Er, where did the "Test Thread" go? Curiouser and curiouser...

Fantastic!

Yes, I was curious about that too. Perhaps we just imagined it.

Didn't Rob S say: "Oh, bugger!"

It must've taken ages to put together. A constructive use of time? (Yes I'm aware of the hypocracy in that...)

>Er, where did the "Test Thread" go? Curiouser and curiouser...

The forum just got corrupted (the post.cgi file was halfwiped) - test thread was me trying to fix quickly from a very old backup, hence the fault page that was up briefly.

>It must've taken ages to put together. A constructive use of time?

I was highly impressed.
IMHO it was time well spent!

Speak for yourself, Rob, I've been corrupted for aaaaaages.

Very funny, best thing yet.

I can't hear the words on my PC. Is there a transcript availa... no, never mind...

Having not seen TGP, it is somewhat lost on me.

blimey. how crap, juvenile, unsubtle, shit, unconstructive and arrogant can you be? there's nothing worse than people who used to have opinions going up their own arses and then have people tell them they're funny.

>blimey. how crap, juvenile, unsubtle, shit, unconstructive and arrogant can you be? there's nothing worse than people who used to have opinions going up their own arses and then have people tell them they're funny.

Did you mean to post that in 'TGP strand #94'?

>blimey. how crap, juvenile, unsubtle, shit, unconstructive and arrogant can you be?

The 11 *'***** ****???

> there's nothing worse than people who used to have opinions going up their own arses and then have people tell them they're funny.

Yes, but it *was* funny.

Who were those mods in the background? Is it an in-joke? Are they the Brass List?

Squidy:

If you were taking the piss, then I apologise for stating the obvious.

If you weren't though:

It's The Who, in whose film "Quadrophenia" Phil Daniels appeared.

lol. The Who were in the background? That's hilarious. I thought it was spot on. Did Rob S do any of the voices?

Sorry to be so out of touch - I haven't seen TGP as I refuse to subsidise Murdoch's Evil Galactic Empire - who's the one who says "I ought to know better at my age" meant to be? I recognised the Who in-joke of course, but then I would.

I couldn't get the sound for the animation at all, but, for the benefit of those of you who haven't seen it, the characters are:

The Pub Landlord (Al Murray),
Terry (Phil Daniels, appeared with Who),
Jason Freeman (Steve the barman),
Janet (Julia Sawalha),
Ms Jackson, from the brewery (Rebecca Front),
Old Cockney Bloke (God knows),
Postman (Richard Herring, here pictured in "I love Murdoch" T-shirt")

I mean, if you haven't seen the TV show.

>Old Cockney Bloke (God knows),

Roy Heather AKA Sid from OFAH

Bravo Corpses, can't wait for the second half, remember he needs to get the 'I was never confused' line in at least 10 times an episode. And Terry needs to mispronounce a word resulting in a hilarious sexual innuendo, then Jason Freeman needs to say 'Skellington and Frankingstien' a few times. And there wasn't enough lazy racisism comedy in it, at the end you should have Al Murray disappearing into a large vortex of money and offering out his shit stained hand to Herring who grasps hold of it and gets pulled down with him, with a look of glazed over ecstacy on his face.

Well done Corpses I think someone's finally managed to float Steven's boat. Haven't seen him so exhilerated in ages!

It's funny if you remember the thread and the argument. It may be rather juvenile but nevertheless it's still an amusing piece of satire.

I was referring to Charlotte G's comments but I forgot to mention it. Silly me.

Gee


>blimey. how crap, juvenile, unsubtle, shit, unconstructive and arrogant can you be? there's nothing worse than people who used to have opinions going up their own arses and then have people tell them they're funny.

I do love Murdoch, in that he seems to the only broadcaster who will put my stuff on telly and "he" lets me do whatever I want on his channel and doesn't interfere.
He's the best boss I've worked for (including Lionel Cosgrave).

Neither Al or myself is doing this show for money. we're doing it to create the best show we can. I've always worked that way except for when I wrote for Stab in the Dark.

