Isn't the obvious irony that Nathan Barley is actually Charlie Brooker anyway? Or isn't it obvious enough, Charlie probably wakes up in the night screaming his own name because deep down inside on the sub-conscious level he knows the personification of all that he hates and despises with disdain in the world is actually himself.

Would the Barley character try and attain pseudo-celeb status on some cash-in flimsy self publicising web-site? Yes.

Would the Barley character by the kind of person who buys Loaded and would jump at the chance to write a column for them? Yes.

Would the Barley character manage to wangle their way into getting a Guardian column and actually use it for no constructive purpose other than furthering his own petty career? Yes.

Would the Barley character never ever admit to others, or in fact their own fragile self built ego that in fact they, themselves were actually a complete cunt? Yes.

Would the Barley character be so stupid as to invent a character based on all the depraved aspects that current society breeds and then not actually realise it was actually his own schitzophrenic persona that he could never admit to being? Yes.

If you answered yes to all of the above, you're either Charlie Brooker, or Charlie Brooker pretending to be Nathan Barley.

Barley would do those things you say, but wouldn't have an ounce of the wit or insight that Brooker has. Your criticism reminds me of when critics used to say Dennis Potter *was* the central characters in his plays because the spouted the bile and disgust they wanted to attribute to Potter.

But don't all these pathetic marketing men 'like wot Nathan Barley is' stick ridgidly to tried and tested formulas in their ever commercial media ventures? Surely you must notice that every single listing in every single edition of TV Go Home is the same joke re-iterated again and again again with just different wording, and even this sticks to a ridgid unimaginative formula as the Corpses point out again and again..

A listing of a programme detailing an absurd concept feauturing an obscure celeb and pointless unjustified swearing in a long drawn out sentence. And this Radio Times parody thing has been done before my many other comedians as a one off joke, which Brooker is trying to justify his entire career on. Now he shows how unoriginal he is by crafting another 'new' thing, which is another incredibly similar parody working to a formula but *this time* of cheap inventions adverts.

This is what I was taking the piss out of in that Yellow Pages and Loot parody thing I made, seriously I bet he was incredibly pissed off with those as he probably was seriously thinking of something along the lines of these as his next career move. Why doesn't he just move on to pastures new and make something original that doesn't need to parody anything to get its laughs, and if it's good then maybe he might get a smidgen of respect.

He's turning comedy into a formula, he's no different from all the fucking commercial media savvy twats which infest business in general at the moment, surely even he must realise this at some point.

Don't turn into Howard Hughes on me, Steven. Let's not see a big conspiracy everywhere.

I like TVGoHome because its often finely wrought sentences make me laugh. It may well be just a stepping stone in Brooker's apotheosis, but when it's good, it's excellent. I think my original point about Nathan Barley being a ficitonal avatar of media wortlessness still stands, whatever mud you may sling at Brooker for wanting to move on from it.

btw, I thought your "Loot" parody was very funny. Not because it mocked Brooker, but because of the observations about selling stuff you put in it.

> This is what I was taking the piss out of in that Yellow Pages and Loot parody thing I made, seriously I bet he was incredibly pissed off with those as he probably was seriously thinking of something along the lines of these as his next career move.

Why does this remind me of that page in "Janet Lives With Mel & Griff" where a man called Brian (who spells his name "Brain") keeps offering them vague sketch ideas ("this my idea for one of your skits, What if Moll was pretendin to be a docter and Grief was pretendin to be a paishent You could do all sorts of funny things")...?

Colcecanth, my Yellow Pages and Loot parody things weren't meant to be funny in the least, they were making a point. As was the Corpses' Charlie Go Home parody, people complainws that it wasn't very funny, it wasn't meant to be, it wasn't really a parody, apart from the obvious visual copying, as all the actual text was detailing how formulaic and shallow TV actually is rather than just aping the page

If you seriously consider that Loot thing funny you need to go watch some more Python or something. It was something written on the fly just showing how easy crap parodies are to do, and judging from your response, it worked. And I stand by my point that Brooker operates in exactly the same was as the stereotyped media idiots that he apparently lampoons, he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Some one off parodies can be good, but basing your entire career on doing the same parody over and over is just desperate. And seemingly you don't realise the extent of Brooker's intentions, do you really assume Loaded and the Guardian offered him columns through sheer word of mouth? He's a self publicised who gets by from bandying his name about the industry, and for all his supposed hatred of the media he portrays in TVGH, as soon as he has the chance to make known his opinions about it in a serious light, shuts his fucking mouth up and plays the game, you know, a bit like Nathan Barley might do.

Did you like the 11 o clock show as well? As you know Brooker was involved with that, and as with TVGH tried to rely on the charity of others to send him jokes to anonymous mail accounts so he could plagiarise them without known credit, you know, a bit like Nathan Barley would do, and so it goes on.

You are a bitter, bitter man, Steven.
It's been said before, but now I think it needs to be said again.

Why insult someone who found some comedy which you created... funny?

BC liked your Loot parody. If it's a parody, it's supposed to be funny, regardless of any serious point you thought you were making. If it made someone laugh, then that is a precious, precious thing. Don't undervalue it.

Similarly, regardless of the "point" or lack of same in Brooker's work, it is sometimes gut-achingly funny, or at least to some people. What's so bad about that?

>You are a bitter, bitter man, Steven.
>It's been said before, but now I think it needs to be said again.

Bitter about what? I'm only bitter with the total lack of artistry in general throughout the last few years, almost no good music, almost no good comedy etc etc.

>Why insult someone who found some comedy which you created... funny?
>BC liked your Loot parody. If it's a parody, it's supposed to be funny, regardless of any serious point you thought you were making.
If it made someone laugh, then that is a precious, precious thing. Don't undervalue it.

As I said before, it wasn't really a parody, it was a point, if people want to avoid any obvious irony in this then fine, and so they can insult their own intellect and laugh at the same joke done again and again with just slightly different wording.


>Similarly, regardless of the "point" or lack of same in Brooker's work, it is sometimes gut-achingly funny, or at least to some people. What's so bad about that?

And your point seemingly is the same patter that greasy Ch4 exec was using to justify Big Brother and all the other shite he produced, 'if people like watching it, then lets give them more of the same'. Another example of Brooker's so called subversiveness actually being exactly the same thing as what he apparently is battling against.

> Would the Barley character try and attain pseudo-celeb status on some cash-in flimsy self publicising web-site? Yes.

Of course! If only I'd kept my name off the site, by, say, remaining anonymous, so some thinkless dickhole couldn't accuse me of self-publicity. Gah. Now here I am, a national celebrity!

And I have to admit, the pressures of my immense fame do get to me. Scarcely a day goes by without some plebboid sidling up to me in Tesco's, asking whether I'm "him off tvgohome" or shouting out some Neil Buchanan / facial cumshot catchphrase of mine they've read about in the tabloids.

Still, never mind. I can spend the immense mountains of cash that subscription-free, advertless, unsyndicated site has generated on tinted windows and anonymous sunglasses, so the paparrazzi won't keep hounding me.

> Would the Barley character by the kind of person who buys Loaded and would jump at the chance to write a column for them? Yes.

Steven, you've clopped the nail on the head, and I have nowhere to hide. Not only have I bought every edition of Loaded since launch date, I did indeed literally "jump" at the chance to write a column for them.

I fully support everything they stand for and can only apologise, on my knees, for doing my tiny bit to push popular culture face-first into a sorry ditch of souring imbecile's jism.

Sorry -- *sob* -- forgive me Steven. Please. Please, please forgive me.

> Would the Barley character manage to wangle their way into getting a Guardian column and actually use it for no constructive purpose other than furthering his own petty career? Yes.

Spot on. I wangled the column by convincing someone into *thinking* they wanted to approach me to write it, on the strength of doing TVGH -- which I'd previously *fooled* them into liking.

Congratulate yourself on having the smarts to see through this ruse.

Acually, hang on -- no: you can go fuck yourself over this one.

Sorry if you can't deal with the concept of me getting paid to write something.

Sorry if the result doesn't match your expectations.

Sorry if I'm not "constructive", you tiny bellowing cunt.

I can do what the fuck I like, and that includes haranguing you back.

Go scream at someone on a railway platform somewhere. Better yet, scratch your arguments on the underside of a big tin boat and sail it round Portsmouth docks until the barnacles start taking you seriously.

But consult a spellchecker before you start scraping away with that piece of flint. And measure the hull first, so you're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN there'll be room for one of your sprawling underpunctuated sentences.

Sprawling underpunctuated sentences? Very TVGH.

Proud to have been an influence, Steviepops.

> Would the Barley character never ever admit to others, or in fact their own fragile self built ego that in fact they, themselves were actually a complete cunt? Yes.

Cool! Stevie's wrong-footed me here -- by not making any point at all! Interception!

> Would the Barley character be so stupid as to invent a character based on all the depraved aspects that current society breeds and then not actually realise it was actually his own schitzophrenic persona that he could never admit to being? Yes.

Thanks Doc: I'm cured. Your insight done clear slapped the blinkers off this dang fool head of mine.

> If you answered yes to all of the above, you're either Charlie Brooker, or Charlie Brooker pretending to be Nathan Barley.

And what if you answered the above with horrid sneering sarcasm? What then?

In summary: I wholeheartedly support Steven's right to criticise... but I simply can't help being rude to the prick.

Actually Charlie, and I'm sure you know this, if you're a complete nobody, then appearing as some sort of mysterious anonymous figure can get you more publicity than your normal self ever could.

And if you're not a self publicist, how come you never come on this forum at all apart from when you're name is being mentioned? It's like a pavlovian reaction to you.

Your whole persona reeks of some snide two faced cunt who is such an attention seeking shit that he is drawn to any sort of mention of his own name like a moth. And is such a self serving prick that it doesn't matter how well anybody words a strong point about you, you're never going to pay any attention and fob them off with the meaningless insults you pride yourself on.

I don't need a spellchecker, 99% of my errors are due to me having an old PC with a crappy keyboard, maybe I should flog it off in Loot eh?

That wasn't meant to be funny either, but there you go.

> And if you're not a self publicist, how come you never come on this forum at all apart from when you're name is being mentioned? It's like a pavlovian reaction to you.

Except, of course, I only *use my real name* on the forum when it's *me* who's under discussion.

