Nothing like constrctive criticism eh?

That sounds like the sort of review you'd read in The Sun.

No there aren't... probably due to the fact Mark Lamarr is great.

I'll have no one say otherwise! ; )

Btw... If you don't agree with Ellie and you actually quite *like* Mark Lamarr, there IS a website which you can visit:

http://www.geocities.com/ailieh/mark.html

I know it's nothing quite so fancy as SOTCAA, but it's being worked on...

Mark Lamarr is shit.

Lamarr's own series that was on last year was a load of rubbish. He was completely out of his depth. what an insult to the viewer, to have to sit and watch as he read what was less a routine and more a vaguely amusing article from an autocue, as he paced the studio. Without anyone around to insult he doesn't know what to do.

I know what you mean about his show. I saw him live in Oxford and his whole act is just about being rude to people. He reminded me of the school bully, rather than a comic.

Although I missed the Majority of Leaving the 20th Century, (due to being out of the country) I just don't think it was the right vehicle for his humour.

I have to disagree that his act is 'bullying.'

I think what Mark does well, is the sacrcastic rant. When he does this best, is when he has someone, or a bunch of people to bounce the act off.
When I saw him in Hastings, I thought that he was very clever and a lot wittier than anyone I know gives him credit for.
He has the ability to be sarcastic without being insulting, but generally I'm in favour of his cruicifiction of the morons in the audiences who think their piss-poor heckles are humorous.

I've heard NMTB insulted on here before, but I really enjoy it and I find it very funny. I think it's Mark's best work to date.
Maybe I'm wrong... Maybe the people on here who pick apart Chris Morris' life work are wrong to do that...
Maybe everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
I still think mine's right. : )

I've always thought he was surplus to requirements, frankly, in the world of television comedy. what has he ever done that is fresh or new or for that matter funny? May the backlash continue.

I've never seen the point of him.

The real issue, surely, is that each and every edition of NMTB is so blatantly cut to death by editing that the studio audience probably has to sleep over just to get one of them done. Whereas genuinely funny men like Tony Hancock and Sid James could do live radio shows, only an hour or so after seeing the final script, in front of a non-warmed-up audience, and still make pure comedy gold. Surely I now qualify as an honorary member of The Corpses?

Whereas genuinely funny men like Tony Hancock and Sid James could do live radio shows, only an hour or so after seeing the final script, in front of a non-warmed-up audience, and still make pure comedy gold.

Yeah, but you're now making the assumption that the broadcasted version of NMTB, is the result of heavily edited footage due to the fact that Mark Lamarr, (or the other panelists, for that matter) isn't funny... What about the stuff that's edited which *is* funny, but which the BBC are too shit scared to show?
Leaving the 20th century was heavily edited due to BBC censorship.

And Sid James? Well our senses of humour greatly differ...

everyone points to that shabba ranks moment on the word as brilliant by mark, insulting him for his homophobic remarks and generally putting him in his place

having seen the clip for myself it seems all he does is say "that's crap" and speedily move on to the next item before trouble flares up.. hardly the great fight of legend

Yes, but the point was that no one had dared stand up to Shabba Ranks before and that he (S.R.) retracted everything he'd said after the interview. *That's* what made it brilliant in the minds of so many people.
That's why a lot of people like him.

Because Mark doesn't stroke the egos of 'celebrities,' the approach has to win him some respect, right?

You may find him abrasive, but what's the point in being nice to a bunch of 'personalities' that you have no respect for and who are going to have their arses kissed by every other journalist or interviewer?

*That's* what I find fresh in his approach.

Yeah, but I reckon 'Have I Got News For You' is rubbish when they do it, judging from the amount of editing (and rubbish moments they still have to include, to get a long enough show).

Yeah, but Have I Got News For You is a strange comparison to make... In the sense that it's a panel thing, I can see it, but it's satirical and caters to an older age group. It's a different type of homour, although neither were designed to be entirely 'off the cuff.' If they were un-edited, the shows would simply go around in circles with no objective.
They cannot expect to have 'comedy gold' (to quote an earlier posting) with the twats that make up the panels.
I think Have I Got News For You is getting a *bit* past it now. I've basically given up on it... BUT I think NMTB does it's thing brilliantly.
It may be too mainstream for a large number of people in here, but I rate it very highly in the comedy/entertainment stakes.

