Remind me again: why is Sherri Shepherd still on TV?
She has to be the most ignorant person on a major TV show. Remember when she wasn’t sure if the Earth were flat? She has tied this record for profound goofiness by now claiming that nothing "predated Christians".
Yeah, you read that right. You can watch the video, until YouTube yanks it.
Seriously, I understand how dumbed down television can be, but this is really beyond the pale. Every time she’s on the camera, they should have a title underneath her that says "The opinions expressed by Ms. Shepherd do not reflect reality in any way whatsoever." In the meantime, can we get someone to explain to her what "B.C." means?
December 4th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Part of me feels like we should leave this one for black feminists to bring down by themselves. Why should we have all the fun?
But seriously, where do Jews fit into her cosmology? Weren’t there a few Jews in the OLD TESTAMENT?
December 4th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Actually they all seemed profoundly ignorant. “The Greeks came first”? That would be news to the Mesopotamians like the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians; and don’t forget the Egyptians, Chinese and others whose civilizations predate the Christian era by as much as the Christians predate ours.
- Jack
December 4th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
She knows, like Bill O’Reilly knows, that Christianity goes back 5000 years.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Maybe there is room on “the View” for the stupid (or maybe ignorant is more accurate) woman niche. I’ve been very impressed with “Whoopi” though in the counter arguments. She also isn’t afraid to tell others when they are wrong. Of course being a wit usually correlates with intelligence.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
From today’s NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/nyregion/04siemens.html?ex=1354510800&en=906056129b78ae39&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
Whilst these girls were doing great science, Sheri was setting the perception of women in education back another few years.
And the View is quite happy to give her the platform to do this.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I actually think she is a useful idiot. She’s a shining example of what “Faith” really means. In America, “Faith” is a good word, as politicians rush to embrace it and profess it. This is what “Faith” amounts to.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I’m afraid to click that YouTube link… If I hadn’t heard Sherri’s flat Earth live, I woulda thought it was some sort of hoax.
Seriously. Nothing predates christiananity??
December 4th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
This makes me think that we need a new reality TV show. It would be called “Dumb as a Stump”. The premise would be like the Gong Show. Each episode would involve getting someone like Sherri on and having her explain herself to a panel of judges.
At the end, the guest gets whacked in the head with a CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, or other text appropriate to whatever the guests particular insanity happens to be.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Evolving Squid – now THAT’S a reality show I’d watch!
December 4th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
[...] Anyways… she needs to go away, as Phil said. [...]
December 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
[...] Phil Plait, of the Bad Astronomy Blog, brings us a YouTube clip of Sherri Shepherd making an ignorant ass of herself on national television: [...]
December 4th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Jack, it’s possible that part is out of context, and they were talking about relative times, not absolute. Greeks came before Romans, who came before Christians. I was thinking the same thing you did for a sec, and realized I didn’t know enough to say they didn’t know enough.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
As an Assyrian, I’m deeply offended by all of this.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
My guess is that she was confusing the original Adam with “the second Adam” Jesus. In that context, she may have been trying to say that there was nothing before Adam which, according to her kooky belief system, would have been correct.
It’s still all nonsense, of course, and still a very dumb mistake whichever you look at it, but you can sort of see what she was trying to say.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Stupid people are the target audience for “The View”. Think about it: who is more likely to be influenced by advertising? Morons. The stupider the audience, the more effective the advertising.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Christian, thank you so much for the NYT link. That story made my day!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:03 am
I don’t think you’d get any guests for your show, Evolving Squid…
December 5th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Man, at first I was puzzled. “Nothing predated Christians?” What was that supposed to mean? Then I understood I was having a language problem with a “false friend” and so “predate” in English didn’t meant anything similar to what “predar” means in Spanish (predar/depredar= to prey on)
Have been 10 funny puzling seconds trying to figure what should it mean the claim that there was nothing having Christians for breakfast in the past, lol!
December 5th, 2007 at 4:41 am
I don’t think you’d get any guests for your show, Evolving Squid…
Lots of people will put up with all sorts of humiliation just to get on TV. Look at “America’s Funniest Home Videos”, “Fear Factor” and “Extreme Makeover”. This could be Extreme Makeover for the mind.
In addition to getting a rubber bible upside the head, winning guests each week could get some kind of scientific prize… a scholarship for 4 years of university education in a science program? They can even keep the CRC book as their first text.
