OK, so did you all have fun on the show, then?

I have to agree on this. The fact is, TVGoHome is _at least_ on a par with the Corpses' parodies. And the other fact is, the criticism of TGP before the ("plucking" - Ed) thing has even been edited does rather rankle. Have you seen the cartoon at the top of the comment page? The last refuge of the 6th-form debating soc. member - "aaaah, but that's what Hitler would have wanted!". There is a big difference between Al Murray and the Nazis as all but the most wanky of poetry-writing 6th-formers knows. If the audience doesn't "get" something in the same way you do, Corpses, that doesn't necessarily mean you should attack it. Was Alf Garnett racist because some people took it seriously? No. OK, people are frickin' morsons, but let's not encourage censorship by idiocy.
I don't like to get involved in trading silly insults, but the Corpses ("pluck") dogs on this particular issue.

*scratches nose*

I have an idea: Let's do the show right here!

Charlie, you're just jealous that we're better at being arrogant than you.

But carry on anyway.

I think it's incredible how people have the cheek to ever think anything at all. It's outrageous.

>Are you all on coke? Or does this empty megalomania get you hard?
>
>Ohh, yeah sugar. I'm coming. I'm coming up the spine of my high horse. Woo hoo.
>

Yes I think we can now recognise your work Mr Brooker. Thanks.

>>Are you all on coke? Or does this empty megalomania get you hard?
>>
>>Ohh, yeah sugar. I'm coming. I'm coming up the spine of my high horse. Woo hoo.
>>
>
>Yes I think we can now recognise your work Mr Brooker. Thanks.

I think mr brooker's writing here bares a resemblance to Rebecca Tyrell's lifestyle column in the sunday telegraph magazine. - Like a shitty journalist trying to make their work appear interesting, by using unusual words/grammar. (Thinks. yes a short sentence, that'll do - see, easy)I also think peter o'hanrahanrahanahahn is right.

>I also think peter o'hanrahanrahanahahn is
>right.

What did I mean? I've forgotton.

I've a sinking feeling that Charlie Brooker is Dan L is ten years time...

You mean... time machines and stuff?

Charlie.

Still don't get this logic - why do we have to write comedy in order to comment on it?

Secondly, we're anti-hyperbole as a PR exercise, not a literary device.

And lastly, why does the accusation of 'arrogance' only seem to apply to negative criticism? Personally, we find the party-line toadying and all-round sycophancy masquerading as journalism these days(eg, 'Al Murray is undoubtedly the biggest comedian of the decade' type opinions, presented as if they are fact) just as offensive.

> Still don't get this logic - why do we have to write comedy in order to comment on it?

You don't. But you're not just 'commenting' on it. You're claiming you know best, demanding 'direct action', pouring needless scorn on stuff like TGP -- saying you're experts ("we know what we're talking about"), yet all the while lacking the perspective of genuine comedy writers.

You're virgins, picking holes in the performance of porn stars. Through a loudhailer.

I'm all in favour of a campaign to improve the world of comedy -- so long as it involves writing joyously funny material, instead of mindlessly picking holes in everything that disappoints you. What's the value in that? What good does it do?

All you're doing is drawing attention to yourselves; pub bores with opinions.

> Secondly, we're anti-hyperbole as a PR exercise, not a literary device.

Really? Did you hold a f*cking vote to decide that? It must be a riot being you.

> And lastly, why does the accusation of 'arrogance' only seem to apply to negative criticism? Personally, we find the party-line toadying and all-round sycophancy masquerading as journalism these days(eg, 'Al Murray is undoubtedly the biggest comedian of the decade' type opinions, presented as if they are fact) just as offensive.

No, they're presented as opinion. *You're* presenting opinion as fact.

Still, you don't seem interested in anything beyond your own opinions, so carry on. Stare at the sorry state of comedy and grind your teeth to powder. Gripe and pick and whinge and bicker and campaign and spit in the faces of all who disappoint you: ultimately you'll achieve nothing. Nothing.