> Your whole persona reeks of some snide two faced cunt who is such an attention seeking shit that he is drawn to any sort of mention of his own name like a moth. And is such a self serving prick that it doesn't matter how well anybody words a strong point about you, you're never going to pay any attention and fob them off with the meaningless insults you pride yourself on.

You am a big bum poo. Still, thank God we're *not* judging one another's whole personas on the shaky basis of some rapidly banged-out ASCII text, or you'd come across as a furious dunce.

> I don't need a spellchecker, 99% of my errors are due to me having an old PC with a crappy keyboard, maybe I should flog it off in Loot eh?

That's one fucked-up keyboard. It keeps hurling in unnecessary apostrophes and everything. Where'd you get it? Bad-Workmen-R-Us?

See, Stevietwits?

You slag me, I slag you back -- but more painfully.

Pavlovian enough for you?

Isn't there an on-line car park the pair of you can go to have a ruck?

> Isn't there an on-line car park the pair of you can go to have a ruck?

Start looking, Steven -- I've already torn my shirt off.

We have a winner.







And it ain't Steven.

>Except, of course, I only *use my real name* on the forum when it's *me* who's under discussion.

Well, you're very lucky that all the clever people in Loaded or wherever managed to figure out who you really were. It's very easy to remain anonymous on the net, it's very handy that everyone managed to figure out who you are isn't it? Or you wouldn't get all these cushy jobs in Loaded would you?

>You am a big bum poo. Still, thank God we're *not* judging one another's whole personas on the shaky basis of some rapidly banged-out ASCII text, or you'd come across as a furious dunce.

Why is that? I think anybody could easily discern that I'm arguing an unbiased case with for the most part many good points, albeit the Corpses provided the majority of these. And all you are doing is retalliating with the perfectly predictable automatic reaction of fighting back, you're the one under question, not me.


>

>That's one fucked-up keyboard. It keeps hurling in unnecessary apostrophes and everything. Where'd you get it? Bad-Workmen-R-Us?

What unnecessary apostrophes? As far as I can see the typos I make are mainly missing out letters or putting a few in the wrong order, which is perfectly easy mistake to make.

>You slag me, I slag you back -- but more painfully.
>
>Pavlovian enough for you?

Slag me back more painfully? So painfully I have to retalliate with another butch message in reply, like this one? Charlie, I've got nothing to prove, this is a critical comedy website, and I'm just saying what I feel about your apparent comedy stylings. Maybe TVGH would of been funny if it was just a couple of pages you made for a website with included other things, not just the same joke over and over and over again. It would be like the Fast Show making a new series completely based on 30 minute compilations of the 'Which was nice..' sketch. You're obviously becoming far more hurt by this kind of stuff than me.

The fact is, most clever comedians would stay out of an argument on their merits completely, but seeing as you are such a egotistical bugger you have to barge in an try and get the better of whoever has the sheer nerve to not like your webpage.

And why actually do you come to this site Charlie? I doubt it's for the critical appraisel of your work, as we can see it doesn't exactly please you. Why didn't you retalliate against the Corpses' 'Charlie Go Home' parody? That being the most obvious and effective attack on your work, maybe you actually get some sick joy out of the fact that other people went through so much trouble to make something with has references to you. Or maybe you just don't want to have a go because you'd probably lose any kind of sensible argument?

The opinions of everyone on here doesn't matter though does it when you're safely disguised under a fake name like A bit of the 11 o clock show, and can pander for material to pass off as your own at writers meetings. Why don't you bother actually reading half the stuff on this site and realise how you are part of the problem you apparently hate, either you're amazingly ignorant or just glad to get any kind of work you can in the media.

There's always time to be childish, but it is simply depressing seeing a grown man like you desperatley trying to get into the media with your chancing web sites and argue against criticism like a complete idiot child in a completely unfunny un-ironic way.

> how come you never come on this forum at all apart from when you're name is being mentioned?

Quite obviously, Steven hasn't got the point of reading without having to reply to EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TOPIC. ie, being in the forum but silent.

(perhaps I should learn this skill, too.)

>Why is that? I think anybody could easily discern that I'm arguing an unbiased case with for the most part many good points, albeit the Corpses provided the majority of these. And all you are doing is retalliating with the perfectly predictable automatic reaction of fighting back, you're the one under question, not me.

Stop being such a little wanker. That's just it with you. You have to attack everyone, don't you? If it's not Charlie, it's Simon Munnery, people who dare to like league of gentlemen or time gentlemen please, or even poor old Jon, and all the time you just sit there demanding that we all explain ourselves to you. Who do you think you are?

All hail Steven, the doyenne of jobsworths everywhere.

Ok, let's take this entire web site down, as it actually bothers to criticise stuff, it's promoting the idea that people are allowed to question comedy, and this is close to Nazi-ism.

If you bothered reading all of the Munnery thread you would see I actually thanked Stewart for bothering to provide some info on the show and then said I would stop trying to criticise the show because I don't really get Munnery's style.

Richard Herring, Stewart Lee and probably Al Murray are all extremely clever posh University graduates who have track records in comedy. TGP in comparison with any of their previous material is a complete failure and is just a irony-free pleb fest of cheap catchphrase and badly performed material. Any interesting idea the writers may of had is marred by the obviously dumb audience laughing their heads off at every racist joke and cheering the Landlord's opinions. Maybe they're funny if you actually believe them, but viewing them through irony glasses doesn't seem to make them funny. Etc etc I could go on, but this is just turning into a big bullying session like the TGP strands did, thank God it's only me arguing against you, or you might of lost.

>but this is just turning into a big bullying session like the TGP strands did, thank God it's only me arguing against you, or you might of lost.

Awwwwwww poor ickle diddums. Get bent. It's you bullying Charlie here. Like you bullied Jon.

>Awwwwwww poor ickle diddums. Get bent. It's you bullying Charlie here. Like you bullied Jon.

(Raises eyebrows but ultimately refuses to get involved...)

>Awwwwwww poor ickle diddums. Get bent. It's you bullying Charlie here. Like you bullied Jon.

Except you probably are Jon, ooh, bullying Jon by posting about two messages addressed to his snide remarks about comments he misread even after I had explained his error at lenght. Jon was perfectly happy skulking off to the Lee and Herring forum to remark on me though wasn't he?

And I don't give a shit about Charlie's offensively inoffensive insults, it's the way all these pointless Anonymous people and others who have nothing really to add condescend into the thread out of the blue to try and skew the argument. Even Joe is joining in, it's a whole big game.

This will be my last post of the night -- my fists are tired.

> It's very easy to remain anonymous on the net, it's very handy that everyone managed to figure out who you are isn't it? Or you wouldn't get all these cushy jobs in Loaded would you?

Very easy to click the link on the TVGH site that lets you send email to the site without knowing who I am, too.

> Why is that? I think anybody could easily discern that I'm arguing an unbiased case with for the most part many good points, albeit the Corpses provided the majority of these.

Ah. Received opinion, then? They dislike that, or didn't you notice? And they also encourage their readers to think for themselves. Skip that part too?

Incidentally, before we continue, have I questioned your right to consider TVGH a heap of repetitive, lazy shit if you want to?

Um, no. Nor will I. Now then...

> And all you are doing is retalliating with the perfectly predictable automatic reaction of fighting back, you're the one under question, not me.

Ummm... nope, sorry can't respond to that -- this one's blowing my mind.

> Slag me back more painfully? So painfully I have to retalliate with another butch message in reply, like this one?

Yes.

> Charlie, I've got nothing to prove, this is a critical comedy website, and I'm just saying what I feel about your apparent comedy stylings.

No you're not. You're saying...

"Brooker is trying to justify his entire career" on TVGH

... which I'm not. You're saying...

"do you really assume Loaded and the Guardian offered him columns through sheer word of mouth?"

... thereby clumsily implying some baffling conspiracy, when all that happened is they read some unsolicited material and offered work as a result. You're saying...

"[re: 11OCS] As you know Brooker was involved with that, and as with TVGH tried to rely on the charity of others to send him jokes to anonymous mail accounts so he could plagiarise them without known credit"

... which I didn't. And finally, you're saying...

"you're safely disguised under a fake name like A bit of the 11 o clock show"

... which I wasn't, ever. For a hundred reasons -- but mainly I'd left the show back in April, knucklehead. Still, why let facts stand in the way of determined idiocy?

None of the statements from you I've quoted above are criticisms or opinions: they're guesses and lies, aired publicly.

Hence my public response.

> The fact is, most clever comedians would stay out of an argument on their merits completely, but seeing as you are such a egotistical bugger you have to barge in an try and get the better of whoever has the sheer nerve to not like your webpage.

Particularly when they're also a lying loudmouthed cunt.

> And why actually do you come to this site Charlie?

Because it's interesting. Because I admire the writing. And because I can stand up here on Mount Olympus, pissing insults on your lying loudmouthed head.

> I doubt it's for the critical appraisel of your work, as we can see it doesn't exactly please you. Why didn't you retalliate against the Corpses' 'Charlie Go Home' parody?

Because that wouldn't have been half as petty as repeatedly calling you a lying loudmouthed cunt in front of all these people. Cheeks burning yet?

> Or maybe you just don't want to have a go because you'd probably lose any kind of sensible argument?

I'm not interested in any kind of sensible argument. I'm just interested in standing directly in front of you to say that you're a lying loudmouthed cunt.

Perhaps I'm being harsh. Perhaps you're just a bit of a damaged soul really.

Criticise all you like. But if you tell fibs, I will shout at you.

Okay?

Give it up, Steven. Here's someone you cant obfuscate into giving up.

I'm back now. Sorry to have missed the Brooker/Steven verbal punch-up but I went to bed early last night because I was pissed up.

Anyhoo, Steven. Your Loot parody did contain the odd nice line - the bit about the old computer being yellowed with nicotine. Nothing wrong with that. It's not as good as, say, the "How To Speak Heath" Monty Python disc, but it's a pleasing image nonetheless.

I don't like the 11ocs. The bits I've seen haven't made me laugh or impresssed me with any imaginative wordplay. But I do like the joke the Corpses quote from it about Minnie Driver.

On Brooker's alleged careerism, forgive me if I have misread you, but aren't you criticising him for both endlessly repeating TVGoHome *and* trying to do other things? Isn't there a contradiction here?

Sorry if this looks like I'm returning to the argument too late, but Hoegaarden got the better of me last night.

Steven - why are you so cross?

