Confirmation from Simpsons writer that Duff Beer is not based on Duff McKagan

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Occams Razor. Hear the clip clop of hooves? Sure… It MIGHT be a zebra. But let’s be honest and realistic … it’s probably just a horse.

jury feels in on this one. 

And probably is the key word here. The cartoon guys are probably correct. Which is exactly what I am saying.

[Billy Cundy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And probably is the key word here. The cartoon guys are probably correct. Which is exactly what I am saying.

I know but it’s a bit like saying ‘OJ simpson is probably guilty’… why open yourself up ridicule in the name of semantics. 

[DoMw94]

24 minutes ago, Spoon87 said:

What the fuck 

Yeah can someone catch me up so I don't have to read through all of that? 😂

[Rovim]

2 minutes ago, DoMw94 said:

Yeah can someone catch me up so I don't have to read through all of that? 😂

we're still not completely sure who came up with the Duff beer concept it seems

[Billy Cundy]

3 minutes ago, DoMw94 said:

Yeah can someone catch me up so I don't have to read through all of that? 😂

@SoulMonster is saying it can not truly be proved 100% that duff beer wasn’t based on duff, or rather it can’t be 100% proved duff wasn’t contacted; though he does concede it’s likely the case the Simpsons staff aren’t the ones who are mistaken.

@Billy Cundy I’m arguing that confirmation from the writer who conceived the name duff should be enough to close the book on the urban myth. 

@Oldest Goat just has beef from prior run ins with SoulMonster. But he does agree this case is closed and Duff McKagan is nothing to do with Duff Beer

Just now, Rovim said:

we're still not completely sure who came up with the Duff beer concept it seems

Yes we fucking are, it was Jay Kogen; there’s photo evidence. It’s literally unequivocal, unless you are currently absolutely flying high on crack.

[BucketEgg]

wow, if duff is slang for ass/butt, that means his name means Butt McKagan?

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

I know but it’s a bit like saying ‘OJ simpson is probably guilty’… why open yourself up ridicule in the name of semantics. 

Yes, it is a bit like saying that. A lot like saying that. OJ Simpson most likely was guilty. I would say almost certainly. Much more certain than Duff being wrong. 

And I don't mind at all any ridicule that may come my way simply because I don't dismiss something that has <20% likelihood. I think that's pretty obvious by now  I would mind, though, dismissing anything with only a 20% likelihood of being correct (as an example) and thus being wrong in every fifth case. That I would mind.

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Haha. Wow. Careful, your true colours are showing Mr Pseudo Intellectual. You're gonna report me for mocking your insane behaviour? "You'll be thrown out of here!"

Some stuff on here, like your incredibly obnoxious behaviour has pissed me off at times sure but I've never cried or thrown a tantrum lol. And when I do decide to have a break from the forum, whether temporary or possibly forever, you're one of the people who ask me to stay. Priceless.

I didn't say anything about reporting you. I have no intention of reporting you for your silly ad hominems, nor have I ever done that. 

Never thrown a tantrum, Mr. "admins back me up here or I will leave the forum!"? Right.

And yes, I don't want you to leave - as I have stated numerous times, I think you are a great guy. A bit prone to having breakdowns, but still great. 

[Rovim]

5 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Yes we fucking are, it was Jay Kogen; there’s photo evidence. It’s literally unequivocal, unless you are currently absolutely flying high on crack.

it's literally Duff and the Simpson guys not agreeing on what happened. Technically, speaking we don't know what happened there and who's lying/misremembering and we'll probably never know.

does seem likely that the Simpson guy is right/telling the truth, but that's not the same thing as confirmation of what happened there imho. 

btw, I think I already understand your opinion on this matter, I just happen to diagree it's a smoking gun proof. I'm having a nice cup of tea.

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Yes we fucking are, it was Jay Kogen; there’s photo evidence. It’s literally unequivocal, unless you are currently absolutely flying high on crack.

You don't have to be "absolutely flying high on crack" to not dismiss something that hasn't been proven to be incorrect, and the fact that the writer states it is not true, doesn't constitute a proof since there is a possibility - although remote, sure - that he is lying or the one not remembering things. Again, not arguing that Duff is most likely correct, but arguing against the notion that something has been proven here, either way. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Explain the 20% and why you think The Simpsons staff are lying lol.

You know I love you but you truly have a problem reading right. I have emphasized and stressed and pointed out numerous times throughout these last posts that I DO NOT believe the Simpsons guys are lying. I believe they are saying the truth. How have you not been able to get that?

