How many Corpses did it take to write the Savile transcript?

Two - Scott, Mike and , Joe.

c
h
a
m
p
n
i
s
s

*applaudes*

Nice one.

>Q. How many R****** N******s does it take to change a lightbulb?
>A. None - you can shag underaged groupies in the dark just as easily.


Richard Nixon had groupies?!

Thank you SOTCAA I enjoyed that. More please.

Those jokes were piss-poor.

There wasn't anything funny about them, it just seemed like another smart-arse attempt at showing how clever you obviously are.

Does this mean that, now that they've tried comedy, their opinoins become valid?
Will this stop the 'you have to be a pilot, before you can say the plane has crashed' brigade?

MM

"Those jokes were piss-poor."

I thought my one was brilliantly inventive.

>I thought my one was brilliantly inventive.

So did I! :0)

I wasn't referring to that.

>Those jokes were piss-poor.
>
>There wasn't anything funny about them, it just seemed like another smart-arse attempt at showing how clever you obviously are.

I take this is agreeable praise of the jokes. Exactly what a Mark Lamarr fan must look for in humour.

La la la

Oh, you love it really...

How many Corpses editors does it take to change the set up for their comedy?

The same number as usual, but they have to dally with a month of peddling the same joke two months running before they think of anything original...

Well done though. Nice to see you've not lost the touch. I've since employed a spreader bar though so sock changing has become less of a hampering activity and the fire brigade can rest easily in their watch...

Notice, i could've made innumerable jokes that 'at least i change my socks and i am not a comedy - shyster bastard' but resisted the temptation... :)

Well done though, coz, at least with this sort of humour you allow me to rest aeasy at night.
And Dave Gorman too probably...

Q. How many forum contributors does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. None. Nothing's ever going to change - they're too busy blethering on about Gian Sammarco.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was for Dan BTW

Q. How many Corpses Editors does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. The point is not that the lightbulb must change but the new bulb must break the circle of mediocrity that bulbs have been trapped in. In about 1996 all the dials which govern the general expectations of lightbulbs were completely reset to 00 00 00 00. Right across the board. A 'Year Zero' if you like. This meant that anything fantastic which was achieved over the previous few years was now completely wiped from common conciousness and anything created from thereon was given a whole new and worrying perspective.
This has resulted in lightbulbs/neon tubes / LEDs/ street lights / luminescence in general being judged without recourse to what they have replaced. For instance a bulb like the Lumex energy saver , instead of being a shallow and derivative missing-the-point-of-living rewrite of the lightbulbs of Calor 30w, 60w, 100w, etc, is accepted by some as new and exciting. 'The Burnsley Neon tube' , instead of being viewed as a vaguely illuminating but-not-that-bright-really tube is being described as 'daring to be quite unlike anything that's ever been attempted before'. All this despite there being actual crystal clear evidence both in shops and personal archives everywhere that much better and more innovative lighting had been used by an earlier generation.
The standard of expectation with audiences has dropped substantially. It would appear that nobody expects too much anymore so even the most shallow plagiuristic dullity can be raised on high as a work of pure lightbulb genius. And your average electrician views this regrettable situation as an absolute Godsend.
People moan at us, claiming we favour earlier generations of lightbulbs work over the current crop. This isn't necessarily true - even a cursory look through the site will reveal where our switches are aimed. Some have brought up the tedious accusation of looking at the past through misty neon-tinted eyeballs. But this is also quite easily disprovable - with so much fantastic (or even mediocre)lightbulbs from the past safely ossified onto magnetic videotape there's no mistaking (or debating) that things were better, even a mere five years ago.
Without looking back we can't look forward. And without looking back properly all we're likely to get are received opinions based on skewed memories.
The point is, we're trying to put the past and the present into some form of perspective. Part of this is to avoid the over-generous hailing of modern lightbulbs as 'innovative' without checking out what's gone before. It would be a brave person who ever claimed to deliver innovation these days anyway, at least without changing the rules of expectation. If modern-day audiences claim that the Fluorax Star is fantastic because he 'dazzles' everyone then they've obviously not experienced enough of lightbulbs history to realise how dim he actually is. If modern-day audiences claim that 'The Burnsley Neon tube' , ' is 'quite unlike anything ever attempted before' then they have obviously experienced no television whatsoever.
A few people are angered by our use of the word 'plebs' to describe the sort of punters who are lazy in their lightbulb choices and refuse to question their lighting. Well, hoorah for that. So now we all know that people don't like to be pigeon-holed by arrogant self-appointed guardians of the lightbulbs norm. But whereas we use that phrase as an obvious incitement to indignation, the media uses it far more insidiously and subtly. They have their own method of social grouping (AB1, AB2, etc) which governs the sort of lightbulbs we get to use. How many of you have complained about that? The trouble is, when people like Jane Root (BBC2 controller) start slicing up TV output into 'zones' (Lightbulbs; Art; History) then they are, quite deliberately, consulting a little folder with 'pleb-pleasers' written on it in florescent marker. They are discouraging people from making up their own minds about how lighting should be. And what's more, they have to power to do this without even offering a forum or debate on the subject. Don't ever forget that they have a deliberate policy about not taking e-mailed views seriously. Their 'Internet Zone' suggestions-folder is full of disparate views from people genuinely interested in television. Their 'Pleb Zone' folder is bulging with nice middle-ground Basildon Bond 'Well done Illumee for another range of 'Lumiere's' - more please' type scribblings. Which folder do you think they're going to present to the public? The whole thing is very creepy.
We've also been accused of misogyny. A furious woman has claimed that every time we mention a woman on the site we always follow it up with a derogatory comment. If anybody out there can find actual three-dimensional examples of this we'll be quite happy to explain that it was all a clever joke in a really patronising tone, giving well-argued examples along the way and swearing a bit...
Might be a good time to reiterate our remit here, following all the interesting assumptions on the forum. No, we're not failed bitter lightbulb writers out for revenge. No, we're not using this site as a means to break into the lightbulb scene. No, we don't hate all lightbulbs. We are just passionate lightbulb fans who are very worried that things have gone awry. Our aim is to provide a reference point or soundboard for people who feel the same way. Whether or not we can use this platform to change things is debatable (the industry has money on its side - we don't) but we hope at least to stir things up a bit. We are planning some 'concrete action' which we'll mention in the next update. Stay tuned.