Truly, getting people to appear and make asses of themselves wouldn’t be a problem. Getting advertising sponsorship would be much more of a challenge
December 5th, 2007 at 5:00 am
From what I hear, they were talking about Epicurus, the philosopher. Maybe the view isn’t so stupid…
Of course, I don’t know how they talked about him. It could have been an intellectual discussion on what it means to live a good life, whether avoiding pain is about merely your mental reaction to reality or not, and on Epicurus’ ideas on early atomism and the nature of God…or it could have been a shallow thing confusing him with hedonism. Hopefully the former.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Bill: Well, they were talking about feeding them to the lions!
December 5th, 2007 at 5:02 am
And now it’s time for… DUMB AS A STUMP!…
With your host… Dosidicus Gigas! Over at Bad Astronomy I saw this great video clip: It’s not the first time I’ve seen a clip from that TV show. The woman to the right of centre has a serious problem with…
December 5th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Bill Bones said:
“Man, at first I was puzzled. “Nothing predated Christians?†What was that supposed to mean? Then I understood I was having a language problem with a “false friend†and so “predate†in English didn’t meant anything similar to what “predar†means in Spanish (predar/depredar= to prey on)”
Curiously, English does have the word “predation” meaning the act of preying upon. This is almost certainly related to the Spanish that you note.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:33 am
I’m surprised that none of the the other panelists weren’t more aggressive in going after her. Jackson showed a profound lack of understanding of history.
Why is she still on the air?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:12 am
Nigel Depledge: Curiously, English does have the word “predation†meaning the act of preying upon. This is almost certainly related to the Spanish that you note.
Sure. A predator is a person or thing that predates.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Sometimes I wonder why I bother pointing out “the other perspective” to you folks, you never seem to get it. (Yet somehow expect “them” to get you. Hmm…) But here goes:
If you assume Christianity only began at the point people on Earth began worshipping Jesus as Messiah/Savior, then Christianity is only a couple millenia old. However, that’s not how Christianity presents itself. The Old and New Testaments are replete with references to God and Jesus being eternal, “Alpha and Omega” and all that. So if one accepts that Jesus has always been in existence, it doesn’t take many steps of reasoning to conclude that nothing predates Christianity.
Argue/debate/demean the validity of the conclusion if you like. But, if your only approach to changing someone’s worldview is mockery and condemnation, you’re going to be frustrated by your futility for a long time.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Your troll-fu is strong, DennyMo
December 5th, 2007 at 7:59 am
@DennyMo: Perhaps her branch of Christianity teaches that particular falsehood, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong.
Also, mockery and condemnation are very effective, at times more so than mere rational discourse, especially when dealing with irrational beliefs into which people aren’t reasoned in the first place. Never underestimate the effect of social and emotional pressures in shaping beliefs. Religions generally don’t.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:06 am
[...] Sherri Shepherd Needs to go Away Now [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 8:09 am
> “predate†in English didn’t meant anything similar to what “predar†means in Spanish (predar/depredar= to prey on)
Actually… it does. There’s one verb “to predate” (from which “predator” derives), which does mean “to prey upon,” and there’s another verb, comparatively a neologism, “to pre-date,” which is “to come before in time.” It’s better used in actual speech, because the two words are usually pronounced entirely differently (to prey upon being pronounced “pread-ate” with the first syllable rhyming with “bread” and to come before in time being pronounced “pree-date” with the first syllable rhying with “tree”).
So, in essence, you’ve got two words with different etymologies (one traditional Latin, one being a neologism constructed with a prefix) competing for the same language. Silly English.
> Also, mockery and condemnation are very effective, at times more so than mere rational discourse, especially when dealing with irrational beliefs into which people aren’t reasoned in the first place.
That runs counter to all of my experience. If you mock and condemn people, generally they recoil from your information, go back to their group of supporters, nd are merely strengthened. Maybe you can bully tweedy kids in the schoolyard using that technique; maybe you can occasionally shame an individual who can be proven to be wrong; but in ideological conflict it’s more often than not counterproductive.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:15 am
A little piece of me just died after watching that…
December 5th, 2007 at 8:33 am
In my dictionary (New Oxford Dictionary of English, Second Edition), the word with the meaning “exist or occur at a date earlier than (something) is pre-date. The verb meaning to prey on (something) is predate. The hyphen makes all the difference.
- ORIGIN late 15th cent. (in the Latin sense): from Latin praedatio(n-) ‘taking of booty’, from the verb praedari ’seize as plunder’, from praeda ‘booty’. The current main sense dates from the 1930s.
Latin booty… does that mean J.Lo ?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:36 am
So if one accepts that Jesus has always been in existence, it doesn’t take many steps of reasoning to conclude that nothing predates Christianity.
