'Cause they don't want their dole money / student grant / bitter&twisted web monkey allowance / cancelled....... Big Soup is quite expensive these days.... it doesn't grow on trees you know...
And how are they gonna be able to buy their big compendiums of jokes? It's a necessary precaution...
Or maybe, maybe... on a base level, for some reason, they are shit scared... or have no courage in their convictions... quite sad really... as Mr T once, so eloquently said, "Pity the Fool".
Apt doesn't even come into it.
Here here!
Actually, it's spelt 'Hear Hear!'
I imagine either **** ***** or *** ********* work in TV with someone they've slagged off here. Or maybe not.
Yeah,and they should print photos of themselves with their names and addresses too.
Who flipping cares? Its only two peoples opinions who probably disagree with each other every now and then.I think folk are so easily wound up by these two imps.Cant you see any glint in their eyes AT ALL ?Theyre bloody wind up merchants,who are also passionate about comedy and want to arouse some debate occassionally.
Give em a break! or piss off to some sycophantic anaemic fanboy site .OOOh get me.
Why don't they use their real name?
Because They Don't Want To, maybe.
> I think folk are so easily wound up by these two imps.Cant you
see any glint in their eyes AT ALL ?
"They've got dead eyes, like a doll's eyes..."
Can I point out Jon, that I love you? You make me laugh and laaaaaaugh
Sorry babe, he likes his girls unpunctured.
Plus I'm first in line for his human repair kit.
Er, how many are in the queue? Anyone famous?
(name removed) and (name removed).
See how long it takes them to edit that out, then.
Given the hilariously ineffective campaign by "Anonymous" to name the Corpses (try using a medium that they DON'T control, dimwit), I thought I'd hijack this strand to ask - do the Corpses have the right to criticise public figures and remain anonymous? What if their access to rushes etc. depends on anonymity? Am I a hypocrite to raise this question given that I'm using a flimsy pseudonym? [Before you get excited, I'm not famous or anything].
> Given the hilariously ineffective campaign by "Anonymous" to name the Corpses (try
using a medium that they DON'T control, dimwit), I thought I'd hijack this strand to ask - do the Corpses have the right to criticise public figures and remain anonymous?
Yup, they've got every right - but it *does* smack of hypocrisy and cowardice. Plus it inevitably leads to forum abuse of the sort we've just seen, because people (even spamming knuckleheads) have an equal right to name them.
In fact, I must confess, a few days ago I was sorely tempted to register www.someofthecorpsesareamusing.com and put up a page which flashed up a huge message reading "Welcome to Some of the Corpses Are Amusing -- The Hilarious Site from [Corpse name #1] and [Corpse name #2]", before redirecting people to this site.
That would have been classy. "Anonymous", take note.
My God, people in comedy really do have a little too much time and money on their hands.
I am puzzled by the phrase: �the hilariously ineffective campaign by "Anonymous" to name the Corpses.� Unless the names posted weren't the real name of the Corpses, I'd say Anonymous' objective was achieved. Personally I have no qualms about the Corpses' anonymity. I haven't produced any work they've commented on and thus have not been the subject of their criticism. I suppose if I put myself in Charlie Brooker's shoes I might want to know the name of those criticising my work . The Corpses will of course argue that if someone wants to contact them they can (by email or by using this forum.) But I don't think that's what dear old Charlie has in mind. If I were Charlie I'd want to know their names so I could scrutinise their work and find out just how original and witty they've been in all they've done.
This is not a criticism of the Corpses. I find their comments very insightful and feel humbled by their knowledge of comedy. Yet I don't believe they can think it unreasonable that Charlie should want to know by what criteria they judge his work (i.e. So what have you done then, clever clogs?)
Gee
I think Girly Dweb should post lots more messages, keeping to the standard of her first one.
We all now that ********** *******, *** ************ and *********** ********* are the people inbolved here.
This is just getting funny.
It's all an horrendously elaborate double bluff. The Corpses are none other than Jimmy Savile and Sir Jon Thoday OBE. They have been stringing us along for months with this stuff and should be punished.
On that very subject (i.e. this is extremely tenuously related to the topic of the thread) doesn't the bloke from Spaced look like Mathew Corbett?
