“EDIT NEWS: Two years of loving, painstaking research has yielded this comprehensive document - a guide to producer-politics and general edit-interference in the comedy we watch. Trainspotting-as-burlesque. And what's more, we're proud of it.”

Rightly so. This is what is so good about your site. You should be proud as anything that has effort put into it, yes even that limp home – made card you got off cousin Trevor is worthwhile if someone puts their heart and soul into it.

“COMMENT: A boat-rocking exposé of the contemporary comedy scene and its produce. A no-holds-barred dissection of Time Out tedium and party-line received opinions. Criticism at grass-roots level.”

Hmmm. Not so convinced, but, as has been widely pointed out on both sides of the fence, that is my only my opinion (which I am entitled to without criticism of me, my family or anything I have personally done, as, to be frank, it has nothing to do with my opinion on unrelated issues). However, there is a thin line twixt 'boat rocking expose' and 'people making any old point to generate attention'.

Now came the interesting bit, there was a large chunk of text I couldn't paste to read @ my lei – su – r – e. But, as I am not one for conspiracy theories, I am sure it has nothing to do with people using things easily against you or, worse still, a belief of self – worth that suggests someone may steal your ideas. Anyway, back to the point. This is retyped out, hopefully, with a bit of luck it is as posted previously… here goes…


“Fans? Don't trust 'em either. All to often these creatures are utterly defensive of any kind of criticism, without realising that a questioning audience is what keeps their desired comedians on their guard turning from shite.”

Now, don't get me wrong, but aren't you fans of comedy? Do you not live and breathe it? If you don't, why the hell are you here, and if you do… well, I am sure you can guess the next question. It's a slippery slope and, to be honest, one you can't avoid in this game. I think Hunter Thompson said something about it, something like only 'rates and results can be classed as unbiased reportage'. I am paraphrasing though, so… anyway…

“Some fans affect an air of criticism but this is kept low key to avoid incurring the disinterested wrath of the comedian who might just refuse that all important guest – list place or interview.”

Well, I'm not wary of any words I say. My opinion is just that and, if it upsets one of my 'heroes' that I didn't like his last piece of work, and he takes it out by not giving interviews etc, then, perhaps that guy isn't worth the hassle.
In point of fact anyway, though many of us would like to, very few are afforded the opportunity to meet those who we think are great.

“It's when those fans become recognised as 'journalists' that you need to be wary. Self serving cunts to a man, shimmying up the drainpipe of comedy in a desperate quest for attention, changing their opinions en route to suit their career needs.”

Now I am not being funny here but, did someone proof read this? Come on! BLACK/POTS/KETTLES or STONES/GLASSHOUSES!! Even if this was intended to be a joke, surely you would have tried to avoid it's pit falls and not fallen back in them.

“So, why trust us? Well you don't have to, obviously. It's your life.”

Excellent this. THIS is what it is all about. CHOICE. It's pure, it's simple. This sort of honesty is what the site should be about not…

“Do what you want. But before you log off to add more crap to a league of gentleman site about why you think Reece Sheersmith is the new Michael Palin, bear in mind the following:”

… This. This is just an incendiary piece of journalism intended to piss off someone either generally or specifically.
But, to be honest, it's overshadowed quite amazingly by…

a) We know we're talking about.

Do you really? You know a few comedians, you've done some research, you've laughed (I would hope) at some stuff along the way. But who is to say that you know any more than someone who comes onto here does. Probably no one does have the same depth of knowledge, but, do you really need to shout it, crow? Are your egos so fragile you must justify your existence with this sort of comment? I would've hoped that you were above it. By your knowledge you surely are. You don't need to say 'I know comedy better than you' any more than a pilot need say 'I know how to fly better than you' or a chef 'I know how to cook more dishes'. It's a pointless and somewhat shameless exercise in boosting your esteem. You should do that on your own time really and not lay it on people who are after information or ideas or just plain comment.

b) We represent no organisation, agency or comedian.

Well, you do. You represent 'SOTCAA' plc. But, you do have serious tie – ins with Avalon, what with the comedians you know most intimately.

c) We're not doing it in a vain attempt to acquire power within the industry.