And I still think Mark Lamarr is brill! ; )

Mark Lamarr benefitted at the start of his career from what will come to be known as 'the Ali G syndrome' - being the best performer on a crap show, audiences will remember you as being good, even if you were only adequate. But you'll have your own series by the time people realise.

I (big surprise here) disagree with you.
I think what Mark does, (although it *is* largely mainstream) injects a bit of controversy into otherwise tried and tested TV formula. I *like* the fact that 'celebs' go on Buzzcocks and are firmly brought down to size. (I especially like that he made Gail Porter cry, as she is abhorrent).
I also think this is the case with Ali G - whatever you think of him.

As a matter of interest, Jon - what do you rate?

I (big surprise here) disagree with you.
I think what Mark does, (although it *is* largely mainstream) injects a bit of controversy into otherwise tried and tested TV formula. I *like* the fact that 'celebs' go on Buzzcocks and are firmly brought down to size. (I especially like that he made Gail Porter cry, as she is abhorrent).
I also think this is the case with Ali G - whatever you think of him.

As a matter of interest, Jon - what do you rate?

Mark Lamarr is best doing stand up live in an intimate venue .Sometimes his sharpness of retort amazed me.He is however deeply unpleasant at times ,especially his treatment of certain guests on NMTB and his all round bully boy behaviour.I dont believe he is shit,but he could be so much more better.Old popstars and teenage girls seem such soft targets.I think a longer chatshow format could be the right vehicle for him.(and not an ambulance,hearse etc as I pre-empt the sarky next comment.)

Re: The shabba Ranks incident.

so Lamarr stood up to Shabba Ranks, did he? Challeneged him for being homophobic? Well, did you see how Lamarr treated Boy George on NMTB? Self-serving Hypocrite.

And he's not funny.

>

Re: The shabba Ranks incident.

so Lamarr stood up to Shabba Ranks, did he? Challeneged him for being homophobic? Well, did you see how Lamarr treated Boy George on NMTB? Self-serving Hypocrite.

And he's not funny.

>

>so Lamarr stood up to Shabba Ranks, did he? Challeneged him for being homophobic? Well, did you see how Lamarr treated Boy George on NMTB? Self-serving Hypocrite.


Read this article:
http://www.geocities.com/ailieh/boyz.html

They're mates. A large percentage of my friends are gay. We can have a laugh about it, just as they laugh about my height, weight, liking of Mark Lamarr...
>
>>
>

He's still shit, though

>He's still shit, though

Wow. What insight you have. I was obviously wrong all along and I now bow to your superior knowledge...

Quite right, too.

>I think a longer chatshow format could be the right vehicle for him.


I meant to comment on this before...

I've been saying that to people for ages. I nominate Mark Lamarr to take over from Parky. I reckon that'd be a brilliant show.

I don't particularly admire Parkinson. He's not an agressive enough interviewer for my liking.
I'd like to see some big names interviewed by Mark. Could be interesting viewing...

Yes, what a great idea. Give Mark his own show. Then he can interview all of his hilarious mates, like Phil Jupitus and Vic and Bob and sean hughes and they can all sit round and congratulate themselves on how hilarious they all are.

Yes, what a great idea. Give Mark his own show. Then he can interview all of his hilarious mates, like Phil Jupitus and Vic and Bob and sean hughes and they can all sit round and congratulate themselves on how hilarious they all are.

Okay, so for starters, I didn't post that empty message - It seems I have an imposter -sad bastard.

I was thinking of different format (if you'd read the earlier post...) Nigel. 'Big' names, ie. not Buzzcocks panelists.

Has to beat Parky.

Ailie, have you seen that ad your hero is doing?

Ha, ha, your loyalty was misplaced...

>Ailie, have you seen that ad your hero is doing?


Heh!

No... and quite honestly, I dread to think.

I've *heard* about it. Something about recycling or some such 'green' issue.
Apparently some other 'big name' comics, such as Martin Clunes are doing ads for this environmental thing too.

Is it a government 'awareness' job?

I don't watch much telly, to be honest, so I mightn't ever see it.