More on-topic, I already knew who one of the corpses was. There's was fanzine featuring his cartoons. Nice to see it confirmed though.
Wouldn't be the redoubtable "Christ's Fat Cock", would it?
>Wouldn't be the redoubtable "Christ's Fat Cock", would it?
Not saying - don't want to be accused of anything!
I cracked the system and gave out the Corpses' names yesterday morning (Gee was there, he'll confirm it). But then I alerted Rob S and he took it down again.
I'm sorry, I didn't want to give the names out, it's just that I work in software and I was so intrigued to see how clever the system was that I forgot that there may be good reasons not to get through it.
I won't repeat the trick here, because then Rob will get rid of this strand, and with it Girly Dweeb's posting. Which was really great.
Sorry, again, Corpses. Are we still friends?
You're just a tart aren't you Jon?
The thing that really suprises me is that this anonymous fellah obviously has a rather spiteful, and I'm afraid childish, leaning to his character... this would normally be the sort of cove to go along the "I know who the Corpses are, and you don't" type route. So, go on, Anonymous.. make us really mad.. don't tell us.
I confirm that Jon cracked the code.
Man, I missed all of the successful namings. I assumed Rob had taken them down ASAP.
I think they have the right to be anonymous if they want, but it's not going to last. Heck, they're probably going to be writing the Guardian TV column next.
Who said they don't write it already?
The Editor of the Guardian, I expect.
There are plenty of smashing reasons why we don't (or didn't) want to be named:
1. Because we want the site to speak for itself as a 'thing' rather than 'this is the work of...'
2. Because there are some funny people about who take exception to criticism/opinions that differ from their own and might beat us up.
3. Because it doesn't come across as us trying to publicise ourselves as individuals.
4. Because it'll avoid any possible future moans over who's responsible for specific bits of the site if we do it under the all-encompassing SOTCAA banner. Neither of us can be individually blamed / congratulated for any one article / illustration / throwaway bit of arrogance, etc.
5. Because it makes us look mysterious and sexy.
When Dave Gorman made a point of naming us in his posting he did so quite deliberately to try and piss us off. Protective fans of his have tried similar tactics in the past. A couple of them often appear on this forum trying to stir things up (as if they really need to).
Incidentally, we've just bought a family-sized pack of double-blade disposable safety razors to enforce the 'direct action' mentioned in the Gorman thread.
Just in case anybody's interested in the origins of the phrase, Chris Morris often used to grumble and tell Pete Baynham that they should be doing 'more direct action' whenever people interfered with his broadcasts or missed the point of his media attacks. Nobody really knows what it means. Baynham once pondered whether it meant he was actually going to go out and kill people ('Maybe that's his next step, who knows!'). It's merely used illustratively here, and seemingly only brought up when people deliberately try to pick holes in the site. Whatever. The way things are going you may not have to worry about any of it for much longer anyway.
And Daniel, as far as I'm aware, running a website like this doesn't contravene any Jobseekers Allowance agreements.
And Jon, Richard Herring knows who we are and we've incurred his wrath more than anybody.
And Charlie, don't wear out your red name will you, for God's sake...
>
>5. Because it makes us look mysterious and sexy.
Pfft! No it doesn't!! Although reasons 1-3 are fair enough (especially 3, which I'd never thought of).
Ultimately, since none of you work in comedy or the media, your names are irrelevant...even if the spamming had worked, the names would mean absolutely nothing to me and couldn't possibly change my opinion of this site.
I can't understand this obsession! Why don't these people take issue with what is written, rather than who writes it?
> The way things are going you may not have to worry about any of it for much longer anyway.
Well, I may not always agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death etc. If this site gets taken down/censored, I would far more outraged than I have been at some of your more spurious and gossipy features.
>
>And Charlie, don't wear out your red name will you, for God's sake...
Oooo, get her!
This is a very good forum. Try Channel 4 if you don't believe me. You say one negative thing there and your comments are deleted. I'd hate to see this forum close.
*applauds*
However, I suspect that even if SOTCAA ceased to exist, the NotBBC forum would still be here. Hurrah!
I like the SOTCCAA site - although I sometimes gag on their smugness.
Then you must be doing it wrong. Tilt your head forward slightly and try it at a different angle.
Oh yeah. That's much better.