her safety. She side-stepped the question by saying she doesn't enjoy being raped by members of either gender. Wilkie2000 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I've heard rumors for years that Poundstone is a lesbian, so I came to Wikipedia for verification. Her sexuality isn't mentioned at all, so I'll just ask: do we know if she is or isn't a lesbian? -Etoile 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nndb.com/people/340/000022274/ says she's asexual

Which might be true or might just be a way of saying no one knows. Not that I care much, it's her life.--T. Anthony 11:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This page did mention that it has been speculated that she is a lesbian, and that many of her fans perceive her as such. Looks like someone removed it.

Molestation Rumours

Who's the girl that she allegedly molested?

I'm sorry. Are you ACTUALLY asking for the identity of an underage, molestation victim?--Objix (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The charges of lewd behavior were later dropped, no details have been released. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/01/poundstone.hearing/index.html http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/11/poundstone.children/index.html

Just to clarify, being charged with Lewd Acts doesn't equate with molestation. Lewd Acts can be such things as: being shirtless in front of someone, feeling a breast lump when asked, getting a clothed erection in public, telling a sexual joke or story, etc. Molestation is a different charge altogether. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Foster care?

I've cut the sentence about Poundstone being in foster care in the 1970s. There is no citation for it and an email correspondent says that this is not true. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Asexuality

This interview from the Dallas Voice contains the quote "I'm totally an asexual human being. I haven't dated anyone". I'd have thought that was significant enough to go in. 86.136.251.18 03:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

speculation and candor during an interview amount either to speculation, or at the very least un-encyclopedic interpretation. the mention has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.41.77 (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It should remain. After all, it is cited, a fairly reliable source, not to mention that she mentions it constantly in her comedy. Such as: "I don't have sex because I don't like it. I'd have to marry a Mormon so someone could cover my shift." Enough already, she's asexual and proud. =) 98.225.230.65 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Computer Skills

Deleted the following reference as potentially insulting if untrue - should be reincluded with source: "She took a number of years to write the work. Since she does not understand how use a computer or know how to use a simple keyboard which would allow her to type, she wrote the entire book by hand in her spare time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.48.86 (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

She regularly makes a point of joking about her difficulties with computers in her Twitter & Facebook updates. To pick a few random recent examples: --cdevers (talk) 2 October 2009

Arrest

In the 'Arrest' section, her "lewd act" charges are described as 'bad comic timing'. This appears to be a joke, and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.227.18 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It's possible that in her stand up routine she refers to arrest/charges as "bad timing" or such. I didn't find any evidence of such, there was no citation, and I agree with you that it's out of place as written (especially with this being a biography page!), so I pulled it out.--Objix (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that it is appropriate to list any charges against someone if their charges were dropped or found to be without merit, unless the dropped charges demonstrate a pattern of behaviour or public image (eg. antisemitism or domestic violence in the case of Mel Gibson of illicit substance abuse in the case of Charlie Sheen, etc.). Without such public perception/pattern of behaviour, I believe that mention of dropped charges may constitute libel, as well as cause undue offence to the person concerned. Accordingly, I believe it sonstitutes a BLP violation, and I shall remove these references. Violet Fae (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Curious - have you checked the citations? --CutOffTies (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I did read the citations, but the charges weren't followed through with, so like I mention above, I feel that it is inappropriate to this them here. The only information available on them appears to indicate that they were false charges, the implication being that they were originally included without cause, so I think that their inclusion in this article causes undue harm to the subject of the article, and is clearly a wikipedia BLP violation - that is why I removed the part of the section that referred to that. If you can find information that supports that there was some substance, then it would be fair enough to include that, but a brief CNN article isn't reason enough to trash someone's reputation, in my opinion. Violet Fae (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

She was charged in a court of law. The charges were dropped. This content is verified by reliable sources. Poundstone says they were false, so you could include something about her quote, though I disagree with the removal of content.