>Richard Herring, Stewart Lee and probably Al Murray are all extremely clever posh University graduates who have track records in comedy.

I don't think Herring or Lee are 'posh' - they went to comps like most of us etc. etc. And maybe Oxford is posh, but you should see Exeter, Bristol, Durham etc.

Anyway, Brooker - I don't know him. I don't find that much of TVGH, Unnovations that funny, but some of it is alright. He might be careerist, he might not. Why get so hot and bothered?

Anyway, Nathan Barley isn't *that* clever a creation... a friend of mine invented a very similar character called Hugh, based on our experiences with Goldsmith's students and club promoters. He abandoned it, because he had nothing to do with it at the time. Still, it was very similar - proving that Brooker is tapping into the zeitgeist.

Calm down Steven - occasionally bad comedy isn't close to 'Nazi-ism' either.

First Coelacanth.. I said all of Charlie's *new* things are exactly the same as his old ones, Unnovations is just TVGOHOME again but with some guff about inventions, the entire thing is using exactly the same formula, that's what the Yellow Pages and Loot thing were taking the piss out of, that he could go and do 1000 other things using the exact same fucking formula and people would still apparently mistake it for comedy. He could do parodies of prostitute cards, fake lonely hearts column ads, fake business cards etc etc. All using the same bloody formula, it's the same joke again and again dressed up differently and apparently people are too stupid to notice.

I've got no problem with Charlie doing TVGOHOME, it's when people start to mistake it for being clever or bigger than it actually is. Obviously this isn't really Charlie's fault himself, but he does fuel the fire with all this Nathan Barley toss, people are assuming he's some anti-media rebel due to all the bile he spouts about it on the page, but he's a media-whore like all the people he's supposed to be lampooning.

Charlie's not going to admit to anything no matter how well argued or right a point is, he's only got one agenda of self-serving denial.

And maybe I am being paranoid, but obviously this whole Zeppotron cack he's made is just a nice cosy chain of web sites that all run on the same joke that stupid people don't notice, and it all serves as a purpose of Charlie advertising himself and springboarding his career further, into radio or television or whatever.

And maybe Charlie's telling the truth about leaving the 11 o clock show in April, because after that we didn't hear the word 'wank' mentioned every other word of every fucking joke in the show. Apart from the Style Wankers obviously, but they're very similar to Charlie, media chancers with one joke.

To be fair to Charlie, he isn't the only one, Ali G is basically all one joke too, yet still people found it funny. Oh hilarious he can interview old or foreign people who don't know he's a character and are far too polite to question his obviously silly clothes, questions and manner of speaking and don't want to insult him, yet all the idiots go "Hahah, look, that old doddering man isn't questioning Ali G's absurd dress and behaviour, what a fool!"

Basically nearly all the new comedians are using these one joke media savvy acts, and it's working, wait till you watch Room 101 next week with Rich Hall and he can do his hilarious joke about the lyrics of Jailhouse rock with a piano, that he's been doing on every fucking show he's been on, and won the Perrier Award with.

>He could do parodies of prostitute cards, fake lonely hearts column ads, fake business cards etc etc. All using the same bloody formula, it's the same joke again and again dressed up differently and apparently people are too stupid to notice.

Not necassarily - you're mistaking form with content here, I think. Yes, spoof TV listings, print adverts etc. are older than the Goodies annuals, but the actual gags can change. Do you want a stop to sitcoms, because they've been around since the 50s?

>but he's a media-whore like all the people he's supposed to be lampooning.

Who says he's *supposed* to be doing anything? The main 'point' (not that it has to make one) from TVGH seems to be lamenting the state of TV at the moment, and wishing that people in the media would put some effort and integrity into the stuff they produce. This would seem to be a point that Charlie continues to make in his Guardian columns. It's also the point that the Corpses often make.

>Charlie's not going to admit to anything no matter how well argued or right a point is, he's only got one agenda of self-serving denial.

What does he have to admit to?

>And maybe I am being paranoid, but obviously this whole Zeppotron cack he's made is just a nice cosy chain of web sites that all run on the same joke that stupid people don't notice, and it all serves as a purpose of Charlie advertising himself and springboarding his career further, into radio or television or whatever.

Or maybe it's simply a production company making websites and telly. Anything wrong with them trying to make a living?

Steven if you don't like Zeppotron stuff, then don't look at it. No-one's forcing you.

Now shut up.

Do I detect a softening of your attitude, Steven?

We're obviously not gonna agree, though. I don't think Brooker is rehashing a single joke ad nauseam, unless you define the joke so loosely it becomes meaningless ("That Charlie Brooker - he *always* writes those sentences with words in that refer to things") His style tends to be 'sweary' but he always swears with elan, which is important.

Re: Barley himself. Barley represents someone who cares only for style and surface appearance, not for substance, like a Brett Easton-Ellis character. Brooker is a comedy writer satirizing such shallowness, and seems to care a lot about content. You think he doesn't. I think he does.

>>He could do parodies of prostitute cards, fake lonely hearts column ads, fake business cards etc etc. All using the same bloody formula, it's the same joke again and again dressed up differently and apparently people are too stupid to notice.
>
>Not necassarily - you're mistaking form with content here, I think. Yes, spoof TV listings, print adverts etc. are older than the Goodies annuals, but the actual gags can change. Do you want a stop to sitcoms, because they've been around since the 50s?

I think you misread what Steven said Simon.

Steven was saying that in TVGH and in Charlie Brooker's other parodies, like Uninnovations, the jokes are the same every time. For example every TVGH has a "the Kilroy team would like to speak to you" thing in it. Funny the first few times. Now just plain repetitive.

Steven's point was that Brooker could do a parody of say prostitutes cards and do a new one each week. Steven thinks that following Brooker's TVGH history, every single card that Brooker did would have the same jokes in it every single week. This seems to me to be a fair enough comment.

It's a good arguement this, isn't it kids?

I like the idea of Steven scaring off Jon. He's not that scary though really is it?
I like Brooker. I like Steven. What can i do?

Stand on the edge and snipe at both?

>I think you misread what Steven said Simon.

Maybe. It's busy here! People are expecting me to work!

>Steven was saying that in TVGH and in Charlie Brooker's other parodies, like Uninnovations, the jokes are the same every time. For example every TVGH has a "the Kilroy team would like to speak to you" thing in it. Funny the first few times. Now just plain repetitive.

Well, yes, it's formulaic to some extent. But then there's been a lot of TVGHs, and once you get familiar enough with anything, you can see the formula underneath.

">Isn't the obvious irony that Nathan Barley is actually Charlie Brooker anyway? " Steven.

Dear Steven, you fuckwit. If Loaded offered you the chance to write for them would you leap at it? If The Guardian offered you a column would you use it to further your petty career? Yes. Stop slagging off people you only know by rumour and take a look at YOUR life you sorry jaded sack of spunk. I happen to know Charlie Brooker, and I can tell you he isn't Nathan Barley - in fact I'm sure he wrote the character to piss off twats like you. Love to your mum.

Decaf, decaf, decaf...

Did Nathan Barley ever present 1FM's Digital Update? Did Nathan Barley ever write for PC Zone and Escape? Did Nathan Barley ever do that telly show with gadgets? Does Nathan Barley have a fear of dangling legs? Does he?

"Does Nathan Barley have a fear of dangling legs"

Huh?

If so, the Kilroy team would like to speak to him...

Good one Bean!

>Isn't the obvious irony that Nathan Barley is actually Charlie Brooker anyway?


no, I think the obvious irony is that steven is nathan barley

TV Go Home's just a funny little website, not the front for some massive 'meeja' conspiracy (and I think Steven's attitude to writing and writers in general can be summed up by his comment about Charlie 'just trying to get in to the media' -- I mean, what?). Of course he keeps coming back to check what's written about him. It's just human nature -- this website is like a car crash no-one can tear their eyes away from, especially the writers you discuss -- kind of like the awful TV in TVGH. The satire of TV there is done with an awareness that, no matter how much we hate crap TV, we can't help watching it (and have you *seen* in Broadcast about the 'Touching the Truck' show Channel 5 have lined up?); in the same way, isn't there a bit of Nathan Barley in every one of us (so put the fingers on each hand up)? All Nathan Barley is is an amalgamation of everyone's worst insecurities and yuckiness. God, if you were buff, wouldn't you wear a skin-tight T-shirt?

I find TVGH uplifting; the idea that instead of dwelling in a swamp of despair about how awful TV is and yet how we love it, it actually manages to be quite funny. And strangely touching -- I found the indignant tone of the 'Cunt' episode where he comes over some girl's face actually rather *sweet* in its affronted gentility. And if you don't like Charlie Brooker for writing something funny, for putting up a website, for trying to make you laugh, then why not slag him off, do it you fuckers, do it you motherfuckers, finally, finally, finally.

I'm certain I'm right about the legs though.

Cheerio

> I'm certain I'm right about the legs though.

Well, I suppose if I think hard enough about "dangling legs", they are sort of frightening.

I *do* take issue with fat, bloated, and ginger, mind...

what about beans, Charlie?

> what about beans, Charlie?

Umm... now that one's true.

Don't know whether I like this any more.

By the way, i like your new curtains.


(disquieting, isn't it?)

Everybody wander over to www.e4.com to review CB's efforts in animating Horny Estelle (or whatever).

Does anyone else see a similarity with this work and an episode of Cunt described in TVGH where Nathan had been �commissioned� by a friend to write a hilarious webisode or something despite having no talent and ignoring the fact that it would be unwatchable?

Is this sophisticated self parody or what?

which animation is it?

>I don't think Herring or Lee are 'posh' - they went to comps like most of us etc. etc. >And maybe Oxford is posh, but you should see Exeter, Bristol, Durham etc.


Hey!

Hey hey hey!

Hey!

Leave off Durham, OK?

Yeah, you heard me...

Oh, and a friend of mine dislikes 'SOTCAA'

So there.

Yeah, but my brother could have yours in a fight, easy.

>Yeah, but my brother could have yours in a fight, easy.

I believe the correct response is 'yeah mate, sure...'

Snuh (please tell me that a SOTCAAn knows what 'snuh' means)

snuh - it's a simpsons reference.

>snuh - it's a simpsons reference.

Buh?

And that's a ManicDepressiveBorderlinePersonalityBoy reference.

bollocks, used the wrong name earlier. that anathema one was me.

>which animation is it?