Who are you to offer a reference point? Surely we must all find our own, enjoy it for what it is and move on as we see fit?

>How many Corpses editors does it take to change the set up for their comedy?
>
>The same number as usual, but they have to dally with a month of peddling the same joke two months running before they think of anything original...
>
*screams with frustration*

How many lightbulbs does it take to change a lightbulb?

One - one to change itself and the other to be the same lightbulb and get a bit confused.

sorry justin, i have moved on from the other threads, starting a new critique.
Laters off to book.

Simon Adebisis's comments on this thread. Genius.

<applauds hearttily>
Now Simon - go and rest your weary fingers...

"Q. How many forum contributors does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. None. Nothing's ever going to change - they're too busy blethering on about Gian Sammarco."

People want to talk about GS because of his impact on comedy history and you should hang your heads in shame for daring to question the importance of his legacy...

>I take this is agreeable praise of the jokes. Exactly what a Mark Lamarr fan must look for in humour.


I look for it to be funny. Mark Lamarr doesn't always deliver the goods and I've never said otherwise.

Fibber.

>Fibber.

Back that up, Jon boy!

I know I'm a bit late but I've only just come on-line for the first time in a few days, so here's what I want to say:

That is the least funny collection of underage drinking mates-in-a-pub in-jokes I have ever read in my whole life. Good Christ what a waste of time. The answer to all those 'How can you criticize my comedy if you don't have a go yourselves?' questions seems pretty obvious to me now. And this really does seem to justify the position that you don't have to be good at something to have worthwhile views on it.

How could the people behind the HIGNFY transcript and the Fringe guide be so tedious?

AAARGH! The world is broken! I don't understand! How can this be?!?

Still Simon Adebisi seems to have made a good attempt at redressing the balance. I haven't read more than the first few sentences but your stubborness in taking this to its logical elongated conclusion deserves immediate respect if only for its length.

He said length, huh, huh...

Only just read your comments Prisoner #93A234 Simon Adebisi, very amusing I thought. Very good idea <lightbulb>.

Prisoner #93A234 Simon Adebisi is (name removed)

>Still Simon Adebisi seems to have made a good attempt at redressing the balance. I haven't read more than the first few sentences but your stubborness in taking this to its logical elongated conclusion deserves immediate respect if only for its length

Or for his ability to operate cut and paste options.

Q. How many One Day Soons does it take to miss the point of life itself?

I love you though.

In 'The Secret Policeman's Other Ball', just after a 'serious' musical act has finished their performance (Jeff Beck or Sting probably) Jasper Carrott comes on and says, raunchily, 'So ya like music, huh?'. He proceeds to sing 'Hangman, Slacken Your Noose' passionately for a few seconds before miming being hanged by the neck.

Anybody getting close yet?

>>Still Simon Adebisi seems to have made a good attempt at redressing the balance. I haven't read more than the first few sentences but your stubborness in taking this to its logical elongated conclusion deserves immediate respect if only for its length
>
>Or for his ability to operate cut and paste options.
>
>Q. How many One Day Soons does it take to miss the point of life itself?
>
>I love you though.

Do you? I'm touched.

SOTCAA may be responsible for the parlous state of comedy today cos me and at least two other scriptwriters I know spend far too much time reading and contributing to the forum when we should be finishing the bloody scripts we're writing. Shame Dave Gorman and the Boosh don't contribute to it.

>SOTCAA may be responsible for the parlous state of comedy today cos me and at least two other scriptwriters I know spend far too much time reading and contributing to the forum when we should be finishing the bloody scripts we're writing. Shame Dave Gorman and the Boosh don't contribute to it.

Yes! At last, the secret! I blame them too for my lack of drive and focus! Down with SOTCAA!