The content was not stating that she committed lewd acts. It presented the fact that there were charges against her, and that they were later dropped. I restored the content. If you have an issue with this, please feel free to call up some dispute resolution. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I said this on Violet Fae's page, and I'll say it here. Take this matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get it resolved. Continually edit warring over this is not going to get you two anything but warned and/or blocked. CutOffTies did the right thing by suggesting you, Violet Fae, take this to dispute resolution. You should have followed suit. You don't get to say it's a BLP violation and then it is one when someone disagrees. It has to actually be a BLP violation. So go get clarification that it is or isn't. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, this needs to be resolved properly and respectfully. As I have stated here previously, however, I believe the section I reverted out to be libellous to the subject of this article - mud sticks, and I am strongly stating that accusations of paedophilia should not be included in a BLP article unless there is some proof that the person is indeed a paedophile. The brief CNN article used as a reference was about a charge which was not upheld and about which there is no specific information available. Now I don't know who you are, but the fact that when I click on you all I see in your edit history are two edits - one undoing my revert and another stating I was wrong to revert, makes me worry that you and CotOffTies are one and the same... I might be wrong, but this is rather suspicious. In any case, I strongly believe that the (at the very least potentially) libellous material should be removed now until this matter is resolved officially. Violet Fae (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not one in the same at all. Just someone who edits Wikipedia with a changing IP address. And from what I have observed, you are editing with an asexuality bias because of the way this makes Poundstone look, claiming to hate sex when she has possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14 just to experience it. You should learn more about pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Now unless these girls were prepubescent and Poundstone has a sexual preference for this age group, anyone claiming that she is a pedophile is wrong. The article was not claiming that she is a pedophile. Child molesters and pedophiles are not necessarily the same thing, something the Pedophilia article emphasizes. The article wasn't even saying "Yep, she's a child molester." The article was reporting on what she was charged with. It's not a BLP violation to say that Poundstone "was arrested on a felony warrant for three counts of committing a lewd act on an unidentified girl under age 14," stated by The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. And that in exchange for pleading "no contest" to felony child endangerment and a misdemeanor charge of inflicting injury on a child, the three charges of lewd conduct were dropped by prosecutors. It appears to me that you want to hide the full extent of what she was charged with, only reporting half of it. Which is silly. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Very suspicious indeed, and like I said, the only edit history is editing me, so unless you use a kosher account, or provide some kind of proof (such as an edit history that goes beyond reverting the Paula Poundstone article and supporting what appears to be yourself), this stinks of sock pupetry and/or collusion at the least. In any case, this is not the main issue.

The main issue is that, as I said, paedophilia is a hell of an accusation to make without any evidence of her being a paedophile (and despite your rather offensive suggestion of me covering up that "she has possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14 just to experience [sex]", I have no interest whatsover in covering up for any paedophile, and the accusation makes me very offended and disturbed. Do you plan to win an argument (of your own creation, at that) by accusing the subject of this article of paedophilia and then tarring me with the same brush if I rightly state that this is a BLP violation? You appear to have some kind of grudge against the subject of this article (why, I have no idea), and like I have said, I believe this to be libellous to the subject of this article and a BLP violation as well. As Wikipedia's BLP policy states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages".

It then goes on to say (considering your various restoring of this material which I have stated several times to be at the very least potentially libellous): "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material" - and I don't sonsider brief "gossip" news stories to be particularly reliable or good sources of information. If you can find information that prooves that the subject of this article is a paedophile, then not only will I not have a problem with the offending section being included again, but I will happily revert it back myself. And as for your section about the definition of paedophilia, "paedo-" = child, and if you're going to say that sex with a 14 year doesn't constitute paedophilia, then we are just going to have to disagree on that. After all, you wouldn't be axe-grinding with unsubstatiated rumours of sex with a 14 year old child if it weren't. But I'm not interested in spending my time getting into a debate with you about the meaning of paedophilia - the main issue here is about printing libellous accusations on Wikipedia. As I have stated many times now, I believe that mention of dropped charges may constitute libel, as well as causing undue offence to the person concerned. Accordingly, I believe it constitutes a BLP violation, and the offending section should rightly stay removed.

