In your latest edit to The Discount of Monte Cristo, the source you provided not only lacked any mention of the episode in question, it also shows your claim- that it "was created in response to CBS trying to cut the show's budget"- is mistaken.
From the article:
"After we finished Show #121, CBS said they wanted to order another season but they wanted to renegotiate the deal."
So the budget cut was proposed after what turned out to be the last episode of the show, and thus after Show #112, which includes TDoMC. Therefore, TDoMC couldn't have been made in response to the budget cut, as it was not yet proposed.
I therefore ask you to stop including that statement there, unless you can come up with hard evidence for it.
On a side note, when adding references to articles, be sure to put in a References section at or near the bottom, as I did on TDoMC before removing the source.
Don't worry about him, Winslow. He's a banned member known as Jesus Acosta who has been making multiple sock puppet accounts lately. He also says we're "censoring" him just because we call out his misbehavior and cancel out damage from him.
And yeah, I haven't seen anything from Mark Evanier about this "Paul Winchell was supposed to voice Dr. Goody Good" jive, so Acosta's anecodote isn't worth anything.
I know what why you've reversed the edits, but this is a wiki. These are all facts and they're completely true. Plus, that edit I made on "Learning Lessons" is what the TV Tropes guys call "Hilarious in Hindsight".
WinslowOddballs456 wrote: By the way, Garfield and his friends do act out of character in the Infinite Learning Lab videos. Have you even seen them?
Some of them, at least (the sign-on requirement restricts the ability to watch them all).
Considering that it's an independent entity, and an educational one at that, I'm not surprised that they act differently at times.
Edit: Hopefully the latest update to the ILL article (as of this writing) will do the trick. I'd say that "educational approach" works better than "out of character", but still conveys the essence of the latter notion (I'm still open to suggestions to tweak it further).
First you claim in public to have monopoly for knowledge in your own comments above ("Well I kinda am. Thanks for asking." from 4th April 2017) , then you give questions denying your own monopoly, as quoted above.
I've always thought that people with inflated ego (similar to yours) would consistently try proving their own statements, not proving that they're bad comedians.