I already do my bit for the environment... I wonder how many people Mr. Lamarr will convert to greendom?

>Ailie, have you seen that ad your hero is doing?


Heh!

No... and quite honestly, I dread to think.

I've *heard* about it. Something about recycling or some such 'green' issue.
Apparently some other 'big name' comics, such as Martin Clunes are doing ads for this environmental thing too.

Is it a government 'awareness' job?

I don't watch much telly, to be honest, so I mightn't ever see it.

I already do my bit for the environment... I wonder how many people Mr. Lamarr will convert to greendom?

It's not bad, really. He follows a bloke around his home, telling him how he can save energy, in his usual style. Not as bad as it sounds.

At least it's not for a commercial product. He's using his comedy powers to do good, not evil.

If people don't waste their money on energy, they'd just have more left over to waste on commercial products, so Lamarr is aiding the dark side of the force after all... which is just what you'd expect.

I swear half the people in my halls of residence can sing any jingle to any advert.

Commercialism has a hell of a lot to answer for...

Still, I'd like to see the ad.
It would be good to get a screenshot for the website, sad bitch that I am...

oh shut up

>oh shut up

Well, I actually hadn't planned to say anything... I have nothing else to say, but just to piss you off, I thought I'd make some noise...


WWWwwwwwWWAAAAaaaaaaaRRRrrrrRRRgggGGGGGhhHHHH!!

you don't piss ME off, love. I don't sit thru hours of that pratt Lamarr. I have a nice life.

yup. he's rubbish

>yup. he's rubbish

Another substantiated comment.
Lovely...

Ailie, he's a bully, a homophobe, a bigot, a chauvinist, and, worst of all, a bore.

Nuff said?

>Ailie, he's a bully, a homophobe, a bigot, a chauvinist, and, worst of all, a bore.
>
>Nuff said?

Well, if you read any of my earlier postings, you'll know I refute all of the above...

I *like* sarcastic wit. I like Mark Lamarr and despite whatever is said here, my mind will not be changed.
Is that honestly such a bad thing?

Apparently my sense of humour differs from the general feeling in here that Chis Morris is the closest thing to God.
(Note - I hope Chris Morris is a good choice here, as I'm going to use him to illustrate my point)

Since I decided to drag Chris Morris into this thread, I would be deeply concerned if I found that kind of humour funny.
I found Jam disturbing... I can handle dark comedy, but I believe it [Jam] crossed the boundaries of taste.

Kind of puts Mark Lamarr and his 'lack of taste' (which was the implication) in the shade and into perspective somewhat, don't you think?


Btw - nice handle!

boring.

Oh, leave her alone. She has a right to her opinion, and attacking her like that only shows you for the brainless little twerp you are, whoever you are.

hur hur, let's use her name in some humourous way, hur hur.

>Oh, leave her alone. She has a right to her opinion, and attacking her like that only shows you for the brainless little twerp you are, whoever you are.

*that* was attacking me?
Shit I hope I never *really* piss-off anyone in here...

Thanks for the 'support' though! ; )

Mark Lamarr is a big fat unfunny poo. Simple as.

Oh, and you're really a lot better at being 'amusing', right?

>Oh, and you're really a lot better at being 'amusing', right?

I'm pissing myself at that wit/shit...

>Posted By The dAilie mAilie on Mon May 29 17:58:12 BST 2000:


I see you're running out of things to do with my name... Didn't think you'd come up with much.

Trust me. I AM funnier than Mark Lamarr.

And you have a dictionary.

Whoooo for you.

>Trust me. I AM funnier than Mark Lamarr.

HIGHLY debatable.
You've yet to say anything which could be regarded as humorous.

wanna bet, sweetheart?

>You've yet to say anything which could be regarded as humorous.
>
>
>wanna bet, sweetheart?


Umm yes, I would.

Find me something amusing that you've written in this thread. Go on.

There was an amusing pun on...

...no, no, I was mistaken, *I* made that one. i'll get back in my box now.

Mark Lamarr is shit.

>Mark Lamarr is shit.

Well, you beautifully and subtly switched from the 'you-are-not-funny' topic...

Good to see you had the wit to come up with something inventive.