Unfortunately missed the cartoon. Why don't you put it up on the Lee and Herring pages?

I take it the corpses haven't been won round to the series

there is nothing there, what kind of sick joke is this adddress. grr.

Seems to work for me... you got the new version of the flash plug in installed?

Sadly I can't comment as I've never seen TGP, being stuck with 4 channels. I know people who do like it though, and they're usually pretty good in the taste stakes... still, nobody's perfect.

>I do love Murdoch

a-Ha! So that's the secret.

I seem to remember that Al Murray, in the middle of hurling half-formed attacks on my interest in comedy, mentioned something about The Corpses liking TGP.

I take it he may have been being a bit liberal with the truth?

Or being sarcastic

Hurrah!
Much funnier than the actual show.

I'm a tad disappointed.

A parody of TGP without Phil Daniels farting.

Tsk.

Wonderfully funny. Don't agree with what it's saying, but wonderfully funny.

Satire lives. (and cliches bear sons)

I thought it was lazy and pointless. I expect better from the corpses. Calling something, and I quote, "shit" does not good satire make.

>I thought it was lazy and pointless. I expect better from the corpses. Calling something, and I quote, "shit" does not good satire make.

It was funny though.

Bring back Week Ending. ("Two Cheers for November" for international listeners who miss that twee World Service tune played out on the hour)


"Blimey The Wife"

All very competent so far as design, animation and timing go, but the actual content's a bit MAD-Magazine-with-an-axe-to-grind, isn't it?

Perhaps if the corpses put this amount of effort into producing some wholly original material of their own, instead of lamely 'satirising' the work of others (i.e. churning out "reference comedy" of the crummiest order), they'd have come up with something worth the protracted download time.

They don't even seem to have a point to make, beyond "we don't like Al Murray" and "hey look everybody, aren't we clever?"

Still, it's all good technical practice for the day they create something original and worthwhile. Till then, they'll remain a pair of smug lazy, not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are stinky lolloping outcast fanboy cunts who deserve to have their fingers snapped off and stuffed bone-first into their tearducts.

Only my opinion. And of course I'm just an animated rooster.

We all know who you are Foghorn.

The download time is nothing compared to the lengths you'll go to to produce excrement.

Who is he then? I bet you all know. Why am I always the last to get told anything?

I'm always the last to know.

I thought it was quite amusing, and very well executed. But Foghorn's right about it being too axe-grindy and clever-clever.

I mean, really, what's the point? Anyone?

>I thought it was quite amusing, and very well executed. But Foghorn's right about it being too axe-grindy and clever-clever.
>
>I mean, really, what's the point? Anyone?

"What's the point?"

Presumably you're quoting directly from The Times Mr Brooker?

Not sure what you mean by that. But it *was* meant to be accompanied by a kind of world-weary sigh.

Well, it just shows how shallow and 2D the program is, and what more faithfull way of portraying that than with a cartoon?

Why does everyone say SOTCAA is back? I can't see anything but that cartoon, it doesn't mean it's back, but I did find this:

http://www.notbbc.co.uk/corpses/index2.html

Which indicates it might not be long now..

Nice to hear Neil Innes's Elton John spoof again. It's brilliant.

"I thought it was quite amusing, and very well executed. But Foghorn's right about it being too axe-grindy and clever-clever.

I mean, really, what's the point? Anyone?"

Um... www.tvgohome.com

That was me, really.

I haven't heard the words to the TGP parody yet, so I am missing a whole dimension of it.

It's the axe-grindy aspect of TVGH that I like, boat-sheep apart.

It basically goes like this Jon:

Al Murray: "'Ello everyone, I'm the character of Al Murray.."

Julia Sawahla: "Jeez, that reminds me of my last script writers!" Huge Audience Laugh.

Al Murray: "And my character, the character of Al Murray is GAY! That's right, look out for the clues later on.." Starts doing copious sailor signs, Huge Audience Laugh.

