Talk:Lewis Black's Root of All Evil

Article move
The title of the show is Lewis Black's Root of All Evil. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I second. That's the title I see onscreen. Surely no one objects. --Bacteria (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. If that's the name that is shown on the show, then that should be the title of the article. Skittlesrgood4uTalk Page/Contributions/Sandbox 14:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable move. Has anyone put in a request yet? --Private Sweety (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

reception very skewed
It currently has two neg reviews when papers like the New York Times gave a glowing review, calling it the funniest show seen in ages. Maybe add a few more views easily found from Metacritic, Im just not sure how to properly cite. In fact the majority of reviews were positive and Metacritic cites is average in the seventies, quite high for a television show. --216.9.250.105 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Winner
Considering the choice is considered "the root of all evil," shouldn't the category be "Loser"?Eric Sieck (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed the premier, it should be what ever is mentioned in the show. But if it's confusing maybe you could make a note? jrabbit05 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the people listed as advocate arguing that their client is the root of all evil or that their opponent's client is? --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  04:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are arguing that their own topic is the "root of all evil." 69.143.240.243 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence Inaccuracies
Is there really a need to keep that section at all? The entire premise of the show is rooted in exaggerated humor and hyperbole, there should be absolutely no reason to point out one specific instance where they exaggerated the numbers simply to make a joke. Frankly, I doubt it would have been posted at all if not for the fact that Wikipedia and YouTube have a fair amount of crossover audience - certainly no one has bothered to address any of the dozens of other inaccuracies or exaggerations that that have been on the show so far. Hossenfeffer (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with addressing the exaggerated claims? Wouldn't it be important information to note flawed claims even if it was a joke? I think it's important to include because the advocates are trying to pursued the audience against something, and I think its important to get the facts straight, so people dont actually take these claims to be true.--Stripedtiger (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

early results
how come the results are always posted before the show even airs? are people finding out somewhere i dont know of or are they just being jackasses and vandalizing this page?Whitey138 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What time zone are you living in? Shows usually air in the eastern time zone first--64.25.221.232 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

confused
wait,i thought comedy central rejected the scientology v.s disney.so how come it's listed under season 2?i don't feel like putting my name 10:29, i lost my calender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.143.237 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Polling
It talks about polls in this article but it never actually says what the polls are. Last time I checked, which was a while ago, the polls were done with text votes but that may have changed since then. We need something in the article to explain what the polls are so can someone add that in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Time89 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the poll referred to is the one on the official site of the show (can't get there from work though). I agree that it would be helpful to make that clearer in the article. Dp76764 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled
Accoding to the TV info box the show ended on 10/01/08 is the show officialy canned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDALGHAMTFPD (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)