Office Romance.

CB done:

>I *do* take issue with fat, bloated, and ginger, mind...

I was supposed to be quoting someone, but I think I got my references wrong. (Bit rich me calling someone fat!)

Apologies.

Cheerio

Steve (See! See! See, I'm suckling him to get "on" in the meeja!)

>(Bit rich me calling someone fat!)
>
But at least you've snogged Morwenna Banks, ya lucky porker.

>But at least you've snogged Morwenna Banks, ya lucky porker.

I wasn't quite so big ten years ago. And hasn't David Baddiel slimmed down (well, at least from the looks of his gut on last night's Unplanned).

Cheerio

Steve

You're fuck-witted arsehole cuntbrain that's just writing on this site to get attention.

Every half-decent opinion you have ever had has been stolen from the corpses and every other small-minded piss-poor point you've ever made has been so utterly ignorant of even the most basic tenets of correctness that they defy belief.

You're a wanker. Kill yourself.

Your Yellow Pages and Loot parodies were shit. The fact that you said you did this to 'prove how easy it was' is insane. Prove how easy what is? Writing a torrent of undeservered abuse and making a total cunt out of yourself? Stop. Just quit. You're not making anyone happy.

>You're fuck-witted arsehole cuntbrain that's just writing on this site to get attention.

Yeah, Steeeven. Stop showing off, write in mime like everyone else. What starts all this nonsense off?

Except a Brooker fan said it was good, that just sort of proves my point. The actual material wasn't meant to be funny at all, like I've said a million times, it was just showing the different 'formats' Brooker uses, with which to carry the same joke. Maybe he'll do a parody on Guardian articles next eh? Oh shit I forgot, he's already been doing that for ages.

>Except a Brooker fan said it was good, that just sort of proves my point.

The fact that a 'brooker fan' liked it is totally irrelevant and proves no point at all.

> The actual material wasn't meant to be funny at all, like I've said a million times, it was just showing the different 'formats' Brooker uses

But TvGoHome only uses one 'format', ie joke TV listings. It's the satire and use of language that makes it entertaining. If you don't understand that then you've missed the point completely.

> Maybe he'll do a parody on Guardian articles next eh?

Why does it bother you so much that Charlie Brooker writes a column in The Guardian?

Yeah. I DID like the observation in Steve's Loot parody about a nicotine-yellowed computer. This doesn't prove that he has the same talent as CB, merely that Steven has made one (IMVVVVHO) nice gag.

>But TvGoHome only uses one 'format', ie joke TV listings. It's the satire and use of language that makes it entertaining. If you don't understand that then you've missed the point completely.

Of course I understand it, I would have no real problem with TV Go Home had it been a brief thing Charlie Brooker did and then moved on to something else. Brief as in only a couple of pages of it. Charlie is copying an old joke that has been done many times before years and years ago, by proper comedians who just did it as a one off parody as a passing amusement and moved onto the other millions of comedy styles, materials, concepts they partook in.

Charlie is basing his entire career on it, that is pathetic. Do you really think that it displays a lot of talent? I mean, he takes 2 weeks to make each one, and has god knows how many others submitting stuff all the time. And as I've said before, it's basically the same joke everytime. And it's an old joke he's nicked, and is flogging it like a cheap Soho bondage prostitute. As I was trying to illustrate with that Loot crap before, and I'm sure that his next planned venture was going to be something similar to the themes I was detailing.

As I've said if Charlie just did a couple and moved on to something new, I'd have no problem, and if the new thing was innovative and well done, I'd be pleased. But he hasn't, and whatever 'new' thing he produces now (Unnovations), is just TV Go Home again dressed up slightly differently. I didn't always think he was a career furthering Nathan Barley type (gah, hate having to use that as a reference), he obviously has a history of doing fairly obscure work in comics and magazines etc. But with the advent of the internet I think he's realised he can wangle his way onto further things with the kind of stuff he's doing now. And it has worked, he has TV Go Home in Loaded, writes columns for the Guardian, worked on the 11 o' Clock Show, supposedly has a TV series in the works (which is apparently further flogging TV Go Home). I'm just saying he's now actually Nathan Barley himself.

It is clear that trying to appear savvy and trendy that you can elevate yourself into TV work etc through the stupidity of the way the current media works. I mean, look at the way Channel 4 invited the Corpses to their programmes launch event, how more missing the point could they have been? And as far as me stealing their opinions, as far as I can see, the only time I did that was when talking about the long sentences with frequent pointless swearing and masturbation references. If the Corpses make an observation I agree with I'm obviously going to use it too, isn't that just common sense? Brooker better recognise he's going to have to come up with a new idea eventually, with the idiocy of the current media, he's only got a couple of years before they notice he's only got one joke. At least Sacha Baron Cohen, for all the disdain I have for his act and way of doing things had the sense to kill off Ali G fairly early on, I'm sure Channel 4 advised him not to, obviously all his new characters are similarly crap and haven't taken off. But Channel 4 are still selling off new video compilations of Ali G to the masses and raking in the money. Dom Joly is doing the exact same thing but wants to flog his unearned success for longer, I wonder if his new series will have any hilarious jokes about him shouting at a big mobile phone.

I have never understood how Brooker 'nicked' the idea for TVGH. Sure I've seen a couple of listings parodies in old TV comedy books but they weren't anything like TVGH.

I'm also getting a bit sick of this 'Charlie Brooker is just trying to wangle his way into the papers/Loaded/Channel 4/the shadow cabinet etc etc.' The guy is developing his career in a perfectly acceptable way. He's not exactly Jamie Theakston or Rupert Murdoch is he?

I think TVGH has its moments. Perhaps it has gone on a bit, but one every fortnight isn't too much in principle - look at The Onion. I actually think that if we want to express our concern about comedy TVGH is an undeserving target. It seems to me that a lot of the arguments rest on the fact that Brooker used to write for the 11ocs. Believe it or not it wouldn't be the first time someone had worked on something crap early in their career and it won't be the last.

And you may hate using 'Nathan Barley' as a reference but the fact you did shows that it was a recognizable, quality comic creation - whatever else you may think of Brooker's output.

>And you may hate using 'Nathan Barley' as a reference but the fact you did shows that it was a recognizable, quality comic creation - whatever else you may think of Brooker's output.

That's tosh Al, the only reason I used it was because Brooker makes out it embodies all he hates, yet the fact that he resembles him is the only reason I used it as an example. I also references Ali G, I don't think in any way he is a quality comic character. And before Charlie butts in here with his obvious irrelevant opinion (as he's going to be the most biased person in the world for this argument) I just thought TV Go Home has had more than its fair run, and of all the recent editions I've seen, has turned into a truly bleak substanceless spectre of whatever you may think it had been in infancy. Granted Brooker does add his own spin to the old Radio Times parody joke, but it's the same spin he's done on everything else, and everything to come I fear.

>That's tosh Al, the only reason I used it was because Brooker makes out it embodies all he hates, yet the fact that he resembles him is the only reason I used it as an example. I also references Ali G, I don't think in any way he is a quality comic character.

Not tosh at all. You *mentioned* Ali G. You used Barley's name to conjure up an image of a particular type.

>And before Charlie butts in here with his obvious irrelevant opinion (as he's going to be the most biased person in the world for this argument)

And you're not!!!?

>Granted Brooker does add his own spin to the old Radio Times parody joke, but it's the same spin he's done on everything else, and everything to come I fear.

I still think there's plenty worse around. And TVGH still has occasional moments. 'Watchdog Eternity' raised a laugh.

But the fact is I wouldn't use Nathan Barley as an example for anything other than illustrating Brooker's own irony, I'm only referencing it because it's Brooker's own creation, nothing more.

>>And before Charlie butts in here with his obvious irrelevant opinion (as he's going to be the most biased person in the world for this argument)
>
>And you're not!!!?

Why am I biased? I have no partiality either way, Brooker on the other hand..
And saying I'm pandering my opinion to the Corpses like you've done many times before is just completely wrong, as I've demonstrated with a lot of my other opinions that other people don't agree with. And if I was as biased as you say I am, I would be giving people like Baby C a load of shit, swearing my face off at them, but I actually like Baby C, even if I don't agree with the liking of TV Go Home, because he/she doesn't post total swear fest-vitriolic for the sake of differing opinion stuff like Brooker does. The real irony here is, rather than mentioning Barley as a reference, we're constantly mentioning Brooker, which is exactly what he wants, he likes it when he's being mentioned like some kind of celeb.

Nothing wrong with being biased. Bias simply means an inclination to one side of an argument or another. You hate Brooker and what you see him as standing for - hence your opinions on his output are biased. I did not mention or imply the notion that you are aping the views of the Corpses. If the hat fits and all that...

Yes you have Al, you've said so before.

And as I've said, I didn't always hate Brooker, I just don't like all these new one joke comedians like Dom Joly and Ali G who are being elevated to fame through this idiot media, and raking in the money. And to me, Brooker has become on of these, or is trying to become through his web projects.

>Yes you have Al, you've said so before.

I have NEVER said anything of the sort. I have said that the Corpses defended you - ages ago - that's all. Get your facts straight.

>And as I've said, I didn't always hate Brooker, I just don't like all these new one joke comedians like Dom Joly and Ali G who are being elevated to fame through this idiot media, and raking in the money. And to me, Brooker has become on of these, or is trying to become through his web projects.

But you do hate him now. Doesn't invalidate what I said at all.

> he/she doesn't post total swear fest-vitriolic for the sake of differing opinion stuff like Brooker does.

Can I point out, Steviecheeks, that I started calling you rude names in this thread NOT because you criticised TVGH -- as I repeatedly pointed out, you had every right to do so -- but because you wrote the following:

"As you know Brooker was involved with [11OCS], and as with TVGH tried to rely on the charity of others to send him jokes to anonymous mail accounts so he could plagiarise them without known credit"

Which I took to be a public accusation of plagirism.

I'm not going to defend myself all over again. Go back and read my original response if you're interested.

And in the meantime, Steven -- go and fuck yourself, you lying, loudmouthed cunt.

Well be less ambiguous with your own rules, because:

"Your submission becomes our 'bitch', motherfucker. The moment you click that "SEND" button, you automatically endow us the right to re-edit your words and ideas into oblivion. It might not need changing."

Sounds like a forewarned invitation to plagiarism, but plagiarism all the same.

A "forewarned invitation to plagiarism"?