Do you know I'm actually beginning to bore myself?

It comes as no surprise.
I am sleep-typing.

I can tell.

I bet you must love the picture of Mark Lamarr in a NOOSE that greets you everytime you log on.

>I bet you must love the picture of Mark Lamarr in a NOOSE that greets you everytime you log on.


Well, I'm sure *you* do.

Actually, (surprise here, sweetheart) I found it quite humorous, although I didn't see it until someone mentioned something about it being there.

I usually click on 'forum' before the front page loads, so I can't imagine it will have too much impact on my apparently sad and dreary existance.

By the way, do you have a 'real' name I can address you by?
I'd like to find out who you are in a Scooby Doo style rip-the-mask-off way, but I really can't be arsed...

It might be amusing if you ripped a layer of skin off, too.


...you have'nt made use of "snAilie" or "brown Ailie" yet. Don't disappoint, now.

>It might be amusing if you ripped a layer of skin off, too.


*childish giggle*

Like waxing, but with Hallowe'en masks. It could be the next seasonal craze.

Maybe.

Oh dear Ailie

I could tell you but you wouldn't believe me.

>Posted By ukelAilie - now that's good. Come on, that IS good

Wow. You are a star.

>I could tell you but you wouldn't believe me.

Are you implying that you are someone who has some worth in the world of comedy? Hmmmmm?

I could easily pretend that I'm someone I'm not, but that would serve no purpose.

A name is all I ask.

It's Hugh Dennis!


No, hang on.

Seriously, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to tell you who I am, and to tell you what a rat Mark Lamarr really is, as I've known him for a long time, but no can do I'm afraid.

Yes I am someone in the world of comedy, or at least 'was'.

And no, I'm not Rob Newman.

No, hang on.

Bernard Manning?

Les Dawson (okay, so a zombie version)

...*awed hush* Iain Lee?




I predict the humorous capabilities of sarcasm will run out right about...

...then.
Thanking thee... *doffs cap*

>Seriously, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to tell you who I am, and to tell you what a rat Mark Lamarr really is, as I've known him for a long time, but no can do I'm afraid.


Why not?
Surely if you're a 'has been' then it doesn't matter?
You (or even I, for that matter) could come on here and make accusations and state 'facts' about anyone, but in order for it to be traced back to you, it would first have to be proven, which is easier said than done.

Don't be such a coward.
Have the courage to support what you say.

>Yes I am someone in the world of comedy, or at least 'was'.
>
>And no, I'm not Rob Newman.
>
Writer? Performer? Producer?

I reckon it's Terry Christian.

Hang on, what has any of this got to do with the thread, which if anyone has forgotten, is whether Mark lamarr is shit or not?

>I reckon it's Terry Christian.

If you're in London, and you really have nothing better to do, why not listen to Terry on London Live at 10am today (Saturday 3rd) - see if he gives anything away.

I don;'t know why either.

What's he got to do with comedy though? (A question you could ask Lamarr, admittedly...sorry, a cheap shot, couldn't resist it).

>Hang on, what has any of this got to do with the thread, which if anyone has forgotten, is whether Mark lamarr is shit or not?

Is The Pope Catholic?

Funny that as soon as someone mentions that they could work in the world of comedy, other people decide to jump on the thread...

Do you really care that much?

>Funny that as soon as someone mentions that they could work in the world of comedy, other people decide to jump on the thread...
>
>Do you really care that much?

Well, it was marginally more interesting than people doing crap puns of your name and you reacting in an "oh, how clever" manner. But not that much.

Well, it's the intrigue, innit?

Maybe.

>Well, it's the intrigue, innit?
>
>Maybe.


Well, in my cynicism, I assumed that it was due to the possibility that having anyone new and related to the world of comedy posting here, would attract some attention in the form of fawning.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Nonono, if you want fawning, you'll be going next door and posting under the name of Sue Perkins just to see the Cakeshoppers go insane.

See, this is when having more than one name is irritating. darn multiple personality disorder.

I agree entire-



...who said that?

dull

>dull

Well, you livened things up no end...

let's do a whole long line of Anonymous nonsequiturs, shall we?

Suck my trike!