Phil Daniels: "Sorry to interrupt, but I've just realised, isn't Time Gentlemen Please complete shit?" Audience Laugh.

Al Murray: "Yes, it is complete shit, but it's marketable shit, isn't it? Yeah! Which explains why our characters are being all post-modern, even though it's only the second episode."

Julia Sawahla: "Post-modern?! Sex-modern more like!" Huge Audience Laugh.

Al Murray: Looks at watch "Ooh, hang on.. I was never confused, It's been a year, You're up to something, Glass of white wine for the lady, phew, got them all in.. Did I mention I was gay?" Huge Audience Laughter.

Old Man: "I'm the old man one!"

Jason Freeman: "And I'm some sort of character as well I think?"

Rabecca Front: "And I really should know better at my age!" Huge Audience Laugh.

Richard Herring: "Hello everyone, hope you're all enjoying the show."

Al Murray: "Blimey! The wife!" Huge Audience Laugh.

>>"I thought it was quite amusing, and very well executed. But Foghorn's right about it being too axe-grindy and clever-clever.

>>I mean, really, what's the point? Anyone?"

>Um... www.tvgohome.com

Ah. Can't really argue with that, actually.

>Why does everyone say SOTCAA is back? I can't see anything but that cartoon, it doesn't mean it's back, but I did find this:
>
>http://www.notbbc.co.uk/corpses/index2.html

Sheee-it, that's even fuggin' scarier than the original!

It's changed again....

Snidey reference to Jon - explanation please

What do you mean?

> It's changed again...

Ah, that'll be http://www.notbbc.co.uk/corpses/index.html you're thinking of. And do they mean *our* Jon?

I've just looked at it.

Yes, I am 'Jon' Norton. Can't see why I got into an item about the Brass List though. I've never seen Brass Eye.

Well now I've finally arrived. I'm the target for some cutting-edge internet satire. It's certainly not "grab a reference" - here, the reference doesn't even mean anything outside their own site (as was). How odd.

So are you admitting you're a lairy internet wanker, then, or not?

Oh, I am.

Fair enough, sounds like a badge of honour to me.

Jon's a fine man.

>Jon's a fine man.

Seconded.

Thirded

Fucked

>Fucked

At this hour?

You _are_ horny today, RHC

Been at the physics revision again, have we?

>Jon's a fine man.

Indeed he is. Explanation please corpses.

We're waiting

They give the impression that they're now just flailing about, looking for targets...

I'm on the Brass List, and almost everyone on the list slags off TVGH, so it seems strange Corpses would label us as sycophants.

>I'm on the Brass List, and almost everyone on the list slags off TVGH, so it seems strange Corpses would label us as sycophants.

as somebody has already pointed out (I don't know which thread, probably the Corpses do...), they aren't. 'Brass List Sycophants' is not the same as 'Brass List'.

The corpses aren't around to answer your 'Jon' requests. (ie they have no net access) you should read anything into the silence

Re: "Brass List Sycophants"

I don't remember anyone on this forum saying that TVGH was anything like Chris Morris' stuff.

There was an article in "Select" that linked TVGH and Jam as examples of a new trend of "dark comedy". But all that seemed to amount to is that neither were like the 11OCS. In other words, it was just some journo making up a pseudo-story out of some press releases.

And anyway, if corpses don't have net access, how do they know what's going on on the brass list?

Aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

OK, I've seen the cartoon now. It's very funny. Brilliant animation - slightly disappointing script (you should have got me to write it for you)
I was interested that you called the show post modern by episode 2 - I don't think it is. The only post modern thing I can think of in the series so far is in episode 15 (as yet unbroadcast) when the Landlord says "nothing can possibly go wrong" and it then immediately doesn't. I rather like the fact that we have a rather trad sit-com, which is more like Carry On than Spaced. And in a good way. We deliberately didn't want to attack the form, cos we have come to realise that it is easy to point out how shit something is (lazy comedy slags etc), but harder to try and do something new.
Also the parody of Janet seems to miss the point. Janet is supposed to be a parody of Denise Van Outen type women who make sexual jokes about everything. So rather like Scary Movie, you are parodying something that is already a parody, apparently without understanding that fact. I agree that J Sawalha does actually make the character very funny and likeable, but that is what is at the heart of the character (in a similar way to the way the Richard Herring character in TMWRNJ etc, was meant to be a bit crap and obsessed with sex and thus annoying)
Yes and Terry should have farted and got a word wrong (neither thing is meant to be intrinsically funny in the show, just meant to demonstrate that alcohol has fucked his brain and body)