Sci-fi fans call that a retcon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon
December 5th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I could have been clearer, I suppose. On the individual scale, it’s not generally effective, and the more extreme spectrum of believers tend to react extremely, but on the social scale, it’s rather effective. People in general tend towards conformity and popularity and apparent “normalcy” of beliefs go a long way toward encouraging the spread of belief in certain ideas. Start pointing out on a wide scale the ridiculousness of ridiculous beliefs, and it weakens the effect of the social forces supporting certain beliefs. Occasionally, the reaction of extreme elements itself contributes to the cause by being a little more honest than intended or obviously stupid on its face.
Look at how effectively the ideas of faith being a virtue and atheism/godlessness being synonymous with evil have been cemented in the public consciousness. Rationally, both of those ideas are ridiculous, and there exist abundant examples in everyday life of how wrong both of those ideas are, but yet they’re both widely held positions. Our politicians accept this and the overwhelming majority rush quickly to represent themselves as faithful, religious people, reinforcing the perception of those ideas as right.
Calm rational discourse has been used time and time again against the morally offensive claims of trying to blame atheism and/or evolution for many of the great atrocities of the 20th century (and consequently label all atheists and/or people that accept evolution as potential Hitlers/Stalins), but it’s had little effect in stopping the spread or use of the meme. A bit of outrage and condemnation are called for when such horrendous charges are being laid against an entire group of people on the basis of their non-belief in the bigot’s particular absurdity.
I don’t intend to suggest that mockery and condemnation should replace rational discourse, but they shouldn’t be ignored as tools to counter bad ideas and ignorance.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:04 am
You heard of people who don’t know nothin’? This woman don’t even suspect nothin’.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I see … so because I’ve defined my deity as always existing and eternal,
then there has been no time when people didn’t worship my deity even though they didn’t call it what I call it, didn’t practice the same set of beliefs,
worshipped many gods not just one, would have looked at x-ian morality and
laughed at it’s silliness, etc., etc., etc. … they were really x-ians w/o
knowing it. Wow … what whacked out logic (or lack thereof.)
December 5th, 2007 at 9:29 am
uknesvuinngon:
Ah, I see. Mock the idea, not the holder. Usually social guilt-by-association is enough to do the rest. I’m all for mocking ideas, as it provides that “but you’re okay Mac” out for people’s sense of face and allows them an out to maintain their self-respect (via conversion) without being properly forced to that out.
> A bit of outrage and condemnation are called for when such horrendous charges are being laid against an entire group of people on the basis of their non-belief in the bigot’s particular absurdity.
That’s fair enough, as long as the outrage and the condemnation doesn’t go to the point of asserting that all theism leads to Inquisitions (except as an ironic counterexample to atheism always leading to Stalinism).
Frank:
As far as Christian conceptualism goes, that’s a highly inclusive opinion and, while still asserting the primacy of Christianity (which can only be expected from an adherent, really; if they thought something else was better, they’d be one of those instead) at least prevents the usual THEY WEREN’T CHRISTIAN THEY GO TO HELL AND DIE silliness. Thus I consider it decidedly less harmful (even if it does smack of philosophical hubris).
December 5th, 2007 at 9:36 am
@ evolving squid:
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
Predate \Pre*date”\, v. t.
To date anticipation; to affix to (a document) an earlier
than the actual date; to antedate; as, a predated deed or
letter.
[1913 Webster]
WordNet (r) 2.0
predate
v 1: be earlier in time; go back further; “Stone tools precede
bronze tools” [syn: precede, forego, antecede, antedate]
[ant: postdate]
2: come before; “Most English adjectives precede the noun they
modify” [syn: precede]
3: prey on or hunt for; “These mammals predate certain eggs”
[syn: raven, prey]
4: establish something as being earlier relative to something
else [syn: antedate, foredate] [ant: postdate]
pre-date is not in my dictionary.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:52 am
DennyMo,
I didn’t really want to watch the video, but I wanted to consider the validity of your comment.
However, it is clear that they were discussing “Christians” as in people who believed/followed Christ. Logically, there could not have been people following Christ until he appeared which was historically after the period in which they were discussing (even if I grant you the idea that Christ himself has always existed, there were no people on Earth called “Christians”).
Furthermore, the Greeks did not throw Christians to the lions as Sherri suggested. That would be the Romans.