[Rovim]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

I'm surprised to hear you say this. Why don't you consider what the writer said to be confirmation of what happened?

because it isn't, as I see it. 2 sides still not going back on their versions of what happened and if it's still possible that Duff had something to do with it (which I think it is, although less likely compared to the Simpsons guys, then it's not enough confirmation to label it as such imo. 

[Billy Cundy]

15 minutes ago, Rovim said:

it's literally Duff and the Simpson guys not agreeing on what happened. Technically, speaking we don't know what happened there and who's lying/misremembering and we'll probably never know.

does seem likely that the Simpson guy is right/telling the truth, but that's not the same thing as confirmation of what happened there imho. 

btw, I think I already understand your opinion on this matter, I just happen to diagree it's a smoking gun proof. I'm having a nice cup of tea.

I’m worried you think that what you’re saying is making you sound ‘balanced’ and ‘open minded’ about the situation. Like you’ve got some ‘hot take’. It’s actually making you look like a bit of a loopy fan who is wilfully ignoring the evidence and digging their heels in spite of the obvious conclusions that everyone else has drawn. Good luck to ya, enjoy your tea.

[Billy Cundy]

30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, it is a bit like saying that. A lot like saying that. OJ Simpson most likely was guilty. I would say almost certainly. Much more certain than Duff being wrong. 

And I don't mind at all any ridicule that may come my way simply because I don't dismiss something that has <20% likelihood. I think that's pretty obvious by now  I would mind, though, dismissing anything with only a 20% likelihood of being correct (as an example) and thus being wrong in every fifth case. That I would mind.

Jury of his peers acquitted him? Can’t prove it 🤷‍♂️ he has more of a case than duff. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Jury of his peers acquitted him? Can’t prove it 🤷‍♂️ he has more of a case than duff. 

I disagree. 

[Billy Cundy]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I disagree. 

Until Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown, and OJ all reach a unanimous decision via statement corroborating a verdict, I am entirely open to the possibility it was all a big misunderstanding, or Ron and Nicole and their representatives are potentially fibbing about what happened, and by that very logic, there’s a 20% likelihood OJ simpson is innocent. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Until Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown, and OJ all reach a unanimous decision via statement corroborating a verdict, I am entirely open to the possibility it was all a big misunderstanding, or Ron and Nicole and their representatives are potentially fibbing about what happened, and by that very logic, there’s a 20% likelihood OJ simpson is innocent. 

The OJ Simpson case is one of the most clear cases of a failed judicial system in the US. It would be really off topic to go into its details but suffice to say that I find it much more likely that Simpson was guilty than Duff being incorrect. But again, and I hate having to do this, I still believe Duff is incorrect.

But to bring things back on topic again after this little foray into murder cases gone wrong, the fact that US law and justice is so fucked up interestingly is related to why the Simpsons guys could be flat out lying about things. Again, not believing they are, but also not something that can be entirely dismissed as impossible. The fear of any litigation in the US, with a flawed justice system, means that a small lie is a small price to pay to avoid any litigation which could end up in wrong sentences. And even a frivolous lawsuit that comes to a dead end quickly, is a big nuisance form a corporate perspective and can be a huge toil on a personal level. Again, not believing they are lying to position themselves in case of a lawsuit, but just mentioning this when we stumbled upon the many peculiarities and flaws of US justice. 

And did I mention that I believe Duff is wrong but that I can't rule out entirely that he isn't?

[Billy Cundy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

The OJ Simpson case is one of the most clear cases of a failed judicial system in the US. It would be really off topic to go into its details but suffice to say that I find it much more likely that Simpson was guilty than Duff being incorrect. But again, and I hate having to do this, I still believe Duff is incorrect.

But to bring things back on topic again after this little foray into murder cases gone wrong, the fact that US law and justice is so fucked up interestingly is related to why the Simpsons guys could be flat out lying about things. Again, not believing they are, but also not something that can be entirely dismissed as impossible. The fear of any litigation in the US, with a flawed justice system, means that a small lie is a small price to pay to avoid any litigation which could end up in wrong sentences. And even a frivolous lawsuit that comes to a dead end quickly, is a big nuisance form a corporate perspective and can be a huge toil on a personal level. Again, not believing they are lying to position themselves in case of a lawsuit, but just mentioning this when we stumbled upon the many peculiarities and flaws of US justice. 