And one last thing: given the matter was dropped and it appears to have been without basis and/or possibly legal manoevreing (for which the US legal system is well known) and also, as a previous poster rightly stated in an earlier section, the charge wasn't even molesting: without any proof that anything untoward actually happened, why do you attach such weight as to merit its incusion? I say you are axe-grinding, and likely committing libel in the process. Violet Fae (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I care not if you think it's "very suspicious indeed." It makes no sense that I would log out and edit as "CutOffTies" and then revert you, reply to you this way, since I would have nothing to gain from it. Either way, I'd be edit warring and possibly blocked. The article would be blocked sooner than later. Whether semi-locked or fully-locked, I wouldn't be able to edit as an IP any longer. It would essentially flush me out as CutOffTies if I were that editor. Why CutOffTies hasn't shown up to respond to this revert and the follow-up responses from you, which only makes me look "very suspicious," I do not know. But I don't have to prove anything to you. People with changing IP addresses generally don't keep up with them. I know I don't. And even if I did, I wouldn't point you to past IP addresses I have edited under.

Seems you didn't take my suggestion to learn more about Pedophilia. There is nothing that says "pedophilia" by reporting that Poundstone "was arrested on a felony warrant for three counts of committing a lewd act on an unidentified girl under age 14" and that "in exchange for pleading 'no contest' to felony child endangerment and a misdemeanor charge of inflicting injury on a child, the three charges of lewd conduct were dropped by prosecutors." There is no pedophilia accusation. So stop asserting that there is. You're one of the people who not only uses the word "pedophilia" inaccurately, but claims sources are saying things that they are not. And to me you are indeed trying to cover up the fact that Poundstone possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14, in order to help preserve Poundstone's asexual identity, and the validity of an asexual identity as a whole. Because what Poundstone was charged with reinforces negative stereotypes about asexuals, such as claims that some asexuals are truly closeted homosexuals who cannot face being open about their sexual identity and/or are sexually repressed. In my opinion, you have not rightly stated that including Poundstone's charges is a BLP violation. If you had, there would be a swarm of people already agreeing with you at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about it. Or at least one or two. But the editors there haven't even rushed in on this, when they usually rush in on any BLP violation. So this obviously isn't as clear-cut as you think it is. No where on Wikipedia is it ever a BLP violation to report charges brought against a person by the law/legal enforcement. I don't have a grudge against Poundstone whatosever. I have a grudge against half-assed, censored reporting such as yours. There is no burden in this case. You don't get to remove what you don't like and say "the burden is on you to restore it."

I guess I have to repeat that you are wrong about the definition of pedophilia. Despite your little etymology research, pedophilia does not equal (=) any child. It equals (=) prepubescent child, as defined by experts. It also doesn't automatically equal "child molester" or vice-versa. All of this is thoroughly noted by the Pedophilia article. I guess you missed all those reliable sources. The only time pedophilia equals "pubertal" is when talking about early pubescents who look prepubescent. And the only time it equals "post-pubescent" is when it is flat out being used incorrectly. I don't care how you want to define the term, but that isn't the way it is medically defined. You can dispute and disagree with that as much as you want to, but it's not about "attraction to anyone under 18." Going by that definition would mean that the term is based on age of majority, age of consent, or both. Which is idiotic, because those things vary by country and by state. Therefore, your definition would make it so that a man is mentally ill for finding a 16-year-old sexually attraction in one U.S. state but not in another U.S. state where the age of consent is 16 or 17. It would also suggest that there is some drastic physical difference between 17 and 18-year-olds (the latter being a legal adult; the former being "a child") when there isn't. A man isn't mentally ill for finding a 17-year-old girl sexually attractive, when no one is considered mentally ill for finding a girl just a year older sexually attractive. And let's not forget that 16 and 17-year-olds can be pedophiles, which helps emphasize the difference between prepubescents and post-pubescents, and to show what pedophilia actually is. To sum up, we have Pedophilia, Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles for a reason. They are not the same thing, even with partial overlap (especially for the first two). All three also refer to "preference," not just "mere attraction." So no axe-grinding here.