Sherri was clearly displaying a complete ignorance of history. The main point of the post was to question why someone like her is presented a national platform to espouse ideas when she is clearly lacking a basic education in at least history and science (and one can presume much more). To say nothing of her critical thinking skills.
I have no objection to the View having a panelist who defends the religious position, but could they at least get someone who is not ignorant. I am sure there are thousands of highly educated qualified people available. In general that goes for all the panelists regardless of the subject.
As it is now, we are destroying the minds of the daytime TV viewing public. To be equally critical, I was appalled at Barbara Walter’s idiocy (proving that anyone can be a “journalist” and subsequently that the failure of our media should not be so surprising) as well on the “flat earth” clip. This show should be cancelled in order to save minds.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:56 am
> As it is now, we are destroying the minds of the daytime TV viewing public.
Daytime TV… when most people are working (and posting on BA inbetween). Soap operas have been doing this much, much longer than The View.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I feel sorry for the other women on The View who have to put up with this gal.
By coincidence, I was actually watching. They were talking about Epicurus, particularly his views on happiness, when Shepard sidetracked (as it seems she usually does) into talking about God.
The opposing position was indeed holding forth in relative order. Greek polytheism predated Roman polytheism which predated Christianity. Even reasonably-educated Fundamentalist Chrisitians know this. I should know, I was raised as one.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:02 am
# The Centipedeon 05 Dec 2007 at 9:29 am
uknesvuinngon:
Ah, I see. Mock the idea, not the holder.
Similar to “love the sinner, hate the sin”?
(BTW.. if that’s supposed to be the case, why do Xians talk about ‘evil people’ instead of ‘people who DO evil’?)
J/P=?
December 5th, 2007 at 10:07 am
“Troll-fu”, that’s a funny one. Write your own material?
No trolling, just hoping that folks here are actually interested in doing something about the problem, not just sitting at their keyboards laughing about it.
Retcon. Interesting, I’d never thought of that in a biblical setting.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Interestingly enough, Historians no longer use the terms “A.D.” (Anno Domini or “Year of Our Lord”) and “B.C.” (Before Christ.) They replace them with “C.E.” (Common Era) and “B.C.E.” (Before Common Era,) Which mean the same thing.
Now, this is silly, of course. We’re still using a Christian calendar which has as its arbitrary center point the supposed moment of the immculate conception of Christ. At that point, I don’t see any reason not to call it what it is.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“Ah, I see. Mock the idea, not the holder.”
“Similar to “love the sinner, hate the sinâ€?”
No, not at all! In mockery everything is fair game, but there are two critical conditions: First, there must be an audience that is not subject to the mockery. Second, the humiliation of the subject must be as entertaining as possible for the audience. As a result, you lose the subject of the mockery forever, but hopefully you have gained the audience.
Successful mockery therefore requires that it does not make you look mean, and obviously the type of succesful mockery depends critically on the sensibilities of the audience.
Now mock away…
December 5th, 2007 at 11:09 am
pre-date is not in my dictionary.
Interesting. That’s the joy of the English language for you
Of course, you’re probably in the USA, and I’m in Canada.
For the work I do, Webster’s dictionary is not considered an appropriate reference. If something like this came up, I’d be required to use the Oxford spelling. All Oxford, all the time.
However, for most things, it’s unlikely anyone would really notice… But one can’t depend on people not noticing. There’s always a spelling and grammar Nazi hiding somewhere.
Post-date is also hyphenated in my dictionary
December 5th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Before Sherry started going on about science and religion, she was pretty funny and I liked her.
That was then…this is now.
Who knows, maybe she’s there to make Elizabeth look smart?
Thank goodness for Whoopi and Joy; if they weren’t on the show, I wouldn’t be watching it at all.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:58 am
> First, there must be an audience that is not subject to the mockery.
Which kind of goes back to making mockery as a mode of ideological struggle, i.e. changing minds, as not entirely useful.
> Successful mockery therefore requires that it does not make you look mean
Difficult, to say the least.
I still hold that it’s reasonable, from a purely psychological standpoint, to mock concepts when they overreach their conceptual basis, be it evolution ‘disproving’ theism (science as a methodology makes no comment on the supernatural except to say the supernatural is not necessary to explain natural phenomena) or creationism/intelligent design being science (as it’s not, by definition). This allows people to hold the idea to see it as silly while seeing themselves as not silly (as they can drop the idea and be fine); also, if the idea is relegated to a niche, as in “yes, you can still believe in intelligent design, so long as you realize it’s not science,” that allows them the ability to save face. Conversion by slow steps isn’t really such a bad thing.