...no, i somehow don't think it'll ever catch on.
[Byt the way, whoever you are, i would have thought you'd have learnt your name by now. Anonymous comments are very rarely heeded, more often derided, like... yes, just like now. Use your name and make a valid point, or lead us all to believe you're a0d. your call.]

But surely subbes isn't your real name? I don't consider that to detract from the validity of your comments, though. Except on this occassion, when it seems a bit hypocritical to demand someone else stops using a pseudonym.

And even if Anonymous *did* leave their name - "Steve" for instance - what difference would that make? You still wouldn't know who they were, or even if it was their real name...I just don't understand your point here.

Umm.... subbes is a pretty real name as far as it goes. It's served me well for 4 years and i dont intend to change it now. it's a pseudonym, nbut it's still a 'name', the name i go by for this. if the "posted by..." says subbes in bold red, you know its me, the person who is pretty well known by a few people here from her cakeshopping and her sites, the e-mails and the breasts. If it says 'anonymous', how do you know who it was? Even if the name isnt reconisable. ir's like going to the pub in a mask... maybe.


Leaving a 'name' allows whoever is reading to work out whether the person who wrote it is one of those bitchers who will critiscise anyone who doesn't have the comedy talents of someone... er... someone very funny, or if it's someone who actually knows what's going on.

Going by the fact that the poster didn't have the 'guts' to leave a name that they could be recognised by - if they have the knowledge to crisitcise, surely they must be a pretty heavy reader / poster of the forum, and this must be recognisable by their pseudonym. Leaving a name is owning up to posting, meaning that it's a message to be proud of, rather than disowning it.

However, this rreally doesnt apply to one word "dull" messages, because from the contents, the person who posted them has the iq of a geranium, the personality of a brick and quite probably is just jealous that others can be charmingly eccentric. Or something, or what.

People who recognise your pseudonym would be in the minority, I would imagine. I didn't know who you were until recently - not that I really know you now, or ever will. I also notice that you've recently discovered Nabokov - it doesn't matter to me what you call yourself or whether you remember to put a name in at all, it's what's said that I'm interested in, not who says it.

>
>Leaving a 'name' allows whoever is reading to work out whether the person who wrote it is one of those bitchers who will critiscise anyone who doesn't have the comedy talents of someone... er... someone very funny, or if it's someone who actually knows what's going on.

This is exactly what I mean, though - why do you need to recognise the name before you can judge the validity of the message? I understand that if a person contributes more than once to one thread it is helpful if they use the same name for each posting, but it doesn't automatically follow that any anonymous posting should be discounted. As it happens, I also thought that the debate had become rather dull. It seems that that one-word message has enlived it somewhat... :o)

>This is exactly what I mean, though - why do you need to recognise the name before you can judge the validity of the message?

Well, you obviously don't, but surely if you are stating a valid point, then there is no reason to use the mask of anonymity(?)

I understand what Subbes is saying and I agree. If you're going to say something derogatory to other people, then at least have the guts to use a 'regular' posting name.

> it doesn't automatically follow that any anonymous posting should be discounted.

Of course not.

>As it happens, I also thought that the debate had become rather dull.

Big deal! No one forced you or anyone else to post on the thread.
Why not start a new and exciting one?

>It seems that that one-word message has enlived it somewhat... :o)

Yes. I am so glad the anonymous poster touched my life.

>People who recognise your pseudonym would be in the minority, I would imagine.

In this forum, yes, but as I say, the pseudonym has mecome as much 'me' as the real name. More, possibly.

> I also notice that you've recently discovered Nabokov

No, I've recently been called jailbait. So i changed my name in a T.S. Eliot-ian fit of intellectual hijinks.


>This is exactly what I mean, though - why do you need to recognise the name before you can judge the validity of the message? I understand that if a person contributes more than once to one thread it is helpful if they use the same name for each posting, but it doesn't automatically follow that any anonymous posting should be discounted.

Didn't mean that, but if it's an abusive message - or something similar to the above anoymous, it reflects somewhat badly on the post that noone could even be botrhered to put their own name in.


> As it happens, I also thought that the debate had become rather dull. It seems that that one-word message has enlived it somewhat... :o)

Hey, it's your brain, now that our ex-comedian has left.