Well then, what is the point? I thought that, everything else aside, you were using this as a platform to change comedy. So you're gonna do that WITHOUT any power in the industry. The question 'how' must surely be raised.

d) We're not getting paid for this.

Nope. Fair point, fairest of the lot. To be honest, this is the one that matters.


“…visit our forum and clog it up with accusations of being 'bitter, failed comedy writers'.”

A glimpse of humility again, perhaps all is not lost. Maybe though, if you don't like (not that I am saying it should bother you) being called bitter / failed etc, you should look and see why people think it. Then, it's up to you if you change, not your outlook, but your approach.

I hope you see that this isn't a slight at you, nor what you stand for. It's good and right to have strong beliefs. However, there are ways and means of putting over beliefs. This is not to say anyone should pussy foot. No no no. I am not even saying being tactful. All I would suggest is look at other peoples opinions and do not shoot them down purely as they are not your own and by appearing on the thicker end of arrogant.

Hey, do you love comedy? No, do you really love comedy? Well, for a start, don't listen to us. It's your choice, not anyone else's.'

Dan, the chances are if that was the opening, many people wouldn't look at the page. The opening of SOTCAA immediatly indetifies what audiences they are looking for - a meaingless statement like the one above would either turn an audience off, or make them treat the page as a joke. "Don't listen to us - What the fuck is the point of that then?". You obviously think you know about comedy, so you are the person they want. Hence the introduction.

But it doesn't come away like that. I know a lot of people have been turned off of these pages not by the opinion but the way it is presented.
I did say it's not a better 'wordy' way of saying it, but, it's a better attitude to maintain. That is all. No spite, just, as i said, opinion.

Further, i think it shows an element of humanity in a reviewer if they say 'for fuck's sake don't take my damaged word for it, go forth and look for yourself and make your own mind up. it's your fucking mind, you make it up!'
Again, it's a personal thing.

It is not an easy site to read. You find certain opinions challenged (not just by the Corpses, by other forum users too), and it is not designed for everyone. Round about once a week (on average) someone turns up on the forum and says "This site is arrogant/boring/annoying" and pisses off again. Sometimes it's number three, every now and again it's number one. But it's almost never number two.

The reason I like this forum is that the Corpses have worked hard on it. Bloody hard. It took me almost a whole weekend round about the end of March to get through the whole thing (once I started, I couldn't stop reading). I think we should forgive them a little trumpet-blowing on the title page, don't you?

Arrogance: something they've been accused of a lot (once or twice I've levelled the charge, I must admit). But look at any website - look at that wretched BBC site, it genuinely is the nemesis of this one. Its BBC Talent section all but made me gag. Is this the sort of thing you'd prefer, Dan? Basically adverts for a competition that will result (almost certainly) in nothing more than second-rate League Of Gentlemen, or identikit Theakstons. Not even the competitors' fault - it's the BBC's. They are actually pretending that they are going to encourage young writers and performers - shit scared that all their biggest draws have fucked off to commercial or satellite telly, more like. They own full copyright on all 5000 entries they've received for their sitcom writing competition (I read the rules very carefully, which is why I didn't enter).

Now you may say, "But this site is so cynical, so negative". Well:

1) For the most part, I don't think it is. Some of it I strongly disagree with (didn't think that transcript was all funny, to be honest, but there you go. Clever and convincing, though.), but that is not the same thing. (For what it's worth, I disagree with them on some of the things they really like too - I personally didn't think Mary Whitehouse Experience on the radio wasn't all that strong, but hey! so what? I thought their article on the series was astoundingly well-researched.)

2) To some extent, Dan, you are using this website to publicise your own. Every now and again, you return to be annoyed by something the Corpses have written about you, and then you insist you do the site just for your own entertainment. Fair enough - except that means parades of us dutifully visit Gusset Weekly to see if it's any cop. (I did, and it was ok, I suppose - nothing special, but I've seen worse.) The Corpses are no more self-important than you, for the most part. Or me (otherwise I wouldn't be writing this response in the first place).