Of course, there are people who have invested so heavily in an idea (say, Dembski when it comes to ID/creationism) that they become a personification of that idea. They’ll never be swayed anyway, so carefully mocking them in a non-schoolyard way can act as a didactic tool. “Don’t be like this loon,” basically.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
> There’s always a spelling and grammar Nazi hiding somewhere.
Which is why the work of the Grammar Nazi Hunters will never be done! They must be brought to justice for their crimes against linguistic tolerance and evolution!
December 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
That depends on the audience, but yes. In fact, mockery is a form of comedy, and this requires some real talent. Now if you’re really funny, you can mock the audience, but that’s best left to professionals.
From a psychological standpoint, if you mock someone’s religion under the guise of mocking a concept, you might as well mock the person, because most people who are deeply religious are not able to tell the difference. This is not exclusive to religion either. If you mock science as a concept there will be a lot of people (scientists) who do not see the difference between mocking the science and mocking the scientist.
People to a large degree identify who they are with the convictions they hold. You can’t say “I’m not mocking you, I’m mocking your stupid worldview” and expect them to say “uh, OK. If you put it like that…”
December 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Bill Bones said:
“Man, at first I was puzzled. “Nothing predated Christians?†What was that supposed to mean? Then I understood I was having a language problem with a “false friend†and so “predate†in English didn’t meant anything similar to what “predar†means in Spanish (predar/depredar= to prey on)
Have been 10 funny puzling seconds trying to figure what should it mean the claim that there was nothing having Christians for breakfast in the past, lol!”
Hahaha Bill bones:). I’ve had that same issue with Spanish and French. I’ve taken just enough of both of them to be able to puzzle my way through a few paragraphs, but I haven’t spent enough time with either language to know when an apparent cognate is in fact a “false friend”. It can lead to some amusing misunderstandings.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
[tongue in cheek]
Evolving Squid said:
” There’s always a spelling and grammar Nazi hiding somewhere.”
No, that’s not right, because the term Nazi derives from the abbreviation of the national socialist party of Germany from the 1920s / 1930s. If anything, you refer to us English-grammar Inquisitors (As in, “I didn’t expect the English Inquisition”). Not to be confused with Spanish ones of course!
[/tongue in cheek]
December 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
The sad thing is that I was all set to praise her for rejecting the Jehovah’s Witlesses once the world didn’t end after the third time they said it would. At least sometimes she is willing to let the evidence speak louder than her ideology.
You can’t be wrong all the time, I guess.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
PK:
That’s why you don’t go for the hard fish to catch, at first. If someone’s so deeply a party-liner to the point that they cannot take comedy attached to their ideology, they’re probably a lost cause. Look at most of the ‘fundamentalist’ Islamic world today. However, one does have to start somewhere, and there are always moderates who can take a joke without taking it personally.
Otherwise, I’d never been able to use (link NSFW if you work for the ADL) Flosse the Nazi Dolphin in a roleplaying game along with a Jewish friend of mine, much less develop his nemesis, The Shark of David (who is, at least, in part, that same friend’s fault). Admittedly, it’s not those moderates who are the problem, but it’s those same moderates you can get to see things your way and provide soft pressure to gradually marginalize (but never extinguish) the crazies on the far end.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
> As in, “I didn’t expect the English Inquisitionâ€
Except everyone expects Grammar Inquisitors on the Internet…
“Everybody expects the English Inquisition! Our chief weapon is grammar, grammar and pedantry–our TWO chief weapons are grammar, pedantry, and obscure spellings–AMONGST OUR WEAPONRY are such diverse things as grammar, pedantry, obscure spellings, and an almost fanatical devotion to Strunk and White okay I’ll start again.”
December 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
>We’re still using a Christian calendar which has as its arbitrary center point the supposed moment of the immculate conception of Christ
Immaculate Conception of Christ? The Immaculate Conception is of Mary. There is no Immaculate Conception of Christ. There is no Immaculate Conception for Protestants, it is a Catholic-only invention. If it helps to understand what it is, you can think of it in English as the Conception of the Immaculation of Mary. If you don’t understand Immaculation, read this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception
In short, the Italian phrase “Immaculate Conception” means to cleanse a woman of the stain of Original Sin so she can be sainted. The Concept was approved in 1854 and does not concern Jesus, per se. If a Protestant blabs about Immaculate Conception, kindly as if they have converted to Catholicism.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
You people (in US) basically speaking, have to pay in order to listen to “celebrities” of this rank speak such nonsense on TV.