A *what*?!?

Forgive my astonishment, but it sounds like a request for submissions to me.

It's saying "your submission may be edited". In no way does it imply that no credit will be given.

Incidentally, Steven, as you already know, the next submission guideline reads as follows:

"Please, please, please don't steal ideas from other people and try to pass them off as your own."

Which would be pretty rich if that was indeed my intention.

Believe me, anyone who sends in a TVGH submission which appears onsite is always -- ALWAYS -- credited in the 'additional material' section at the base of each edition. If no name or initials appear, it means I've written that edition in its entirety.

I am very, VERY conscientious about this, and I fiercely object to your snide, entirely unfounded accusations to the contrary.

Oh, and Steven?

Go fuck yourself, you lying loudmouthed cunt.

Steven, stop being such an arrogant twat.

>Why doesn't he just move on to pastures new and make something original that doesn't need to parody anything to get its laughs

this was your original point, which you then contradicted with:
>he writes columns for the Guardian, and supposedly has a TV series in the works (which is apparently further flogging TV Go Home).

so what your'e saying is that he should move on, but instantly forget and distance himself away from TVGH, becasue the only reason he will get any job EVER, is because of it.

>Except a Brooker fan said it was good, that just sort of proves my point

I find some of TVGH amusing yet found your 'parodies' unfunny and insulting, that sort of disproves your point.

>it's the way all these pointless Anonymous people and others who have nothing really to add condescend into the thread out of the blue to try and skew the argument. Even Joe is joining in, it's a whole big game.

AWww, sorry. It's only people who hate Brooker allowed on this thread isn't it

>I mean, look at the way Channel 4 invited the Corpses to their programmes launch event, how more missing the point could they have been?

Yes inviting comedy critics TV to a programme launch, them going and then offering opinions, before informing everyone else on what happened is fucking awful.

Steven, you claim this is a site for criticising comedy, but then go on to criticise Brooker for whom you suppose he is. You lost the argument for why Brooker was Nathan Barley long ago, but your arrogance won't let you admit defeat, and so you change whatever point you were trying to make until it eventually becomes a case of slag off everyone who disagrees with you, and then claim you didn't.
Finally, you say the Corpses parody wasn't meant to be funny, but was simply to prove a point, yet you kept a copy. This means you either found it funny or you obsessively want to insult brooker at every turn.

>"Your submission becomes our 'bitch', motherfucker. The moment you click that "SEND" button, you automatically endow us the right to re-edit your words and ideas into oblivion. It might not need changing."
>
>Sounds like a forewarned invitation to plagiarism, but plagiarism all the same.

Steven - this is a completely biziarre accusation and you should really look at what you're saying. First of all you were whinging that Brooker only has one joke blahl blah blah and how TvGoHome was all the same, and now you're saying it's based on plagiarism? So, Charlie Brooker waits for suggestions, and then uses the ones that are identical? What the fuck are you going on about?

Steven, I would be interested to see your Charlie Brooker Loot parody. Where can I find it?

>Steven, I would be interested to see your Charlie Brooker Loot parody. Where can I find it?

I have found it.
------------------
Or maybe an hilarious parody of Loot?

Computers

Computer for sale: Vague computer for sale, it's a PC we think, maybe a Pentium something or other, we're not quite sure, but we know it works, well, we say we do, but it actually doesn't, but we'll insist it does when you've travelled almost 80 miles to come and pick the fucking thing up, and will be so pissed off by the cheap piece of fucking shite you've come all this way for, and we will insist it is worth £500, even though it's about 8 years old and discoloured by the sheer amount of nicotine we exhale onto it and tea we've spilt on the keyboard, but you buy anyway because of the forceful presence of being in this bastard family's stupid fucking council house and don't want to leave empty handed, then when you get it home you discover it's fucking worthless anyway and just leave it languishing in the corner of the spare room, maybe you could advertise it Loot and con some gullible cunt into buying the piece of shit, yeah, that's what you can do, fucking cunt.
-----------

Hmm. I still think it's all right in places. Not total shite by any stretch of the imagination. Written quickly, it seems, but there's a glimmer of insight into the secondhand buying vibe.

Was that it? What about the Yellow Pages parody?

>Was that it? What about the Yellow Pages parody?

It's in the "Where's that TvGoHome Parody" thread above.

What am I, Steven's biographer?

Thanks for your efforts BB CC. They were interesting reading.

>>Why doesn't he just move on to pastures new and make something original that doesn't need to parody anything to get its laughs
>
>this was your original point, which you then contradicted with:
>>he writes columns for the Guardian, and supposedly has a TV series in the works (which is apparently further flogging TV Go Home).
>
>so what your'e saying is that he should move on, but instantly forget and distance himself away from TVGH, becasue the only reason he will get any job EVER, is because of it.

Why am I contradicting myself? As I've said before, Unnovations is TV Go Home again but wearing a crap disguise. And making a TV series of TV Go Home isn't moving on to pastures new, it is further flogging a dead horse.

>I find some of TVGH amusing yet found your 'parodies' unfunny and insulting, that sort of disproves your point.

Umm, like I've said a million times, they weren't meant to be funny, they were showing the flimsy formulaic structure Brooker dresses up in various 'formats' which are exactly the same thing over and over, except changed to an inventions advert, or prostitute cards or horoscopes or whatever other guise Brooker is planning.

>Yes inviting comedy critics TV to a programme launch, them going and then offering opinions, before informing everyone else on what happened is fucking awful.

Do you REALLY think that Channel4 had any intention of listening to any kind of criticism the Corpses might of given and take it on board? No matter how constructive it would be they never had any intention of taking in any criticism, they just wanted to hear good things, or more probably, just find out who they were, and wether they were much of a threat to Channel4's publicity guff. Do you believe they actually payed attention to anything on this site at all, and then thought they would get a good reaction to their new years schedule of Big Brother clones and Ibiza clubbing documentories? They are idiots.

>Steven, you claim this is a site for criticising comedy, but then go on to criticise Brooker for whom you suppose he is. You lost the argument for why Brooker was Nathan Barley long ago, but your arrogance won't let you admit defeat, and so you change whatever point you were trying to make until it eventually becomes a case of slag off everyone who disagrees with you, and then claim you didn't.

I lost because of what counter argument? As far as I can see I've not seen any conclusive argument against that, other than a load of sweary tripe lambasted at me, and the fact that it's everyone vs me in the thread doesn't help. And I slag off everyone who disagrees with me? That's not right, I actually like Baby C, even if I don't agree with almost everything he's said. And I think Al is alright, even if I think his entire argument had no real points. However, Phil and yourlsef have given me lots of personal abuse so far, and I have given you none, check your hypocracy in. This 'Nathan Barley' type Brooker writes about surely are the kind of people who form hollow careers doing flimsy web projects to promote their business ventures, using it as a platform to get attention from the media. And as far as I am aware, Brooker has had no offers from anything for years throughout his comic stuff, and after the media gets a wiff of TV Go Home he suddenly gets columb author jobs and a TV series. I do not see TV Go Home as substantial work to justify a series in the least, just like how the fuck Ali G could get a series after only producing 15 minutes of material for the 11 o clock show - rediculous. Do you have any idea how hard people in the past had to work and graft at writing before they got a series?

>Finally, you say the Corpses parody wasn't meant to be funny, but was simply to prove a point, yet you kept a copy. This means you either found it funny or you obsessively want to insult brooker at every turn.

I only kept it because I wanted to show it to a friend of mine who liked TV Go Home to see if he agreed with any of it, he sort of found it funny, which is missing the point a bit, but he could see what it was trying to say.

No points, eh? How about:
1) Brooker hasn't nicked the idea for TVGH.
2) There is nothing intrinsically wrong with writing a comedy internet page, and then getting work off the back of it.
3) You accused me of saying something I did not say.
BONUS POINT: Brooker is abusing you because you accused him (indirectly) of plagiarism. Which you did.

> ... he suddenly gets columb author jobs and a TV series... I do not see TV Go Home as substantial work to justify a series in the least... Do you have any idea how hard people in the past had to work and graft at writing before they got a series?

Steven:

1) I was "suddenly" offered a regular column because the editor liked my writing. Insert your own conspiracy theory here.

2) Could you please tell me, and your assembled audience, all about this "series" I've been "given"?

Steven: dead horse, flogging of. Please cease, or at least fight back with some interesting drawings, preferably of Brooker's "Steven is a cunt" calibre.


Everyone:
Not that your slanging match isn't interesting or anything, but my attention span tends to wane after A WHOLE MONTH OF THIS.


Girls, girls. You're _both_ pretty.

So, slanging matches get boring after a month, do they subbes?

HmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMMmmmmmm?

(Apologies for the irrelevance of this post to the thread, just felt the need to point out the hypocrisy here. Back to the regularly scheduled Steven/Charlie scrap, then. Fight! Fight! Fight!)

Steven - whilst I don't agree with 90% of your argument, you should keep it up. It's nice to have someone who feels strongly about things and will argue them until he's blue in the 'loud-mouthed' face.

>And making a TV series of TV Go Home isn't moving on to pastures new, it is further flogging a dead horse.

It's not. You have to remember that TV Go Home is on the internet - therefore few people will have seen it compared to a TV programme. Test it - go out and ask a representative sample of the population what TV Go Home is. Very few will know. Now ask them what Ali G is. See my point? If Brooker wants to take a niche (but successful) site and make it bigger, the jokes will be new to the vast majority of viewers. That's fair enough - like when Lee and Herring used jokes from the Fist of Fun book.

To the vast majority of viewers, TVGH would be a sprightly living horse, young, dumb and *full* of cum.

>Do you REALLY think that Channel4 had any intention of listening to any kind of criticism the Corpses might of given and take it on board? No matter how constructive it would be they never had any intention of taking in any criticism, they just wanted to hear good things, or more probably, just find out who they were, and wether they were much of a threat to Channel4's publicity guff. Do you believe they actually payed attention to anything on this site at all, and then thought they would get a good reaction to their new years schedule of Big Brother clones and Ibiza clubbing documentories? They are idiots.

All of them? Everyone who ever works on anything to do with C4 is an idiot are they? Does it surprise you to know that there are people who don't like the way their employer behaves?

>Do you have any idea how hard people in the past had to work and graft at writing before they got a series?

Do you? Do you think Brooker would have got work on the Guardian if he hadn't worked as a journalist before TVGH?