I already explained that the material isn't a BLP violation. You disagree. That's life. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. you've definitely got hell of an issue with asexuals. You need to chill the hell out, already. --203.45.162.33 (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk about suspicious IPs. Nothing in my above comments suggests that I have an issue with asexuals. Either way, the matter has been settled. It wasn't a BLP violation, but sensible reasons for excluding the material have been given. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Though settled, Violet Fae apparently had more to state at the noticeboard. I also replied that to that.[1] Any further discussion about this should take place here, since the noticeboard considers this matter settled and doesn't want the continued BLP/asexuality/"pedophilia" debate there. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the only one saying that the issue is resolved, and as the other posters state, it is a Biography of Living Persons' violation. (PS this is Violet Fae logging into a public computer) 146.196.4.62 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not the only one saying it's resolved! One editor considered it resolved when it became apparent that I was moving on after his comments and edits to this article. Another editor declared the matter resolved after you recently commented there. Some time later, the discussion was even tagged as "Resolved."[2] Exactly how is it not resolved when you got your way and I am no longer pressing the issue? What, just because no one there agreed with you that it is a BLP violation? That's right, no one. Go ahead and read the discussion again. One editor said "It was very likely a BLP violation," and it seems he only said that because he incorrectly assumed that this information was only being reported by gossip/entertainment sites. No one there said it was a BLP violation. Case closed! 119.167.225.1 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's settled in the sense that we have consensus not to report the dropped charges. She pled guilty to child endangerment, so that's what we report. --GRuban (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you also state that at the noticeboard for good measure or at least add the Resolved template that Violet Fae removed back? I also commented there about it.[3] 119.167.225.1 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the word that describes you is "denial". In any case, I agree that what we now have is acceptable to all, so let's move on. My comment related to your assertions that it wasn't a BLP violation, that and "the noticeboard considers this matter settled and doesn't want the continued BLP/asexuality/'pedophilia' [sic] debate there". There's abviously no getting through to you, as you clearly don't listen to reasoned argument, you just repeat your argument like a broken record and ignore the clear evidence you are presented with (while presenting no evidence yourself despite the fact that the onus was on you all along to prove your case for re-insertion), while making insulting implications and disbaraging remarks and stating that every other editor agrees with you, ignoring the various posters who agreed that it was indeed a BLP/NPOV violation, so there is no point continuing with this. I'm glad the article has been fixed, though it has certainly been a very unpleasant experience interacting with you. I hope you can grow up a little and show more respect to the next person you conflict with. Have a nice life. 146.196.4.62 (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The only one in denial is you. I know what your comment related to. And, again, the noticeboard did not say it was a BLP violation and obviously considered the matter settled. That is why the Resolved template was added. That is why GRuban stated what he did above. How this does not translate to "the noticeboard considers this matter settled and doesn't want the continued BLP/asexuality/'pedophilia' [sic] debate there," I do not know. It just shows more of your unwillingness to admit when you are wrong. I repeat my argument like a broken record? Errm, no, mam, that is you. If I keep repeating anything, it is because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again without listening. You kept saying it was a BLP violation as though what you were saying was fact. And saying I provided no evidence? You provided no evidence that there was a BLP violation and no one agreed with you that it was. Since you don't seem to be listening, I will repeat that just one editor said "It was very likely a BLP violation," which seems to have only been "because he incorrectly assumed that this information was only being reported by gossip/entertainment sites." So I don't know what you are talking about! If you were right, then at least one person there would have said "Yes, it is BLP violation." If it was such a dire BLP violation as you made it out to be, every BLP editor there would have agreed that it was a BLP violation. No one did. You say "various posters who agreed that it was indeed a BLP/NPOV violation"? I say, "Where! WHERE DID THESE VARIOUS POSTERS AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WAS A BLP VIOLATION!?" The noticeboard discussion does not show that at all!! Only two editors commented on whether or not it was BLP violation. One mentioned above. And the other stated, "It's not a BLP violation to report an arrest or criminal charges. However, in this particular case it seems legitimate to leave the material out, since the activity which led to the charge was never explained and it was dropped as part of plea agreement."[4] He (Will) agreed with me that it is not a BLP violation, but agreed with you to leave the material out. But you ignore this and continue to assert that they agreed with you. This is what I mean about your denial. You lie and deny. And contrary to your claim, I did provide evidence to back up my arguments; I have backed up what actually happened at the BLP noticeboard (with links), what pedophilia actually is, and even a myth about asexuality. All the while you ignored this, ignored just how wrong you were/continue to be, and kept using the "this article was calling Poundstone a pedophile" claim, when anyone with eyes (just one eye even) can see the article was not doing that. So in summary, you're one of those people who wants to be right no matter what. And if anyone needs to grow up a little, A LOT rather, it's you. You aren't fit to edit Wikipedia if you are going to blatantly lie like this about what editors said at a noticeboard, despite the links (above) showing just the opposite of your claims. 82.196.84.50 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Refernce in South Park