I mean, here in my country, I think if I went to most rural parts of country and asked farmers about the issue they would know the Earth is round. I mean, every schoolroom in elementary has a freaking globe!
Damn, sometimes i think everybody should have to go under 50 years of communism, it has some rather nice benefits, like obligatory basic education on a purely rational and scientific basis. Silly Marxism and Communist science lectures got removed from school programs in early ‘70es here. Nothing but boring silly facts in school. Like “Earth is billions of years old”, “life on Earth became naturally and is subject to “evolution”", and yeah, stuff like “Earth is (approximately) a sphere with a radius of …”.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
typo:
kindly as=kindly ask
December 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Aleksandar:
To be fair, everyone here knows the world is round too (as far as I know, the Flat Earth Society is quite literally dead). Unless they’re a talking head on television, at which point it becomes a crapshoot. On the plus side, we also generally know that people on television are idiots, so there’s at least some hope yet.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
You know, if we can all watch and “love” people like Jessica Simpson I think we can tolerate someone like Sherri. I mean really.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Beware! Lest ye incur the wrath of the Conservapedians:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments
Beware! (again) before ye set foot in yonder realm lest thy noggin explodeth from the imbecilius extremis thy will encounter there.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:55 am
It’s people like Sherri Shepherd that are the reason the British humor style called “understatement” doesn’t work in America.
Remember, educating yourself takes time. Sherri Shepherd probably had to spend that time on other things. Also, as has already been pointed out, average Americans all over are that ignorant. Jay Leno used to do street interviews where he asked random people on the street questions like that — most people didn’t know some very basic stuff.
Sherri Shepherd may be ignorant — but she probably earns more than most of us.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:22 am
It doesn’t matter how stupid she is. She can vote. That’s what’s scary.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:43 am
> Jay Leno used to do street interviews where he asked random people on the street questions like that — most people didn’t know some very basic stuff.
That’s not what I’d call a scientific sample. The people who got it right have no comedic value, and so were cut out.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:14 am
It doesn’t matter how stupid she is. She can vote. That’s what’s scary.
But like so many, she probably doesn’t.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:31 am
The best part about this? Seriously?
It’s not that she’s flying in the face of established history. It’s not that she’s refuting science. It’s not even that she’s yet again willfully demonstrating her own ignorance.
It’s that she’s CALLING THE OLD TESTAMENT A LIE. Now, I’m not a particularly religious person, but if I were, I don’t think I would go on national television and insult my own religion.
That, I must say, is absolutely priceless. I really need to start watching the View more. You can’t write comedy gold like this.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Maybe they wouldn’t sound so… ah… ill-informed if they actually took the time to sit back, think about what they’re going to say, and then insert it into the conversation, rather than all trying to speak at exactly the same time.
Until Stewie throws in some cake or something and then they all have at it.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“Immaculate Conception of Christ? The Immaculate Conception is of Mary. ”
Excuse me, you’re quite right. I meant “divine” or “virgin” conception, refering to Christ. Theology STILL isn’t my strong suit.
“Beware! Lest ye incur the wrath of the Conservapedians:”
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Why is Sherri still on TV? Do we not have anything else better to do with our lives than to be stuck with her? I would rather watch “gross” TV rather than watch anything that comes from this heifer’s mouth. She is a complete embarrassment to anything that a woman in general stands for and she is always running up behind men and saying things to make herself seem real cheap.
Like for example, from my understanding she went around claiming that she just had to have her a man, and then she went and seduced WWE Wrestling Superstar MVP, and if that wasn’t enough torture, then she came out on nationwide TV and told members of the audience and the VIEW that she was getting a bikini wax for her upcoming disaster live bikini suit on the VIEW in August. I sure as hell would not want to see that. Talk about “Thriller”, that set poor Michael Jackson’s video about 6 years into the making of the ancient and antique artifacts of the unknown. And no offense to Michael, because I love the man and his music, but Sherri is just plain dumb, plain and simple. She cannot even say something to make herself seem smart, less along say something to make her seem intelligent. What Sherri needs to do is wrap herself, MVP, her stupid comments and her dysfunctional lifestyle in the toilet and bid it a farewell, because that is what her life is going right now fast, A hell in a hand basket. You know what Sherri reminds me of, the Movie-Drag me to Hell. I would have said “Transformers”, but I don’t want to get a visit from Optimus Prime and the Decepticons, I’ll take my chances and not watch Sherri at all and hope that you all can do the same and maybe this world would be a better place to live.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
One should never argue history with Guinan. She’s been around for centuries.