I don't believe they're doing this to further their careers. How can they, in a way? It's hardly got mass appeal, has it? That's why they write that statement on the title page. Disagree with it, get angry with it, but they are being honest.

And I do think they know what they're talking about. (But so do many of the forum users too.)

Sorry, I meant it took me a whole weekend to get through the site. Not the forum. I'm not *that* slow a reader.

. They own full copyright on all 5000 entries they've received for their sitcom writing competition (I read the rules very carefully, which is why I didn't enter).

Actually we got our copyright back now - its just the winners they keep. The big bastards, my script was the best etc.etc.

>. They own full copyright on all 5000 entries they've received for their sitcom writing competition (I read the rules very carefully, which is why I didn't enter).
>
>Actually we got our copyright back now - its just the winners they keep.

Fair enough. Although...still a little worrying, that.

The big bastards, my script was the best etc.etc.

Do you mind me asking what they said in their reply? (Probably not much - I once got a sitcom competition entry returned six months late from Channel 4 with an apology saying that it had been read (yeah, right), but had unfortunately been filed in the wrong place! Cheers.)

If i can get the letter back, i could give you an explanation... but it was something like "hard luck you didn't get through. However keep going" or words to that affect. It didn't say anything critical, so i've no idea why we didn't qualify. But i suppose tp tell someone how to imporve their work would have been to much effort.(i blame it on the other people i worked with - everything i did was fine...)

I don't think I've ever had something rejected with a decent explanation of why they didn't want it ("er, because it was crap"- walked into that one didn't I? - probably why I've not sent anything off in ages.

i was warned off the BBC site and comp. almost as soon as it sprung up. The sitcom we were toying with wasn't pushed forward for the same reason.. if they own the copyright, they've got you by the balls.

For the other comments, i think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some points J.
I don't think you can say that it's not a negative and cynical site. It is, or at least, the comments i have read show that all too clearly...

And i do'nt want a site with no teeth or balls... but you dont' have to insult / hit base level to do that, especially not on a comedy justice site... you'd have thought with the vast experience the corpses have on comedy they would've thought up a more clever way of setting up humour etc. There is a lot of chest beating 80s humour, whether it's said in an ironic way is debatable, but it's still there, i.e. 'you're all cunts' etc...
The language, to be honest, is another thing that grates me. Swearing is perhaps the most powerful tool in your kit, but only if you limit it down. Here it's overly used, one of the things that makes it appear more like a 'kids site' than something more mentally adult.
My points are probably picky ones, ones that i look for in comedy and apply here, and i will be crucified probably by every tom, dick and peter for my views, those who question other peoples views and not the way they place it forward.
Finally, i use this as advertising? hmm. i don't think so not with the level of critique on dispaly here, the corpses jobs being very safe on that front. 'fucking atrocity' and 'shitshitshit' being a little too 'vague and pathetic' for my liking. You alsmo compared the two sites which i think is a little unfair. you compare a site written for a small audience to test our wings with a site designed to 'change comedy'. i enjoy what i do, i write things that make me, my friends and our target audience laugh. The one thing that annoys me with it is that people who could so easily try it themselves would rather sit on their arses and call my stuff shit. who knows if i, my writing partners or the critic themselves has the potential sitcom of a decade in them? the sort of policy used by some posters and, to a lesser extent, the corpses, would stifle this drive on the basis of slagging off new talent who are still learning their trade.
And that is a little sad.

Dan Dan Dan Dan...

Al Al Al Al Al...?

>Al Al Al Al Al...?

No - doesn't work. Although Jon has fit my name into the theme from 'The Dam Busters'.

Dan Dan Dan Dan...

i prefer Dan D-Dan Dan, Dan D-Dan Dan, Daaaan

a la Dragnet, much cooler...

you should know these things... important american media milestone that...!

"I decided maybe it was me. I was in the wrong and, as they had all said, they were in the right."

Dan! If only you'd held to that original insight all this could be over between us!