Getting a series (on radio or TV) is still difficult. Getting a good series on radio or TV is more difficult than it ever was. Work for 5 years at a production company before lecturing us on how easy it is to get a series 'nowadays'.

I'm not defending TVGH - I don't like it that much myself. But if you want to argue against it's success, you need to get out of this 'us vs. them' student mentality you have. It's really not that simple, sadly. You never really understood the 'business man in his suit and tie' joke, did you?

Oh, and subbes? Shut the fuck up commenting on this thread. Anyone who has read 'The Bell Jar' three times should take a look at their priorities and the way they conduct themselves.

"2) Could you please tell me, and your assembled audience, all about this "series" I've been "given"?"

Good point, which i was going to raise if i spent more time on this forum. Steven is going on about a Tv show Brooker is making that's exactly the same as TVGH (or something similar). Surely, if Charlie is here anyway, then he bound to know about it.
It just all seems a bit vague, that's all.

From Zeppotron's online press release.

"[Zeppotron are] also creating a television version of their popular comedy TV listings site tvgohome.com, featuring regular favourites such as Castaway spoof Daily Mail Island, Mick Hucknall's Pink Pancakes, and the often horrifying exploits of upper middle-class media wannabe Nathan Barley."

I posted a thread about this earlier, expressing disappointment at the idea, as think it spoils the joke somewhat.

It doesn't say anyone commissioned it, though. I suppose Zeppotron are producing it themselves. So no conspiracy there.

Also, Sacha Baron Cohen used to be on Paramount as Bruno, a nervous effete fashion journalist, throwing himself at the mercy of nasty fashion slags and security guards. He was really polite most of the time as well. Some of it was good in a horrible uncomfortable kind of way, like when he tried all day to get an interview with this designer and, finally being allowed one minute as they were packing up, "forgot the question". So, you know, he didn't just spring out of nowhere, he's been working just like anyone else.

Well, Jessica's post was the most constructive I've seen here for a while. And I'm admitting I'm not the best at arguing points extremely well here, that's why I find it annoying that the Corpses or anybody else who doesn't like TV Go Home that could write a better argument than I just sit there in the sidelines. And having all these people directing their stuff at me just makes it harder to reply with well thought out points.

Anyway, concerning Jessica's point about a TV transfer of TVGH, I just said I feel that TV Go Home was never very strong material in the first place, and does not deserve a series. And I think that TV Go Home is full of the same kind of stuff repeated over and over and it would be extremely poor. And since Brooker only seems to come up with a small page worth of weak material every 2 weeks I don't see that as justification for a series. I couldn't imagine anybody reading TV Go Home itself and raising more than a wry smile at best, when I go on the Lee and Herring website and read some of their scripts I literally burst out laughing at most of their between-sketch banter, the stuff is very well written and funny.

And I do think it is quite easy to get a TV series now compared to the past, especially with the advent of digital channels, greasy producers are grabbing anybody who seems popular to fill up some air time. How the hell can Ali G get a series for producing 15 minutes of material on the 11 o clock show, and basically the material is just him mispronouncing a word and the humour apparently arising from some polite old fogey having to correct him. Same with Dom Joly's terrible programme and also that Russel Brand bloke in one of the lower threads got a series for doing fuck all basically. I'm not saying mostly unknown people shouldn't get a chance at a TV series, but I think they need to justify much more than any of the above, Lee and Herring did, and most other people from classic series had to build up a bit of a track record of strong work before being given a break. I don't think TV Go Home is a back record of strong work, and is going to be a reiteration of the same jokes over and over.

And you must know that you were being a bit petty with the stuff about Channel4, it's obvious I didn't mean everyone who works there are idiots. I meant the stupid executives who thought it would be a good idea to invite them to their programmes launch, they obviously never read the site at all.

>Do you? Do you think Brooker would have got work on the Guardian if he hadn't worked as a journalist before TVGH?

I'd hardly say working for a couple of PC Games mags makes you a proper journalist, and if he hates TV so much, why doesn't he say something about it? And how has he justified himself to write the column, what previous televisual reviewing has he done?

Oh, and subbes? I reiterate Jessica's sentiments, F-OFF and all that.
You probaly post more pointless and irrelevant messages than anybody on this board, and charging into an argument with which you have nothing to add except stand on your high horse and give off some arrogant twaddle about this thread not fulfilling your attention span. Go and fucking read the "Yo Corpses!" thread if you want to see some really pathetic uninteresting posts, and sadly Joe seems to enjoy participating also, much better than trying to have a decent argument I'm sure. Why don't you e-mail eachother with that awful nerdy flirting rather than filling threads up here doing it. I'll get off me high horse now too, before I fall off.

>Oh, and subbes? I reiterate Jessica's sentiments, F-OFF and all that.
>You probaly post more pointless and irrelevant messages than anybody on this board, and charging into an argument with which you have nothing to add except stand on your high horse and give off some arrogant twaddle about this thread not fulfilling your attention span. Go and fucking read the "Yo Corpses!" thread if you want to see some really pathetic uninteresting posts, and sadly Joe seems to enjoy participating also, much better than trying to have a decent argument I'm sure. Why don't you e-mail eachother with that awful nerdy flirting rather than filling threads up here doing it. I'll get off me high horse now too, before I fall off.

I agree with Steven on this, it is bloody depressing to watch a good argument or discussion go down the pan because 2 or 3 people think it would be better if the thread was cluttered up with in-jokey nonsense one-liners.

> And I think that TV Go Home is full of the same kind of stuff repeated over and over

Unlike your own interminable circular rants, right?

>Unlike your own interminable circular rants, right?

Mogwai, that was a cheap shot, please don't think I haven't been thinking of that throughout the whole time, I'm more sick of this argument than anybody, but it keeps getting stirred back up. I'm obviously sick of having to state my argument again and again and again but it is in reply to people who keep posting their rebuttal again and again and again, self feeding problem you see.

>And I do think it is quite easy to get a TV series now compared to the past, especially with the advent of digital channels, greasy producers are grabbing anybody who seems popular to fill up some air time.

It's still not easy - but it certainly helps if you 'look the part' in either your presentation or style. That's where Nathan Barleys thrive - something I don't think Brooker can really be accused of.

>How the hell can Ali G get a series for producing 15 minutes of material on the 11 o clock show,

People love him. You may not like it (I don't) but he was and is very popular. C4 were being 'consumer-focussed', I'm afraid.

Now, Ricky Gervaise is another matter...

>Lee and Herring did, and most other people from classic series had to build up a bit of a track record of strong work before being given a break.

True, but it's got both harder and easier than it was. Once upon a time you tended to follow the 'Weekending' route and do a radio show on 4 before moving on to TV. As the Corpses pointed out, that is no longer an option. The alternative is a bit of a free-for-all, and weak stand-ups and 'man of the moment'-types are most successful within that.

But grafting away on weak satire is not necessarily the best apprenticeship for a writer. I'd be interested to find out what people on the forum think would be a good route into writing comedy for TV. A Corpses ideal, for instance.

>And you must know that you were being a bit petty with the stuff about Channel4, it's obvious I didn't mean everyone who works there are idiots. I meant the stupid executives who thought it would be a good idea to invite them to their programmes launch, they obviously never read the site at all.

What if it was someone who *had* read the saite, found it insightful and thought that people like the Corpses could help them to improve C4's output? An idealist, for example. They do exist within the media, you know.

>>Do you? Do you think Brooker would have got work on the Guardian if he hadn't worked as a journalist before TVGH?
>
>I'd hardly say working for a couple of PC Games mags makes you a proper journalist, and if he hates TV so much, why doesn't he say something about it?

I don't think he hates TV. He goes on this forum, doesn't he?

>And how has he justified himself to write the column, what previous televisual reviewing has he done?

Would you prefer him to have a degree in TV Review Journalism? I'm sure it exists somewhere.

Steven done:

>And I do think it is quite easy to get a TV series now compared to the past, especially with the advent of digital channels, greasy producers are grabbing anybody who seems popular to fill up some air time.

I would, in part, agree with Steven that there are less restricted paths to be navigated getting a TV show on air nowadays, compared to the Oxbridge-ruled days of yore. However, I don't think that any perceived drop of quality (and I *do* believe it's perceived - we Brits have got a lot better at making television since, say, the '70s) is to do with how "easy" it is, but to do with the compromises that have to be made. Usually, money and commissioning execs are the restricting factors. However, that's no different, really, than the makers of Dad's Army having to use Chromakey instead of OB filming. What you see on screen almost never lives up to what the production team want to achieve. But because production costs are dropping all the time, it's not too hard to shoot a pilot for a programme - whereas in "the good old days", that would have been prohibitive.

However, commissioning execs are extremely (and I cannot stress this enough) narrow-minded about what they want to allow the public to see. On this forum, I would applaud someone who had manage to turn their non-profit comedy web site into a TV series, unless I felt that I could do better.

So whilst it may seem that "any old tat" can get a show on television, the realities are far from that. The restrictions are different. It's not where you're from, any more, it's where you're at.

>I don't think TV Go Home is a back record of strong work, and is going to be a reiteration of the same jokes over and over.

Well, ISTR The Fast Show being incredibly popular. Just because Steven doesn't like something then there's no reason why it shouldn't be successful. However, he's perfectly entitled to air his views here, as long as he doesn't fall into that old Corpses trap of "reiterating speculation or assumption as fact". Which, unfortunately, he does on occasion.

>I meant the stupid executives who thought it would be a good idea to invite them to their programmes launch, they obviously never read the site at all.

Such as this. All totally unsubstantiated speculation. And that accusation of plagiarism has never been retracted, Steven. You would gain more respect for your opinions if you didn't temper them with wild conjecture (or claims!).

>I'd hardly say working for a couple of PC Games mags makes you a proper journalist,

As far as I'm aware, Charlie has done more than that. He has, at least, worked at the BBC in the capacity of presenter and reporter, as well as the comic and mag stuff. Also, I would hardly consider Alison Graham one of the world's best journalists, but I bet she's got a degree in it or something.

It's best not to argue unless you are in full possession of the facts, I feel.

>and if he hates TV so much, why doesn't he say something about it?

I think he does, in the Guardian Guide on Saturdays.

>And how has he justified himself to write the column, what previous televisual reviewing has he done?