And did I mention that I believe Duff is wrong but that I can't rule out entirely that he isn't?

But I thought by your logic, that in-spite of the overwhelming evidence and the general consensus, there is a chance OJ is innocent? Small, big, whatever. Without hard unequivocal proof corroborated by all parties involved, the most likely scenario can not be 100% proven? 

[Rovim]

22 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

I’m worried you think that what you’re saying is making you sound ‘balanced’ and ‘open minded’ about the situation. Like you’ve got some ‘hot take’. It’s actually making you look like a bit of a loopy fan who is wilfully ignoring the evidence and digging their heels in spite of the obvious conclusions that everyone else has drawn. Good luck to ya, enjoy your tea.

yup. I needed an internet ego boost so I disagreed with one of your posts. My need for approval is crippling.

[Gordon Comstock]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You would be a poor scientist if you flat out denied anything with a >20% likelihood  And that's what this is about. We all agree that Duff most likely is wrong. No wait, I insist on the qualifier "most likely" whereas others here believe it has somehow been proven.

 

It's about as close to proven as it can be, though.

I get why you're sticking with "most likely" but at this point it's like 99.9% proven that Duff is wrong/misremembering. Like others have said, there's no good reason to trust the word of someone who was constantly wasted over the word of the writers.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Billy Cundy said:

But I thought by your logic, that in-spite of the overwhelming evidence and the general consensus, there is a chance OJ is innocent? Small, big, whatever. Without hard unequivocal proof corroborated by all parties involved, the most likely scenario can not be 100% proven? 

Yes, and that's what I tried to say. English is not my first language 

1 hour ago, Gordon Comstock said:

It's about as close to proven as it can be, though.

I get why you're sticking with "most likely" but at this point it's like 99.9% proven that Duff is wrong/misremembering. Like others have said, there's no good reason to trust the word of someone who was constantly wasted over the word of the writers.

No, it is not as close to prove as it can be. Far from it. 

And I don't agree with your 99.9% assessment. 

[Whiskey Rose]

Haha, never thought I’d see the day when @SoulMonster is the conspiracy theorist! 

The actual writer explained that the name came from the ‘get off yer duff and do something productive’ type of expression, but apparently the validity of that is still up for debate. Lol! 
 

Very cool that he responded to you @Billy Cundy! 
 

I believe. I believe!  

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

The actual writer explained that the name came from the ‘get off yer duff and do something productive’ type of expression, but apparently the validity of that is still up for debate. Lol! 

They can't both be right. One of them is either mistaken or lying. Again, I trust the Simpsons guys, too. But it would be wrong of me to entirely dismiss the possibility that they are either lying or not remembering it clearly. I have heard it happen before, people lying, I mean, or not remembering things properly. But again, I find it more likely Duff's the wrong one. Not sure what conspiracy that would be, though. 

[Billy Cundy]

33 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, and that's what I tried to say. English is not my first language 

No, it is not as close to prove as it can be. Far from it. 

And I don't agree with your 99.9% assessment. 

To be honest, the ‘proof’ aspect still isn’t what I’m basing my argument on. My abject certainty is still wholly based on it making zero sense in comedic terms. An allusion to the bass player of GNR is not funny, it’s not clever, he’s never once referenced in the show, it provides no comedic, nor narrative value, nothing. It flies in the face of the immensely referential satirical streak the show has. Since I was a literal child, I’ve thought it was totally inane and ridiculous cock-and-bull story. 

the fact it’s been confirmed by the guy who came up with it, as well as the showrunner, who’ve we’ve established have nothing to gain from denying Duff’s tall tale, is almost beside the point. 
 

Even beginning to entertain the notion duff might be in some way telling the truth is honestly making my IQ drop. It’s so bizarrely nonsensical it hurts to even consider it.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

To be honest, the ‘proof’ aspect still isn’t what I’m basing my argument on. My abject certainty is still wholly based on it making zero sense in comedic terms. An allusion to the bass player of GNR is not funny, it’s not clever, he’s never once referenced in the show, it provides no comedic, nor narrative value, nothing. It flies in the face of the immensely referential satirical streak the show has. Since I was a literal child, I’ve thought it was totally inane and ridiculous cock-and-bull story. 

Yes, but again considering that this happened before or while they wrote the first season, when they were likely brainstorming ideas and testing out concepts, it becomes less unlikely that they considered making a character based on Duff, resulting in someone in the team reaching out to him, before eventually going in a different direction and just keeping the name.