Anonyous posters are fools. They dont understand irony, for one.

I'm back.














And he's still shit he he.

>I'm back.

We've missed you.
You missed all the fun filled bickering.

>And he's still shit he he.

And you're still a wuss.

There was bickering?

- sorry. My mistake.
It should have read "spirited debate"

:0)

I feel that throwing a vase is merely a device by which to emphasise my point.

Maybe.

But, um, anyway, back to point. i dont think he's shite - he's not as good as some, but better than iain lee and also better than most of the NMTB panel.

I somehow fear that this isnt a very prestigious thing to be...

yOU'RE RIGHT. iT ISN'T.

*presses the caps lock button for him/her*

>*presses the caps lock button for him/her*

NO! Don't do that - it's obviously a secret sophisticated comedic way of typing that us mere mortals are unable to comprehend.






Or not.

>But, um, anyway, back to point. i dont think he's shite - he's not as good as some, but better than iain lee and also better than most of the NMTB panel.
>
>I somehow fear that this isnt a very prestigious thing to be...


Like trying to decide the world's tallest dwarf...

*scratches nose*

It's all very subjective anyway, isn't it? You like one sort of comdy, antoher person prefers another, etc... comedy fights ensue...

>It's all very subjective anyway, isn't it?

YES - I'm amazed that people cannot simply leave it at that.

I understand perfectly well why this site was set-up and I agree with many of The Corpses aims, although I often find them to be harsh...
I understand what they hope to prove, yet much of the comedy which *is* shit (and there is plenty) generally appeals to broad audiences. For that reason, who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to criticise the sense of humour of others?

re: the "Elitism in Comedy, Your thoughts please" thread:

It's not *wrong* to like anything. Other people may not share your sense of humour, so open your mind a little more, please.

There is nothing to be achieved by disparaging things which people find amusing.

Obviously, we should all think about what we're watching, but I hope I never get to the point where I rip things apart to scrutinise every little detail...

Oh butnononono, we must be pomodern and cyynical about everything. everyone is sh*te, including ourselves.

i like this site because... er... because of the forum, actually.

>>It's all very subjective anyway, isn't it?
>
>YES - I'm amazed that people cannot simply leave it at that.

Ailie, do you not see that that statement applies to you too? I mean, you're the one who has posted the most messages to this thread, disagreeing with previous statements...you're still here long after other people have "left it at that". Ironically, if you hadn't been posting to this thread it would've disappeared long ago...

>who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to criticise the sense of humour of others?

But nobody was criticising your sense of humour, they were criticising Mark Lamarr. Why do you take it so personally? At the beginning of this thread you made some really great points in favour of ML - I didn't agree with them, but they were honest, rational and well-put. I think it's great that you're here defending him, otherwise this thread would've been really one-sided. I just don't want you to feel that people are getting at *you* - they're not, they're getting at ML, which is fair enough on a comedy forum. OK, so someone* has been using your name in their pseudonyms - but it was hardly malicious, I've seen much, much worse treatment on this forum. Nobody said you were "wrong" to like him, or tried to make you stop liking him, they were just expressing their own opinion.

>Other people may not share your sense of humour, so open your mind a little more, please.

No, you open yours :OP

(Just kidding.)

*Oh, and I reckon it was Sean Hughes, by the way.

It wasn't Sean Hughes.

Like fuck you're not Sean Hughes. You didn't deny being Terry Christian, did ya?


At least we know you're not Jimmy Mulville.

>Ailie, do you not see that that statement >applies to you too?

Yes, but I defend what I believe to be right and as this is a topic is one which interests me, I am defending my right to have an opinion.

>you're still here long after other people >have "left it at that".

Yes I am. I like to retaliate. : )

>>who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to criticise the sense of humour of others?
>
>But nobody was criticising your sense of humour, they were criticising Mark Lamarr. Why do you take it so personally?

I was referring to the forum in general. I have seen lots of comedy I think is okay being pretentiously cruicified, but it's not so much me taking it personally as it is me finding it to be wrong.

An example:
"He's shit"

What kind of throwaway comment is that to make about anything or anyone?
It's not personally insulting to me, but it's pathetic, really and should be highlighted as such.