And let you lose out on possibly the only intelligent conversation you receive..? i couldn't live with that on my conscience, i honestly couldn't... ;)

Sounds like the ideal arrangement then!

you still here? i thought you had fallen prey to a giant lizard... wishful thinking... a mere dream combined with too much godzilla when i get up in the morning...

Oh, and you were getting on so well until your hatred for pete showed up.

i see my hatred of pete as a massive plus point; a dedication or personifcation, if you will, of my acts of kindness to humanity

He doesn't care about you, why should you care about him?

i don't care about him other than the fact he's delusional. one minute he's my best mate, the nex the's trying to slag me off... i just find him curious... like Victorians did with the elephant man or anything at barnum's...

Then stop being a gawper.

Blimey - how dull is this?

Then stop being a gawper? WTF?
You see, this is what i don't like about this site, i made my points and they've been swamped by the idiotic slagging again.
Anyway... back to the drawing board..

>Then stop being a gawper? WTF?
>You see, this is what i don't like about this site, i made my points and they've been swamped by the idiotic slagging again.
>Anyway... back to the drawing board..

Idiotic slagging or witty remark? You be the judge...

Well, i see some of them, interestingly, not yours.. nor justin's, Pj's, subbes.... the people that piss me off are those who come on here trying to be funny when quite clearly they're not, or at least it's not well thought out.. maybe it's a frustrationof the fact that they have tlaent but aren't fulfilling it... i don't know...

i would say a witty response is one that highlights a flaw in clver, comical possibly twisted way... what isn't witty is talking bollocks...

i am therefore not witty.

See, that's why a red name is so much more worthwhile. Of course, I just asked Rob to delete my red name...

Anyway. Dan, you don't have to be the critic all the time. Why not post in a topic when you agree with what they're saying? that way you don't come across as a whining comedy slag.

Most of my time is spent writing myself... if i agree with something very strongly, i will post... thing is, i've not seen any one that i have agreed with that strongly. My time is limited, believe it or not... mostly i am either researching or collating online, so i concentrate on issues i feel strongly about... normally negatively, but then, you can't exactly protest about something that's really good... it's a negative thing, but then i think it's a reflection of society than on me... look at the majority of posintgs, most will be negative...

your time is limited, so you trawl the forum looking for mentions of yourself...


....oh, you're so well adjusted, it hurts.

Nope. i spend my time i do have coming on here to see if anyone has anything worthwhile to say.
i am still waiting.
i have no desire to see my name in lights.. if i did, i'd have taken up the offers of acting i've been given before and always turned down. i like writing and, on Gusset we are 'characters' anyway..
anyway, if i did want fame.. wtf would i be doing posting on here? I could just as easy mail into PoV or somesuch...

>Nope. i spend my time i do have coming on here to see if anyone has anything worthwhile to say.
>i am still waiting.

If only more people in the comedy world had such (cough) "high" standards....

>i have no desire to see my name in lights.. if i did, i'd have taken up the offers of acting i've been given before and always turned down.

I agree: school plays are completely overrated. (Joke, OK?)

i like writing and, on Gusset we are 'characters' anyway..

Glad you got the plug in, there.

that wasn't an advert... it's not good telling people about GUSSET WEEKLY as many people have heard about it already... probably to it's detriment...
but the thing with GUSSET WEEKLY, which offers TOMORROW'S NEWS TODAY, that wasn't stated was the ADDRESS, which is http://WWW.GUSSETWEEKLY.CO.UK
Like i have just said i apologise if you think my last message was an ad for GUSSET WEEKLY. it was never my intention to advertise GUSSET WEEKLY on this forum at any stage and particularly not this thread.
please accept my apologies for menitioning GUSSET WEEKLY in my last posting. Sorry.

What's all this about a 'gasbag meekly then'?

You'd better be careful there, Dan, i almost laughed at that last posting - and you don't want people doing that, do you...?

Nope.. they might find me *FUNNY*... ah, well... i suppose i could be ultra miserable to counteract it... and then i had better slag someone off and laugh at how funny i am... hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahhahaahahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaah *cough* fuck... where did that come from?

gasbag meekly is an amazng read by the way... check out the sports section...