Thanks Rob. I hope there's no come back.

Also kudos to the authors as it was excellent.

I agree it did seem realistc. I was completely take in.

Well, I spotted it was a hoax from the start. But I was playing a long game.

Jon what is it like having a higher understanding of everything?

I knew you'd write that.

Groovy :) I received it from somewhere completely away from here yesterday and was definitely taken in by Jimmy Saville, but not so by Paul Merton :o) <note to self - check forum more often> ;)

Formerly known as MM.

>Well, I spotted it was a hoax from the start. But I was playing a long game.

I would still think it was a hoax withou the apparently overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The manerisms such as Hislop waving to the lawyer are very realistic. I wonder....

The fact that the transcript is a hoax raises some interesting questions of its own. Why create such a plausible parody on such a delicate, and libellous, subject? Why level such accusations at Saville (or claim that they have been levelled) if they are entirely substanceless - who gains from this? Or is the author claiming that the allegations are in fact entirely true, and that these out-takes are what SHOULD have happened?

Whatever the reason, it's very plausiby written - I disagree that Saville is convincing while Merton isn't. Hope no-one gets into deep shit over this.

Still, at least next time you post something libellous you'll know not to proudly sign it and slap a copyright notice on it, won't you?... %)

We didn't intend for it to be public... the article covers the reasons for the transcripts existence.

What do you reckon about the whole transcript affair being a ruse to raise the profile of SOTCAA? Wouldn't surprise me. I can't believe they'd have the thing in there, waiting for the corresponding article to get written. And Rob S usually has his eye on the ball, why let the hints go by?

you always talk about people in the third person when they are present?
(if thats what its called - I'm crap at grammer)

Maybe the long silences were because they were thinking before they acted, unlike us lot who sent the thing here, there and everywhere.

Would viciously slandering celebs in the worst possible way ( morally & legally) be a good way to raise the sites profile? Maybe they should set some nail-bombs off with sotcaa engraved on each nail?
0 0
\_/

"you always talk about people in the third person when they are present?
(if thats what its called - I'm crap at grammer)"

Sorry, that posting was a passage from a mail I sent to someone else and I just copied and pasted it because I couldn't be bothered typing it all again in the forum.

I didn't mail the transcript to anyone. Or copy it.

As far as the publicity issue goes, I'm told yesterday's Evening Standard covered the story, so it really has raised SOTCAA's profile. Setting off bombs wouldn't have achieved this, because then the site would have been closed down and everyone arrested. Which is pretty obvious if you think about it.

Yes but the content of the transcript could of got the site shut so I doubt they left it for PR.

A fellow SOTCAA reader has mailed me this copy of the feature in yesterday's Evening Standard:


"From "In The Air", "Media" section, p55, London Evening Standard, 19 July
2000:

'A sensational transcript of "out-takes" from a classic Have I Got News For
You show has just been posted on the net, generating much excitement among
the programme's fans. Supposedly, the script contains unscreened extracts from the episdoe last year in which Sir Jimmy Savile made a guest appearance - and almost a guest walk-out. It has the ring of authenticity. Scatalogical, defamatory and hilarious, it is devoted largely to a blisteringly rude dialogue between Paul Merton and Savile on the subject of under-age sex. Sad to report, however, that the transcript is a clever fake. "It's bogus", declares regular panellist Ian Hislop. "I read it in
disbelief. They've copied out the stuff that did go in, and put a whole load of made-up stuff in the middle. It's quite cunningly done, I must say. I'm fascinated by who could have written it." Any hunt for the hoaxer should look for an enemy of both Sir James and Merton, neither of whom come
out well. That should narrow it down to a mere few million.'"

Re: was it done for publicity?

Hmmm well there's not a great deal of publicity for the site in that article is ther?

OK, some disordered thoughts on the whole business:
1. Excellently written parody, but I did doubt its authenticity, as users of this forum will (hopefully) remember. Do I win a redname account for spotting the JavaScript thing? ([email protected], Rob)

2. The reference to "SC-700" sunvisors - some sort of obscure editing in-joke about the digital timer of the same name? Or not.

2a. Apart from the names mentioned (Yelland, Hall, Davey) which as far as I can remember are not anachronistic, what else gives away that this is a hoax? The programme no. or producer's name?

3. Who was the target of the hoax? Hmmm ... Danny Wallace is too bland to print something like that. Bubblegun are too clever to name names. NTK saw through it somehow. My guess is someone like the Sun/Mirror's Bizarre column. But even they would class it under "wacky internet rumours".

4. This thing is going to be circulating on e-mail until we are all dead and in the ground.

>1. Excellently written parody, but I did doubt its authenticity, as users of this forum will (hopefully) remember. Do I win a redname account for spotting the JavaScript thing? ([email protected], Rob)

You need to email me what name / passwd you want.... as for the transcript, the thing that made me realise was that (a) such a thing could not be witnessed by so many people (ie the audience) and not come out in the media until now and (b) such a thing would not be transcribed. If I wasn't sure though, I don't think I would come out and say either way ... not without being really sure.

Can't find that Evening Standard article on their website btw.

"Can't find that Evening Standard article on their website btw."

Apparently it was from the Wednesday edition, but I didn't see the original, it was mailed to me.

Perhaps it's a hoax?

>The thing that made me realise was that (a) such a thing could not be witnessed by so many people (ie the audience) and not come out in the media until now and (b) such a thing would not be transcribed.

I did think of (a) and I did wonder how it had been transcribed, but to be honest, I thought it was real, but I was wishing it wasn't. I feel a lot better I know that it is false. Though the actual rumours contained within may have some truth to them.

Any ideas where it came from - or will that be in the article?

I don't know if it's already been pointed out, but there's mention of it in today's Grauniad - the TV Gossip bit. Here's the online version

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,3604,345583,00.html

Guardian today, G2 page 13.

Hmm.. ok just to let you know more than anything else, but someone's told me that a fairly well known writer has told them off the record that "a pissed off Jimmy Mulville at Hat-Trick remembers it happening this way"

Hang on... are you saying it's genuine after all?

> "a pissed off Jimmy Mulville at Hat-Trick remembers it happening this way"

Should that be "a pissed Jimmy Mulville at Hat Trick...?"

>Should that be "a pissed Jimmy Mulville at Hat Trick...?"


NO.

You're not a lawyer. A lawyer could never be that succinct.

Ewar what a cute thing to say.

indeed

So, any news on when we can expect... any news?