There's no source for this and I just watched the episode and saw absolutely nothing about her, intoxicated driving, or endangering children. Did I miss it or something?--99.107.77.146 (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they're back

OK, so there was a big conversation, both on this page and on the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard, about axe-grinding editors continually inserting libellous material into this page implying that the subject of this article in some way sexually abused children in her care. It was deemed unencyclopaedic and despite ongoing debate involving one editor using MANY sock puppets to argue his case, consensus was that it was not to be included in this article. A new user named User:Mhosse2 (talk has re-inserted the same material, and I have reverted his/her edit. Now, it's quite possible that this is a new editor who didn't know any better, but considering the rampant use of sock puppets by the previous destructive/axe-grinding editor and that one edit to this page is the only history this user has, I'm posting this here to make it very clear that this sort of defamatory editorialising of disputed and unproven accusations in biography pages is just not on, so let's not have another editing war over this - frankly, I don't have the time or energy for it, and in the end it all just ends up deleted anyway, so it's a waste of the malicious editor's time, as well as everyone else's. So - I will assume good faith in this first instance, but in case the worst is true, let's just not go there again, OK?. ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it libel when it is TRUE? See http://articles.cnn.com/keyword/child-endangerment and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/arts/hard-road-back-for-paula-poundstone-comic-tries-save-her-career-after-arrest.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm, for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.19.192 (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal life section

Bo99, regarding this and this, what are you proposing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

hi, I propose that the Wikipedia article essentially parrot the description in e.g. the LATimes.com article. Bo99 (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you proposing that we remove something that is included in the Wikipedia article? Are you proposing that we use a quote from the LATimes.com article? Summarize what it states? Per WP:COPYVIO, we can't copy it unless we are quoting it. And we shouldn't quote too much of that small article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Essentially Yes; i suggest a summarizing of what the public-media article(s) states, and/or a paraphrasing, and/or a quoting, or some mix of that. But also: the Wikipedia article section is tolerable as-is, so no need to reply. Bo99 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The text currently states: "In October 2001, Poundstone was found guilty of felony child endangerment in connection with driving while intoxicated with children in the car. She was also charged with three counts of lewd acts upon a child younger than 14, but reached a plea agreement for probation and community service. Poundstone has talked about her personal responsibility for the events that led to her arrest and the steps she has taken, including a six-month treatment program for alcoholism."

Will you propose here in this section exact wording regarding what you want that changed to? I'm not seeing why it should be changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bo99, after seeing this, I finally understood what you mean. Not sure why I was slow on the uptake. I change the text to this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No, wait, it seems that you are stating that we should note that she says she didn't commit any lewd acts, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to this (followup edit here). The New York Times source talks about how this has had a devastating impact on her career, but I'm not sure that we should mention that. It's the Personal life section, not an "In the media" section. If Poundstone has talked about it affecting her career, we could include that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional edits here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your edits made the article more accurate, essentially reflecting that Poundstone 'strongly denied' any lewd act, according to the New York Times article. Bo99 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Bo99. Also, per WP:SAID, I stayed away from "denied." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Maximum Fun to Starburns Audio

I updated to intro to reflect that the "Nobody Listens to Paula Poundstone" podcast is no longer part of the Maximum Fun network. This podcast is now hosted at Starburns Audio (which does not have a Wikipedia page). I also added a link to the current podcast homepage in the "External Links" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlisteringSh33p (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)