Hang on. Before I wrote my first magazine article, I'd never written for any other magazines, so do I have to justify that? Surely, Steven, this is one of the most *serious* problems the media industry displays - you can't get a job without experience, you can't get experience without a job. I'm all for trying out new people. Anyway, why should someone's previous career necessarily lead to their current career. Tom Baker was working on a building site before he played Dr Who. How did he justify himself in that role?

FYI, I have sent stuff to Charlie which has never been used (stuff which I considered was funny). I have since reused this material in another context and it's gone down very well with the intended audience.

I've also seen one of Zeppotron's pilot TV comedy shows and I thought it was very good. (No, it was nothing to do with Chris Morris or Nathan Barley.)

Cheerio

Thanks for liking me, Steven. I like you too. You are young and idealistic. You air your views with passion. But it's a lazy trap to fall into to pass off speculation on people's motives as fact. But hey, don't worry. You are young and naive, and I am very old.

I think it's telling what someone said earlier about you perhaps not fully grasping what Lee and Herring's 'businessman in his suit and tie' routines are about. Notice I say 'perhaps'. I don't want to assume...

What, of course, Lee and Herring meant, was that when you're young you often see the world in black and white terms - good vs bad, capitalism vs socialism, artist vs sell-out, aspiring comedy writer vs unprincipled chancer. When you're young and fiery you sometimes can't appreciate that people have actually to earn a crust to eat. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Sorry if this sounds patronising and you probably knew that stuff all along.

The thing about these arguments is that it becomes very difficult to retract stuff because you fear you'll lose face. But so what? It's only the sodding Internet.

I don't like the way people come on here and just swear at Steven. If he's wrong, put him right. Don't just befoul the debate with fuckwords. This, however, doesn't apply to Mr Brooker himself, because a) he is the actual subject of Steven's ire and b) he always swears *so* well.

On another matter, it's odd isn't it?, that dear departed Jon got slagged off for irrelevant chatroom-style postings, when Mr 4SOTCAA, Joe, is often seen posting similar stuff e.g: his impending delivery of subbes' bastard child.

Don't get me wrong (as Hitler once said), I heartily endorse the odd content-free birrovalarf feelgood thread. But hypocrisy is the greatest luxury...

Well at least the posts are getting more constructive and that's only a good thing. I hope carrying on in that manner will eventually lead to some kind of resolve.

Again, with the amount of posts being directed at just me it's quite hard for me to reply to many of the points, or indeed reply with a well thought out argument, so you'll just have to put up with that.

Concerning Steve Berry's post, yes I agree it isn't all *that* easy to get a series, but it's incredibly easier than a few years ago, nevermind decades ago. And it seems people are just being given shows based on fad popularism rather than real talent, as far as I'm concerned Ali G is a fad, Trigger Happy TV is a fad etc etc.

I'm perfectly happy with Charlie doing his non-profit website, but it's still tied up to this Zeppotron conspiracy thing, and it just makes it look more shady and more based with grasping into the media to make money. And whatever you say, it's always going to be my opinion that the material on TV Go Home does not justify a television series. Maybe by wild speculation the television series would end up being good, but I'm just saying his previous stuff does not justify the attempt.

Concerning my apparent speculation of Charlie's motives etc, I only hear about all this stuff as rumours or press bumf, so I obviously have to speculate, and speculation isn't a bad thing imo, and a lot of the time ends up being right, not always though, obviously. And regarding by accusation of plagiarism, the stuff I pasted from TV Go Home looks more like it's saying "Send us your ideas, but if you do, it's becomes our *bitch* and if we don't like it
as is' we can edit and change it as much as we like and incorperate it into our own ideas". Charlie needs to get a better grasp of legal terms because the rules on the site look very ambiguous.

I wouldn't say Alison Graham was the world's best journalist either, in fact I'd much rather Charlie have her job, but she got the job some how, no idea how though. Also I don't think presenting some gadgets show adds more credibility to his journalistic skills (why was he presenting that? looks like grabbing any job possible just because it's on telly - speculation). And of course people need to be given breaks but people are being given far too much lenience all of a sudden - add your own reasons for why this is. Maybe because radio has died a death that this has become more difficult, but I don't see how giving everybody a job on digital television is going to improve things. And if you've seen one of Zeppotron's pilot TV comodies and thought it was very good, where is it going to be screened, and who commissioned it? On what strength did it achieve this?

Replying to Coelacanth - yes it is a bit patronising explaining the businessman in his suit and tie thing to me, it's a recurring theme in many of Lee and Herring's stuff. Mr Kennedy from the Very Different Teachers is always trying to appear cool to the students by rebelling pathetically against his authoritarian job and co-workers. And many other sketches like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' feature youth rebelling against something just for the sake of it, which I find a very funny thing, and that is why I don't like 70's punk culture because that's what it seemed to be doing. But it still doesn't mean that business isn't a dirty business full of corruption and lowest common denominator. People have to earn a crust to eat, but it doesn't mean they always should throw their principles out the window, it just seems most comedians now as well as nearly every new presenter or popstar want to be famous because they want to be famous, they think they deserve to be on TV and have their inane face on every billboard rather than justifying it. People should become famous for doing something good that is appreciated by other people, The Beatles started a band because they loved music, back then believed they were going to be stars, they just wanted to make a few bob playing in music halls and enjoying what they were doing, because they were so good at it, they became famous. They didn't set off with the motive of being famous because they deserved it for just existing, like most people do nowadays.

Regarding you saying (Mr) Brooker is allowed to swear because he's good at it, that's just contradicting yourself, it's still befouling debate, and I don't find Charlie Brooker's swearing in the least bit amusing or inventive. But I do agree with you about Joe turning into Jon, it's quite embarassing to see, not that some of my arguments aren't either, but they're not stupid nerd flirting at least. I've always wanted to moan at subbes and Joe for their awful and ever increasing e-sex chats, but have refrained for sake of not pissing people off, but subbes arrogance and hypocracy above was just beyond belief.

Anyway, cheers for the chat Jessica, Berry and Coelacanth, this is starting to turn into a more worthwhile debate.

Funny, I like 70's punk culture for the very reasons you decry it. It's about being caught in moment of glorious simple fuck-youness. It's a very beautiful thing. Maybe I'm just nostalgic. Nostalgia=bad, somtimes. Spectacles should be gangrene-tinted, not rose-tinted,

Erm, at the risk of banging on at the same point, but I feel this is the crux of the argument, you say CB is trying to "grab money" through the exposure his web sites and Guardian column afford him. Believe me, Steven, please, there is nothing wrong with grabbing money. Money allows you to pursue your own less commercial artistic ventures. Money gives you a bit of freedom to do what you feel is worthwhile.

But you know that. What we're arguing over ultimately is how much TVGOHOME makes you chuckle. If the answer's "not that much" in your case, fine. But dont slag CB for trying to build himself a career.


I LOVE THE 2000s. EXECUTIVE HYPER-PRODUCER: STUART MACONIE. TALKING HEAD IN A VAT: PAUL ROSS.

PAUL ROSS'S HEAD: Yeah TvGoHome. It was a web site, remember those? Came out every Friday, I think. Fridays, remember those, eh? Spoof Radio Times, it was. Radio Times, eh? Remember that? Was that all right?

MR GRIFFITHS: Yeah. I liked it. It had some wonderfully constructed sentences in it. Some people (Corpses, I think they were called) used to rabbit on about them ending a "rubbish inmperfect cadence" that destroyed any humour thererin but they were wrong. It was often terribly funny.

STEVEN: I hated it. Well, no. I didn't hate it. I just used to find it a bit repetitive. Same joke every time, y'know. Still, much as I hate to admit this, it was a big influence on my own scathing brand of social satire. By the way, the DVD of my 2001 memories is now on sale, with an additional soundtrack commentary from me, 'Jon' and Al.

PEREMPTORY LEATHERNAPPY: My Mom and Dad, Joe and subbes, used to go on about this TvGoHome thing sometimes. So when I became controller of BBC 2 To The Power Eleven, I decided to do a "TvGoHome Night". Twelve hours of Direct-To-Visual-Cortex Supra Scheduling of TvGoHome memories from assorted people in the street, Danny Baker's Ghost and Andy Crane.

ANDY CRANE: Probably the proudest moment of my life was being a "lazy refrerence" in a meta-parody of TvGoHome once. But I did used to be in a really quite subversive Saturday morning kids show once with Yvette Fielding and Pat Sharp...

STEVE BERRY: I may be fat but I've snogged Morwenna Banks. Neh. Cheerio.

PAUL ROSS'S HEAD: Snogging Morwenna Banks, eh? Remember that?

I see we have a new improved, reasonable Steven...
I'd still like you to retract your accusation about me saying something I never said. I don't like being called a liar.

And you really need to get your head around punk. Buy 'London Calling' by The Clash - it's got 'real' instruments on it and everything. And they write their own songs. And they didn't do music just to become famous.

BTW - Berry is dead right. It's not easier to get a series because of narrow minded execs. That's why there are all these 'fads'. Take Ali G for example. I actually found this character quite funny. You seem to take the line that he was a one joke act that the media fawned all over. I'd go one step further. The idiots at C4 and on the papers hammered him into a one joke phenomena, a cultural cipher, an easy reference. The 'media' (a horribly nebulous term, but OK, for the sake of argument) largely are the problem. Even if you don't like TVGH compare it to the 11OCS. It is far, far superior. Imagine a C4 and BBC2 that had the courage to give people like CB a free rein instead of making them fit this week's imagined zeitgeist. I had a bit of a row with Michael Jackson (not the popstar - the other one) about this at a BFI conference. C4 and the other terrestrial channels are obsessed with capturing the youth market, 'surfing the zeitgeist'. Trouble is you don't surf the zeitgeist - you create it. By the time you pick up on a trend - it has already become a passing fad. TV must stop playing this mindless game of catch up and start leading the popular cultural field again. How? Through creativity, experiment. Having the courage to fail to enable the possibility of real success.

>BTW - Berry is dead right. It's not easier to get a series because of narrow minded execs.

Sorry - this sentence is alarmingly poor. What I mean to say is "It is easy to get a series made - but only if you satisfy the demands of narrow minded execs."

> I had a bit of a row with Michael Jackson (not the popstar - the other one) about this at a BFI conference.

Go on, what did he say? Did you swear? Did his minders have to intervene?

