I heard it was under mysterious circumstances, too. A hooded stranger was seen scuttling away from the Ranch, allegedly muttering “jub-jub.”
.
Erm, Contrapuntal, there’s some massive confusion going on. I hold the OP largely responsible, but again, ISTM that he was only offering the Conrad anecdote as evidence that “roger roger” was used before either movie was released. Nowhere can I see that he was really suggesting that Conrad was quoting Airplane!, nor that MsR claimed such. With all respect, I think your last post missed the point by a fair mile.
(ETA some modicum of spelling and grammar)
.
Actually I believe the death occurred just before the first appearance of the muppet in “The Empire Strikes Back”
It is not up to me to provide proof that the use of “roger roger” came from Conrad, because I never suggested it did. As explained ad nauseum by me and other posters, the term “roger roger” had a familiar, well-known usage long before “Airplane” or “Phantom Menace”.
Isn’t there any kind of quality control for these “straight dope staff members” or their reports? The whole line of argument by Robin, of imputing statements to critics that they never said, and of then denying the whole issue is worth discussing, is the kind of thing we see on Usenet or unmoderated message boards. Allowing things like the “roger, roger” thesis under “Straight Dope”'s imprimateur weakens the brand.
Regardless, no such claim was made in the report, and therefore Q.E.D’s post was spot on. That is the entire thrust of my argument.
Correct. He was saying that Conrad was *not *quoting Airplane.
Correct again. Q.E.D. said that such a claim was not in the report. I agreed with him. Such a claim is not in the Report.
On this we disagree. Please address Frylock’s claim that the OP’s post concerned the origin of the term.
Who has disputed that? Who said it **came **from Airplane? **MsRobyn **said that the Star Wars quote was a reference to Airplane, not that it *originated *in Airplane.
This thread, intentionally or not, seems to be a wonderful example of using words to enhance miscommunication. Maybe this thread is an homage to Airplane!?
Can I re-ask the actual question in the OP?
QUESTION: The Staff Report says the following: "As for the use of “roger, roger” in Phantom Menace, the consensus seems to be that it’s a sly (OK, not that sly) reference to Airplane (1980). " Can this statement be supported with some evidence?
Just to be clear, are you asking for evidence of what the consensus is, or evidence that it is in fact an Airplane reference? 
Either would be fine, Shirley.
FWIW, checking Airman’s searches for the alleged “more where that came from”, I find a grand total of two people who claim it is a reference without any evidence, two people asking whether it is, and two more people who merely say it reminds them of Airplane. After the first page the google results are pretty much irrelevant, because they’re missing one or more of the search terms and are thus entirely unlikely to contain any more examples of people claiming it’s a reference. So that’s pretty much it, it would seem.
Now the question is, do two randoms on the internet constitute a consensus?
And someone needs to go outside and get some air. 
Robin
This is no example of miscommunication; this is an example of ego.
Many people refuse to admit they’re wrong, taking an attack on their work personally. I think it’s clear that the posters and the “staff member” recognize the absurdity of the claim that the Phantom Menace was referencing Airplane (or, equally absurdly, that there is some “consensus” to that effect).
It is true that the staff member in question hasn’t actually admitted this, but by resorting to ad hominem, she has conceded the question.
What I don’t understand is why the Straight Dope allows this sort of thing to be promulgated under its aegis? It’s obviously much easier to correct the error than to try and invent rationalizations to retain it - what’s going on?
Has anyone else ever noticed that it’s always the most incompetent people who are the most intransigent on admitting they’re fallibility? The bright people I know, cheerfully and frequently concede errors. The not-so-bright, will fight to the death before conceding an inch. Perhaps this would be a good question for The Straight Dope.
You really shouldn’t use terms you don’t know the meaning of if you want people to take you seriously.
Wow. Someone does need to go outside for a while.
You’re telling me that I conceded an argument that didn’t exist based on an ad hominem that didn’t exist. Hm.
Robin
For my part, honestly, that’s not it at all. I’m an inveterate geek, and a Star Wars fan, and an Airplane! fan, and a Doper.
If Georgie really did intend an homage to the Abrazuckers, I just want to know about it. If not from George, then at least the reasons given for the belief. I’ve got teh ignorance, and I needs it fought!
.
Actually, that should be “…admitting their fallibility.”
Or possibly “…admitting they’re fallible.”
You may be right. Let’s have a show of hands: Who got an elbow in the ribs for saying, “Fozzie Bear!” the first time they heard Yoda. It also counts if you said, “Bert!”
The sad thing is not that we are hijacking this thread but that, possibly for the first time on the internet, a Star Wars, Hitchhiker’s, or Monty Python fanboy hijack is on the “Less Stupid” end of a thread’s level of discourse.
I get the elbow for yelling “Grover!” That has to count.
Robin
This forum is called Comments on Staff Reports. There have been many threads in it dealing with the minutia of Staff Reports. This is nothing new.
A statement was made in the report about a consensus, the only thing to back the idea of this consensus so far has been some goggle searches that don’t even prove what they intend to.
I really don’t see what the problem is here. If there is a consensus then it should be easily shown. If there isn’t then the author should just pull back from that line in the report and move on.
Yes.
I can’t believe someone publishes a research article and when something is pointed out as completely unsubstantiated says “What difference does it make?” I know this isn’t an important subject, but then why bother to write the thing at all? I also can’t believe the quibbling and obtuseness to distract criticism. “Oh, she didn’t say it was a parody! She said there was a consensus that it was a sly reference! Not the same thing at all! ANd she didn’t even bring up Conrad, so what the heck are you talking about?”
I know Robyn previously used [post=8595011]Google to defend this article[/post], so I’ll point out that " ‘Roger Roger’ -phantom " returns 927,000 hits. So as a phrase apart from Phantom menace, it’s out there. Perhaps Lucas was making a sly reference to the British comedy “Roger Roger”. However, the consensus in my computer room is that he was likely making an homage to French composer Roger Roger who composed theme music for various Flash Gordon TV series and who died a mere two years before production on Phantom Menace started.