The only way to improve things is to get involved in a positive way. But you'd rather not do that.

It's sad. It's sad. Because you're part of the problem you describe, and you don't even know it.

Charlie Brooker
www.tvgohome.com

>You're virgins, picking holes in the
>performance of porn stars. Through a
>loudhailer.

And as the performer struggles to maintain an errection (as his eyes are confronted by the fat critique woman), we, the stage hands of the forum, pull on our silk gloves and rush on to the set with our pots of sycophantic hardening cream to work our magic, manipulating the wit-cock back to its former proud state! YES! YES!

Hmmm ... "("tankie tanker")"? I haven't heard that expression since August 1996.

Charlie, *you* need to get out *more*

Henry Parkins
www.notinterestedactually.com

>Hmmm ... "("tankie tanker")"? I haven't heard that expression since August 1996.

Some people never forget Amiga Power.

These people really ought to get lobotomies.

It's great getting drunk on self-importance. It makes you feel really special.

Charlie is clearly some sort of accident waiting to happen. Bless him.

Why don't you reply to the survey, kinder?

It took me lots of brain-work to think of those questions.

I can see you've worked hard on it Jon and I admire it's structure very much but I find it a bit intrusive.

You don't have to answer question 1.

Jon! You are obsessed by the thought that I am some decaying ogre in denial. I find it all intrusive.

No I'm not. Anyway, the point is to work out the SOTCAA age demographic ahead of when this site starts to sell its own advertising space.

>It's sad. It's sad. Because you're part of the problem you describe, and you don't even know it.

Doesn't stop you posting publicity for your pisspoor TV ventures on here, in full knowledge that we're a popular, highly-hit site.

As for 'joyous' material? I assume you mean your heavy-handed, work-a-day, grab-a-reference parody of the Radio Times.

Never mind 'when are the Corpses going to write some comedy' - when are you?

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooh - playground insults!


Who said the art of intellectual debate was dead!

Er.... Plato?

>No I'm not. Anyway, the point is to work out the SOTCAA age demographic ahead of when this site starts to sell its own advertising space.


I'd rather not partake in this capitalist charade.

Haven't you heard? It's being bought by Granada.

What is? Your statistic chart?

Are we going to end up with another "It rocks" / "It sucks" argument? Because that's just silly, and I think I've had enough spittle shower over me already.

wow it must've been some holiday.

> Doesn't stop you posting publicity for your pisspoor TV ventures on here, in full knowledge that we're a popular, highly-hit site.

Coo. Got me there. Still, I'm sure you can dish out a few creditable slaggings, which should offset my merciless PR posturing nicely.

Incidentally, how do you know they're pisspoor already? Is it thanks to the special 'brain machine' you've got - the one that also allows you to peer into the minds of Al Murray's audience?

> As for 'joyous' material? I assume you mean your heavy-handed, work-a-day, grab-a-reference parody of the Radio Times.

Well, not necessarily. But I enjoy it. I can but try. Sorry if you dislike it. Still, it's only a free fortnightly website. You can always click elsewhere.

> Never mind 'when are the Corpses going to write some comedy' - when are you?

Well, I wrote some this morning, and I'm writing some more after lunch. You?

Ahahahaha! Indeed! Yes!


...no.

My this business with Charlie is all very entertaining.

CORPSE 3: Now... Let's see what he does if we poke him.

*poka poka poka poka*

Dear Sir,


It has come to my attention that you have been writing malevolent articles whilst under the influence of your own self-importance. As you are aware intoxication of any kind is not tolerated by this company. It is therefore with regret that I have to inform you that you are hereby given two weeks notice.

>Well, I wrote some this morning, and I'm writing some more after lunch. You?

Who's this fucker?

It's someone from The 11 O'Clock Show telling us how to write comedy.

Oh. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

> Who's this fucker?

> It's someone from The 11 O'Clock Show telling us how to write comedy.

> Oh. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I'm confused: is this a demonstration of how to write comedy, or simply an attempt to avoid the issue?