>> I had a bit of a row with Michael Jackson (not the popstar - the other one) about this at a BFI conference.
>
>Go on, what did he say? Did you swear? Did his minders have to intervene?

Well to be honest - it was all a bit pedestrian. I was berating C4 and others for 'niche marketing' and not attempting either to innovate or create quality drama. He had commissioned This Life at BBC2 and I mentioned how poor I thought it was, and how ridiculous all the fuss was about it when it attracted so few viewers compared to classic BBC drama of the past. I also mentioned The Simpsons - but I can't remember why. Possibly to do with the fact that the BBC had passed it up.

Jackson was very patient and polite but just maintained that as there were more and more channels the terrestrial channels had to compete and find a niche. I argued that the fact that they didn't have a niche was their niche - people would look to cable/satellite for specific minority interests, whilst they would rley on terrestrial to make quality, popular drama, comedy, documentary etc. He did not accept this. And that was about it really.

Your "taking a joke" classes not working out, then?

Well, that's the last time I try to say something while-dressing-it-up-as-sarcasm, eh?

(I've been told to reply with a "Yeah, well, that's _you_, that is", but I don't want to.)

A few points - please accept them in the spirit they're delivered. Screaming contempt, mainly.

Steven - I'm sorry you're so disappointed by our 'current run'. Sorry that our on-line characters don't live up to your initial image of us as warriors for truth, justice and the anti-Brooker way. But we're not twiddling our thumbs or sitting on the sidelines. We are actually working on the site (and other projects). That's our main priority at the moment.

We said all we had to say on the subject of Brooker and TVGoHome with the pastiche page. About four people on here 'got it' (one of whom, it seems, was Charlie Brooker). Since then we've exchanged mails, achieved a bit of common ground and reached an amiable compromise - he came up the spine of our high horse and we've broken one of his legs.

Coelacanth, Stocky, etc - show me one thread which the 'baby' saga has irrepairably damaged. I don't recall any - I'm quite conscious of 'spoilers'. However I could name several which were killed outright by 'dear departed' Jon on one of his simplification trips. There's no hypocricy here. I personally used to adore John! And Suii's ongoing silliness (a Julian and Sandy for the 80s). I've never had any real problem with 'comedy' threads or indeed having a 'birrovalaff' but it's nice to have a bit of balance don't you think?

'Yo Corpses' is one thread. One single silly throwaway bit of nonsense amidst a load of fantastic ongoing discussions, arguments, etc, on this forum (most of which have grown out of SOTCAA observations). This particular thread sucks babycocks though. Worthwhile debate? To summarise - Steven doesn't like TVGoHome. Charlie Brooker's friends do. Nobody else on here particularly gave a monkeys either way before, but the passionate nature of the argument keeps it a 'worthy' subject in people's minds, so much so that the merest hint of a comedy line gets escalated beyond reason - exactly what we were arguing against in the first place. 'It may be a bit crap sometimes but, hey, that double-negative in paragraph 3 was a true classic'. This thread is so obviously working against Brooker's critics. No wonder he's always in such a good mood.

Jessica - I don't know whether reading 'The Bell Jar' three times constitutes the height of wankery or not. However I do know that claiming 'pleb-pleasing' as 'showmanship' is the most inept and career-guarding statement ever to be made on this forum. This, coupled with other equally blind statements or truisms, suggests to me that you have little right pouring scorn on others.

Anyway, to show there's no hard feelings about any of the above I've just aborted the babies. Especially for you guys. Enjoy.

Can a thread be irreparably damaged by off-topic banter? Surely people just talk about what they want to talk about. If someone changes the subject all you have to do is change it back.

>Steven - I'm sorry you're so disappointed by our 'current run'. Sorry that our on-line characters don't live up to your initial image of us as warriors for truth, justice and the anti-Brooker way. But we're not twiddling our thumbs or sitting on the sidelines. We are actually working on the site (and other projects). That's our main priority at the moment.

Of course I don't think you and Mike are masked comedy terrorists or anything like that, it is a bit strange that while you were away from the board for ages you actually went through the trouble of getting Rob or whoever to post important messages for you, and other strong material you'd obviously worked hard on. Usually concerning heavy arguments in the forum, even to the point of turning against Richard Herring, who should be one of your comedy idols. And all that business with the 'SOTCAA was shit' thread as well, which was I admit pretty funny, but was just basically a big fuck you.

Now you're both actually back on the board, you seem to have avoided most of the important threads altogether and seem to spend most of your time (Joe!) posting depressing flirt messsages which are sub-Jon. Even if you think they are whimsical etc, I can assure you from the outside they look quite different, I'm sure Jon thought many of his posts were whimsical too, god knows he tried.

In fact if you remember I did e-mail Rob asking why you'd had such a change of heart over these crappy arguments, I of course assumed it was because it is pointless arguing with Brooker as he's never going to listen or take any notice, so I understood that. But it still basically looks very annoying to see you rather taking part in lots of awful e-sex threads with subbes, and there have been more than one, very many in fact over the last few months. As well as popping your head into this thread every now and again just to say something irrelevant, I realise this argument is pretty futile with Charlie, but I think we're getting some kind of progression with people like Coelacanth and Jessica and Berry about. And it is at least an interesting thread, contrary to many on the TV Forum etc.

>We said all we had to say on the subject of Brooker and TVGoHome with the pastiche page. About four people on here 'got it' (one of whom, it seems, was Charlie Brooker). Since then we've exchanged mails, achieved a bit of common ground and reached an amiable compromise - he came up the spine of our high horse and we've broken one of his legs.

That's nice, pity you didn't give Herring the same chance?

>'Yo Corpses' is one thread. One single silly throwaway bit of nonsense amidst a load of fantastic ongoing discussions, arguments, etc, on this forum (most of which have grown out of SOTCAA observations). This particular thread sucks babycocks though. Worthwhile debate? To summarise - Steven doesn't like TVGoHome. Charlie Brooker's friends do. Nobody else on here particularly gave a monkeys either way before, but the passionate nature of the argument keeps it a 'worthy' subject in people's minds, so much so that the merest hint of a comedy line gets escalated beyond reason - exactly what we were arguing against in the first place. 'It may be a bit crap sometimes but, hey, that double-negative in paragraph 3 was a true classic'. This thread is so obviously working against Brooker's critics. No wonder he's always in such a good mood.

Obviously, because I think I've made out already that I'm far from good at arguing over this kind of stuff. That's why it annoys me that people with far more talent at it like you seem to have fucked off. Charlie's a lost cause, but I don't think everyone here is.

> This particular thread sucks babycocks though. Worthwhile debate? To summarise - Steven doesn't like TVGoHome. Charlie Brooker's friends do. Nobody else on here particularly gave a monkeys either way before, but the passionate nature of the argument keeps it a 'worthy' subject in people's minds,

Hmmm. Reductionism has never been my favourite debating technique. Surley the point of this thread (if it only has one) is that there is no point in pouring opprobrium on Brooker when he is not the central problem in TV comedy, or indeed comedy generally, today. I feel, blowing my own trumpet, that the remarks I made above about Michael Jackson crystallize this perfectly, although of course I am simply adding to what Steve Berry has already said.

BTW Joe, regarding ''joke' threads I would have to say that I would agree with your own self-assessment. However there are several other forum posters doing all that you accused Jon of and worse.

Reductionism taken to absurd lengths: The Corpses run this site because they want to. Because they are passionate about this. They allow the forum to keep running, and they participate in it because it is their forum, an offshoot from a site that has sprung forth from their LOVE. In a melodramatic manner, obv.

At any point here Joe would have been completely within his rights to take his ball back and stop playing (something I myself would definitely have done, but then again I'm me, a young lass who reads literature and dares to be provoked into feelings by mere words and syllables, which must go to show something, although I'm sure I don't know what - possibly that one of these days I'll write a book, scattering amongst it all kinds of parenthetical, rambling comments of this ilk. Where was I?), but of course that would have been the knee-jerk reaction of the pro-censorship brigade who care about their message rather than discussion. How ironic, isn't it, that the very forum be the breeding grounds of such a piss-poor rebellion and complete misunderstanding of the very ethos of SOTCAA (not that I am claiming to understand it any more fully than any other bumbling fool who dares to post, but it's pretty fucking obvious that in some minds here, 2 + 2 = 5.)? Or perhaps it's not ironic at all, but only to be expected. Whatever.

I take advantage of my right to focus only on one side of the discussion, to ramble for a few paragraphs that will either be ignored or replied to with the blistering intellect of a 12-year-old. I like TVGH. It's a little tired at times, but still shows a spark of light behind the eyes of its creator. And I actually care about sparks, since it's so infrequently they are allowed to escalate to the magnitude of pyres in which to immolate our laughter. (Yes, I am quite proud of that phrase, since you ask.) Yet I can also see that the format is just that - a format. It will be superceded by something else. So, really, I have no reason to become involved in this debate other than a lingering desire to be at the heart of the action, even if only as a mute face in a crowd of proles.

I remain yours sitting on a fence, etc etc etc

# Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me... #

>Obviously, because I think I've made out already that I'm far from good at arguing over this kind of stuff. That's why it annoys me that people with far more talent at it like you seem to have fucked off. Charlie's a lost cause, but I don't think everyone here is.

Steven, as Joe pointed out, he (and Mike) are actually working hard on the website at the moment, they've far from 'fucked off'. Most website forums are there to discuss the issues raised on a site, not to replace it in terms of content, so it would be wrong for Joe and Mike to focus their efforts here (and far less effective).

>Now you're both actually back on the board, you seem to have avoided most of the important threads altogether

So? It's their right.


> posting depressing flirt messsages

Depressing? Why are they depressing? Because they're not on-topic? Because they're not blistering comedy critiscism? Because you're jealous?


> Even if you think they are whimsical etc, I can assure you from the outside they look quite different,


Well don't read them, then. If your outside is so depressing that you can't bear to read them from there... gosh, here's an idea: don't.

>> Even if you think they are whimsical etc, I can assure you from the outside they look quite different,
>
>Well don't read them, then. If your outside is so depressing that you can't bear to read them from there... gosh, here's an idea: don't.
>

Christ subbes, you're still being a hypocrite, if this is your amazing ideology then why didn't you exercise it before sticking your face in here to bitch about the thread not fulfilling *your* attention span etc. even if the arguing in this thread is pointless it is more justified on this site than e-sex chatting. There's plenty of other web sites and IRC servers if you like that kind of stuff.