>OK, so someone* has been using your name in their pseudonyms - but it was hardly malicious,

Of course it wasn't!
Did you honestly believe that's what I thought?!
I'm sarcastic at the best of times. Maybe a bit of that came across...
I now look forward with anticipation to the ridiculous pseudonyms!

>>Other people may not share your sense of humour, so open your mind a little more, please.

>No, you open yours :OP
>(Just kidding.)

I'm very open minded, but I stand by what I say.

>*Oh, and I reckon it was Sean Hughes, by the way.

Nah. They're mates and he's still in comedy... kind of.
I think it was a teenage boy sitting in his room imagining that he is/was a comedian.
If other comedians can come in here and post under their real identities it's a bit sad that a 'has been' can't.... but that's just *my* opinion.

>Like fuck you're not Sean Hughes. You didn't deny being Terry Christian, did ya?

In my estimation of Terry Christian, I don't think he can type.
Still his sense of humour's about right...

>>Ailie, do you not see that that statement >applies to you too?
>
>Yes, but I defend what I believe to be right and as this is a topic is one which interests me, I am defending my right to have an opinion.
>
>>you're still here long after other people >have "left it at that".
>
>Yes I am. I like to retaliate. : )
>
>>>who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to criticise the sense of humour of others?
>>
>>But nobody was criticising your sense of humour, they were criticising Mark Lamarr. Why do you take it so personally?
>
>I was referring to the forum in general. I have seen lots of comedy I think is okay being pretentiously cruicified, but it's not so much me taking it personally as it is me finding it to be wrong.
>
>An example:
>"He's shit"
>
>What kind of throwaway comment is that to make about anything or anyone?
>It's not personally insulting to me, but it's pathetic, really and should be highlighted as such.
>
>>OK, so someone* has been using your name in their pseudonyms - but it was hardly malicious,
>
>Of course it wasn't!
>Did you honestly believe that's what I thought?!
>I'm sarcastic at the best of times. Maybe a bit of that came across...
>I now look forward with anticipation to the ridiculous pseudonyms!
>
>>>Other people may not share your sense of humour, so open your mind a little more, please.
>
>>No, you open yours :OP
>>(Just kidding.)
>
>I'm very open minded, but I stand by what I say.
>
>>*Oh, and I reckon it was Sean Hughes, by the way.
>
>Nah. They're mates and he's still in comedy... kind of.
>I think it was a teenage boy sitting in his room imagining that he is/was a comedian.
>If other comedians can come in here and post under their real identities it's a bit sad that a 'has been' can't.... but that's just *my* opinion.

I agree with all of the above. Except that I still think it's Sean Hughes.

>I agree with all of the above. Except that >I still think it's Sean Hughes.


Wooohooo! A first - someone agrees with me! :0)

I think it's Gail Porter.

No, in actual fact I don't think she could have thought up the pseudonyms...

I think it's Mark Lamarr, in some ironic capacity.

Or Phil Jupitus.

It's Simon Pegg!!!

Could it be Ulrikka (sp?) Jonsson (sp?)?

Iain Lee?

>I think it's Mark Lamarr, in some ironic capacity.

No. Absolutely not.
I explained to Mark myself how the internet works and I think he'd be struggling to switch a computer on...

>Iain Lee?

Well it would explain not wanting to reveal your identity.

ooh! ooh! ooh!

Les Dennis!

George Dawes? They say 'fear the baby'.

I think it could be Hufty.

Snoop Doggy Dog.

Oh, go on, it's Ned Sherrin, isnt it?

I reckon it's Ailie

>I reckon it's Ailie

Yeah, but you're a tit, aren't you?

Now there;s a talent. breasts that can type.


...etc etc repeat until stale

oh who cares?!

Ah, it's Paul Merton.

nope

So, you're just doing names now?

I'm disappointed.

good!
you silly 'into rubbish comedy' person!

Oh dear....

So which thread are we writing on now?

Should I start an 'Ailie' thread, seeing as I'm so popular that you want to *be* me, or has the enigmatic mystery comedian admitted defeat?

I admit defeat and deliver a humilating Adam Bromley-style apology.

Mark lamarr is still shit, though. Nothing's changed there.