I think it's multiple personality disorder.

Oh Charlie just let all this malice be forgotton (like most of the jokes on the 11 o'clock show.)

Aww, I'm not filled with malice. There's loads of stuff on this site I love. But there's also *loads* of vitriolic axe-grinding from the Corpses, which I firmly believe they should be taken to task for.

They're not doing a good job of defending themselves so far.

[To audience:] Do they need to? How strong is the attack, do we reckon?

If you dish it out, you've got to expect some abuse back. I find the argument interesting.

Probably the most amusing thread here - there's nothing better than an abusive arguement - carry on, please!

There's nothing worse than an abusive argument. Especially because the SOTCAA Edinburgh Fringe Guide and TVGoHome are different sides of the same sticky, discoloured coin. SOTCAA have a thing against TVGoHome because it contains "references". They also wrote a merciless parody about, oh no, a load of current comedy acts. And it was funny. TVGoHome is also, on occasion, parodical and it is funny (as far as I'm concerned).
If SOTCAA want to stick to being critics, fine. But when they resort to childish playground baiting as in the above thread, it crosses the line into something much more sinister.

Genuine question - why is it sinister? Unless The Editors are so egotistical that they hvae to resort to negative comments in the face of Critism because they're 'better than anyone else', i assume it was just a joke - hence abusive arguements being fun, as long as they're not malicious - although i see your point.

>There's nothing worse than an abusive argument. Especially because the SOTCAA Edinburgh Fringe Guide and TVGoHome are different sides of the same sticky, discoloured coin. SOTCAA have a thing against TVGoHome because it contains "references". They also wrote a merciless parody about, oh no, a load of current comedy acts. And it was funny. TVGoHome is also, on occasion, parodical and it is funny (as far as I'm concerned).

Agreed. Something's been bothering me about this whole 'why don't SOTCAA just turn off their TV and go and write some comedy instead' line of argument. They are already doing it. The site has plenty of cartoons (some funny, some not) and what is the Edinburgh guide if not parody/satire? They don't need to protest that they don't have to write comedy to prove their arguments anyway. Plus, TV Go Home is funny, and you can't help but wonder that they think so too, but can't admit it because they're up to their eyes in a row with its writer, who also wrote for something they despise.

>Plus, TV Go Home is funny, and you can't help but wonder that they think so too, but can't admit it because they're up to their eyes in a row with its writer, who also wrote for something they despise.

22:20 - The Corpses' Bunker

EDITOR 1: Fuck it! Rumbled again!

Comedy is supposed to be about laughter and joy isnt it?For God sake,the pairs of youse,go and sit down and watch something that makes you bust a gut laughing and remember why you started the sites in the first place.

>
>For God sake,the pairs of youse

Are you Donna Air?

"Comedy is supposed to be about laughter and joy isnt it?"

You're so naive...

Read "Candide" and tell me comedy is about laughter and joy.

>Read "Candide" and tell me comedy is about laughter and joy.

Stuff that. Read Terry Southern's "Candy" instead. Based on "Candide" but a damn sight more fun. Filthy, too.

I have read 'Candide', and I did laugh.

Voltaire Rules OK

Why don't you enter the survey, Gee? Lots of other people have.

You don't have to put your age if you don't want to.

>Why don't you enter the survey, Gee? Lots of other people have.
>
>You don't have to put your age if you don't want to.


I've done the dirty deed.

I maintain my theory that comedy is about laughter and joy,just not neccessarily for whoever the target is.Good comedy makes you laugh right,and that by definition is joyous.Unless youve just had a prolapsed anus then I imagine it would fucking hurt,given.

(name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed)

Candide is funny, but not joyous. The best comedy reveals the ultimate emptiness and futility of life.

<The best comedy reveals the ultimate emptiness and futility of life

Then you need to read Mark Twain my friend.

For me, it's the funniness of life that reveals the emptiness and futility of the 11 O'Clock Show.