Penny should go out with Sheldon

[phantagrae]

Look I think this thread has just about run its course. Unless someone has a new angle. I don't mind those that, don't understand the subtelties of the language. Not many people, are as pedantic about the language they use as I am(and I still make mistakes). But it's frankly boring, because other people, misinterpret the obviously stated, and then hurl abuse, based on their misunderstanding. Just to clarify, Bangermain, couples get together through interaction. Looking at L, and the way he acts when a new woman comes close. It would be easier to list the signs, that don't scream, needy, desperate, and possessive. My other supposition, was based on the idea that the show was designed as a vehicle for JG, and when they got KC onboard, the arc of the show was envisioned. I was merely playing with this idea, and wondering how that arc would have progressed, had things been different. For example, if they had employed a feed back loop, and had modified the story, when they saw the interaction between JP and KC, and more importantly the audience reaction to it. Also JP has been rightly lauded, and awarded, for his comic acting ability. This may have prompted them to change the focus of the show. All supposition!

 

It is indeed only a supposition on your part, and an erroneous one, because the show was not designed as a vehicle for JG, and KC was not hired until the original pilot was reworked.  JG and JP were in their roles from the beginning and the female character may or may not have been seen as a potential love interest for Leonard, since she was generally a horrible person.  But even in that original pilot, Sheldon was not interested in the female lead (though he was not a virgin as he is in the version that went forward.)

And even once they reworked the original pilot into the one that finally aired, KC auditioned and was rejected about 3 times before she was finally hired, so it isn't as if they got JG and KC together and then figured out the rest of the characters.  It was JG and JP as L&S first, then everyone else was developed and cast.

 

While the use of the characters and the nature of their interactions was likely developed as the producers watched the interaction of the characters/actors and began to learn their strengths, etc., the idea of Leonard and Penny as a couple was always there as a through-line and there was never a consideration of any of the other guys being paired with her.

I do think it's true that they realized the potential for rivalry or antagonism between Sheldon and Penny, and then a begrudging friendship because they are the most polar opposite on the show and most likely to have conflict--but that doesn't mean that there was ever any romantic potential.

 

As for people not understanding the language, that's probably one of the stupidest things you could say--and I'm not calling you, yourself, stupid, just your conclusions.

Just because people disagree with you and think that you're arrogant and wildly mistaken doesn't mean that they're not grasping the subtleties of "the language."

I haven't seen anyone misunderstanding what you're saying.  They're simply disagreeing with your skewed analysis.  It's extremely arrogant of you to assume that people don't understand simply because they disagree.

Maybe it's you who is misunderstanding the subtleties of the language of the show itself.

[gaqo]

Well I know what I write, I check, and even go back, and  if it doesn't convey my meaning, edit. But four out of the five responders, made assumptions, and then they reply, to their own false assumption. That's why from now on, I'm going to throw them random answers. I don't see any point discussing a false assumption. Thanks for the info about the show, and characters.

[Ar Diem]

He doesn't 'randomly' hit on ever woman that he sees. His neediness, drives him to hit on almost every woman. A man who wasn't driven by neediness, would have said such statements as; I don't think its appropriate(you're my friend's sister)(isn't Howard interested in you), I'm in a relationship, you are my neighbour, let's be friends(i.e. we'll still have to see each other, if this ends badly). It's his very neediness, that these women are responding to. What got this topic going, was the idea, that L needs to take some time out, concentrate on L, and come back a stronger, less needy, less possessive,  ready for a relationship. A feminist critique of this show, would be very different, to what the writers intended, and would still be valid.  

 

I think if you have ever been in a relationship with a truly needy person you would see that Leonard is not being needy at least not enough to call him needy.  I dated someone who was needy.  She was not comfortable going an entire waking hour without talking to me.  She drove me bonkers.

 

Leonard's appeal to women is more that he is safe and malleable.  Case and point, Penny agreed to go out with him the first time because he was not like the jerks she had been dating.

 

Also, to say that the show has a psychological element would be to suggest that the writers had psychology degrees.  I have no idea if they do or don't but it would be a safe bet, imo, that they don't. 

[gaqo]

Quick question, how many points do I need to be 'logged out permanently'? I'd say the last statement is made up of three assumptions! No offence!

[Ar Diem]

Quick question, how many points do I need to be 'logged out permanently'? I'd say the last statement is made up of three assumptions! No offence!

 

Right.  I assume I know what a needy person is because I dated one. 

 

Penny's comments leading up to Leonard asking her out were pretty clear.  His malleability has been evident in 3 of his prominent relationships.

 

Lastly, I am not the one looking at sitcom writing for lessons in psychology and human social interactions.  No offense.

[gaqo]

When I said, 'last statement', I meant, last two sentences. Like I said, there are too many ways of misunderstanding each other.The first two statements , I incorprated.

[Ar Diem]

When I said, 'last statement', I meant, last two sentences. Like I said, there are too many ways of misunderstanding each other.The first two statements , I incorprated.

 

 

On a message board if you would like to specify something you quote only the portion you are referring to.  It is a really simple way to cut down on misunderstandings.  You could also make that portion bold if you wish to quote the entire post.

 

You have to show how you incorporate statement you can't just say you did because it makes no sense.

[gaqo]

Yes, Penny should go out with Sheldon, as the platonic friends, they are.

[phantagrae]

Yes, Penny should go out with Sheldon, as the platonic friends, they are.

 

But go out on a platonic date?  What would be the point of that?  They already interact on a one-to-one basis in their friendship.  What would be the point of them "going out" as friends?

[gaqo]

On a message board if you would like to specify something you quote only the portion you are referring to.  It is a really simple way to cut down on misunderstandings.  You could also make that portion bold if you wish to quote the entire post.

 

You have to show how you incorporate statement you can't just say you did because it makes no sense.

I don't think it's a problem with quotes. I do use 'quotes', except, when my post directly follows theirs. That would seem like pointless repetition! With our misunderstanding; wasn't it obvious that I was refering to your 'last statement', within the only post you'd recently made on this thread? I think it's a problem of language. I didn't mention your first two statements; because one was an anecdote, and the other an interpretation, and I accepted them as that. Your last statement, you are paraphrasing me , but not really understanding my point. Which was again about interpretation. We each get from the show, different things, depending on what we bring to it. I was pointing out that those with an understanding of literary criticism, like 'Lost In The Sun', or me with my interest in semiotics, would 'read' the show differently, and hence the two sides not understanding, each others viewpoint. 

Edited June 12, 2013 by gaqo

[gaqo]

But go out on a platonic date?  What would be the point of that?  They already interact on a one-to-one basis in their friendship.  What would be the point of them "going out" as friends?

Yes, what would be the point of that. So that we could enjoy their interactions, maybe.

[phantagrae]

Yes, what would be the point of that. So that we could enjoy their interactions, maybe.

 

I mean in the context of the storyline.  They have no need and no reason to go out on a "date" together.  They do stuff together on occasion with just the two of them, but since they see each other all the time as friends, talking while going up the stairs, talking while she's over for dinner, etc., they don't have a need to spend time together on a "date".

I'm sure we'll see them interacting while Leonard is gone, if she has to drive him to work or whatever, but he has Amy to go out on dates with.  I'm sure she might still come over to eat, or maybe she will want to get away from him, if she's having to drive him all over town.

At any rate, they have no narrative need to go out on a "date" in order to interact.

[Ar Diem]

I don't think it's a problem with quotes. I do use 'quotes', except, when my post directly follows theirs. That would seem like pointless repetition! With our misunderstanding; wasn't it obvious that I was refering to your 'last statement', within the only post you'd recently made on this thread? I think it's a problem of language. I didn't mention your first two statements; because one was an anecdote, and the other an interpretation, and I accepted them as that. Your last statement, you are paraphrasing me , but not really understanding my point. Which was again about interpretation. We each get from the show, different things, depending on what we bring to it. I was pointing out that those with an understanding of literary criticism, like 'Lost In The Sun', or me with my interest in semiotics, would 'read' the show differently, and hence the two sides not understanding, each others viewpoint. 

 

 

There were 3 paragraphs and last statement could have easily meant the entire post.  So it was anything but obvious.  That is my last comment on that subject because it is too boring to continue.

 

The rest of the above makes me wonder if you realize this is a sitcom.  Furthermore it is entertainment and there is no qualifying what make a viewpoint what it is.  For the most part it is meant to be silly so looking for deeper meanings seems pointless.  I understand all of the main viewpoints about this show.  I don't agree with them all but they are not hard to figure out. 

 

The important lesson here is that once your viewpoint leaves the confines of your brain it is wrong.  Everyone is wrong.  All opinions are inaccurate.  Nothing can legitimize them.

[ajond]

Look I think this thread has just about run its course. Unless someone has a new angle. I don't mind those that, don't understand the subtelties of the language. Not many people, are as pedantic about the language they use as I am(and I still make mistakes). But it's frankly boring, because other people, misinterpret the obviously stated, and then hurl abuse, based on their misunderstanding. Just to clarify, Bangermain, couples get together through interaction. Looking at L, and the way he acts when a new woman comes close. It would be easier to list the signs, that don't scream, needy, desperate, and possessive. My other supposition, was based on the idea that the show was designed as a vehicle for JG, and when they got KC onboard, the arc of the show was envisioned. I was merely playing with this idea, and wondering how that arc would have progressed, had things been different. For example, if they had employed a feed back loop, and had modified the story, when they saw the interaction between JP and KC, and more importantly the audience reaction to it. Also JP has been rightly lauded, and awarded, for his comic acting ability. This may have prompted them to change the focus of the show. All supposition!

God your arrogance has no bounds. In my part of the world we woud say you are up yourself

[Ar Diem]

Yes, what would be the point of that. So that we could enjoy their interactions, maybe.

 

 

In what way would it be new?  They have a lot of one on one time.  When Penny cooked for him it was a platonic date.    I don't care if they do it again but it seems pointless to cover the same ground again.  It would be more interesting to see them travel somewhere together because he needed help with driving and no one else could get free.

[Tensor]

The important lesson here is that once your viewpoint leaves the confines of your brain it is wrong.  Everyone is wrong.  All opinions are inaccurate.  Nothing can legitimize them.

I like this. I'm gonna steal it. Of course, I'll credit "A Wise Man", when I use it.

[Ar Diem]

I like this. I'm gonna steal it. Of course, I'll credit "A Wise Man", when I use it.

 

That is high praise and I am honored,

[gaqo]

 

 

'The rest of the above makes me wonder if you realize this is a sitcom.  Furthermore it is entertainment and there is no qualifying what make a viewpoint what it is.  For the most part it is meant to be silly so looking for deeper meanings seems pointless.  I understand all of the main viewpoints about this show.  I don't agree with them all but they are not hard to figure out. 

 

The important lesson here is that once your viewpoint leaves the confines of your brain it is wrong.  Everyone is wrong.  All opinions are inaccurate.  Nothing can legitimize them'.

Everything you say, legitimises everything I said. Like I said, those of us that have studied certain disciplines, have certain interests, and consequently think a certain way, about modern culture, see much more than the casual observer. This may be the defining programme of a generation, just as other cultural objects have become; programmes, films, music. To you it is merely a sitcom. I'd actually say there's more 'psychology' in this programme, than science. It's embedded within the characters, their interactions,etc. Psychology is everywhere, that beings exist, just like politics. I totally disagree, with your last four sentences. I take all interpretations that I read, and put then in a file in my mind. When I watch the programme, I test them to see which work. I am completely open minded, and have transcended 'duality', therefore all interpretations are valid. I've also been trying to imagine how other people might view the show: a devout Indian, an Iman, a Feminist,etc. I think a fan site should be a place where people can discuss the show, on whatever level they like. Is there not room for all types of discussion? I enjoy the fun, as well as more interesting conversations. What I don't think helps, is when a small 'gang', think they have the right to control what people say, and think. Their 'posts' say more about them, than anything I could say!

Edited June 19, 2013 by gaqo

[gaqo]

@phantagrae. Hey, I rather miss the way I used to present my side of the debate, and you would carefully take it to pieces, and then rebut every part.

[phantagrae]

@phantagrae. Hey, I rather miss the way I used to present my side of the debate, and you would carefully take it to pieces, and then rebut every part.

 

Well, I just think this topic has run its course and there's no use in debating it further.  I stand by my assertion that there's no point in Penny going out with Sheldon on any kind of "date", platonic or otherwise.

[gaqo]

In the same spirit, that the characters create new games. How about 'Devil's Advocate'. Each member has to argue from the opposite side to that they actually believe, or members have to change sides every week!

[phantagrae]

In the same spirit, that the characters create new games. How about 'Devil's Advocate'. Each member has to argue from the opposite side to that they actually believe, or members have to change sides every week!

 

pass.

[I.Am.Molly]

In the same spirit, that the characters create new games. How about 'Devil's Advocate'. Each member has to argue from the opposite side to that they actually believe, or members have to change sides every week!

Something tells me that you really just enjoy arguing, or debating, whichever way you want to put it! Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

[gaqo]

Where was the clue! We only really understand an issue, when we've looked at it from all perspectives. But I steer clear of religion and politics, as these are a personal choice. Everything else is debatable.

[I.Am.Molly]

Where was the clue! We only really understand an issue, when we've looked at it from all perspectives. But I steer clear of religion and politics, as these are a personal choice. Everything else is debatable.

Fair enough, however this thread has gone on for 53 pages, which makes me wonder what the point in debating the Shenny issue further would be. I'm pretty sure almost every point to be made, has been. The fact is, and I think I speak for all Shamys and Lennys when I say this, is that you are never going to come up with an argument that would make us understand the Shenny relationship in anything more than a platonic sense. And I'm almost certain there is nothing we could say to turn the Shennys. So I have to ask, really, what is the point in continuing it further?