But the skill in the drawing and animation is magnificent and you all should really be putting your talents to more constructive use. IN fact Stewart has suggested that we put your animation out on any forthcoming video - but of course you wouldn't want to accept any of Murdoch's evil businessman in his suit and tie money would you fellas?!

In short, please try and get some work as an animator or put together a proposal for someone cos you should be getting your work seen by more than the 23 people who come on this forum. And seriously if you want to sell us the cartoon we would use it. 7/10

Well Mr Herring, this is going to sound nit picky, but I wanted to be an animator since I was little, but gave up trying a few years ago cos you either end up trying to do your own stuff in some sort of independent company where you starve to death of no wages, or you go and work for someone like Disney where you become some fucking boring 'in betweener' animator doing about 10,000 inbetween frames for crappy commercial cartoons. But with all this Flash jiggery pokery it seems people can create independent animated stuff very cheaply and achieve a wide audience on the net, well.. wide-ish.

But the Corpses cartoon doesn't really contain any animation really, it's all just static drawn or scanned pictures applied to polygons being rotated about and moved sideways, certainly very easy and quick to make but not really animation, sort of like those dreadful 11 O Clock Show things with the Windsor Tapestery and William Hague. But the Corpses are good at drawing, and maybe also good at animation if they did it in the more traditional sense, I hope you're winding them up about paying for the cartoon, because that seems ludicrious from the side of both parties.

What you say about Janet being a Denise Van Outen type parody doesn't come across in the show, it just appears as a crap character. This is part of the problem I was trying to address in my own crap way, I'm sure there are lots of clever ideas you have in your head about the show, but in the finished thing nothing of this comes across and just looks crap, wether it is in the performance or you can't get these things across in your actual writing is something for you to guess at. I don't want to get in a big stupid argument about the show again, but seeing more of the show has made me realise more things, I mean I just wanted to call TGP complete crap from the start like the Corpses have in their posts and in their cartoon, but I thought it would be more constructive to try and argue a case with you instead, but obviously I failed.
I might actually come back and write another post later on detailing some things I've noticed, you can just dismiss it as bollocks though if you wish, but I've been trying to dismiss TGP as bollocks too, but keep trying to forive myself for not liking a show that you write.

Do you succeed?

Yes that's great Jon, don't add anything insightful or a proper opinion or anything, instead of writing out a long article of points arguing your case as a fan of the show, just stick one little sentance of supposed sycophantic mirth, very clever.

>Yes that's great Jon, don't add anything insightful or a proper opinion or anything, instead of writing out a long article of points arguing your case as a fan of the show, just stick one little sentance of supposed sycophantic mirth, very clever.

At least he understands that paragraphs make reading easier. You don't seem to have grasped that yet. Please do.

Please point out where I didn't use paragraphs in the last few messages, so I can correct this most heinous of afflictions.

Pointing out stuff about people's grammer/spelling/use of punctuation/ paragraphs etc. is quite lame. The debate is the important thing, I would have thought.

I think TGP is rather poor, but I like Al Murray more all the time (he's the best thing in it).
I agree with what Steven said about the barmaid character; she does just seem crap, and unfunny.

I think the first thing that comes to mind, is Herring referring to the show as getting back at the BBC and showing them you *can* make a commercially succesfull British show 24 episodes long (or there abouts). This shows two things, Richard Herring is trying to make a commercial show, and that he is trying to make a show that is akin to the American format, possibly so he can sell it to America... for money. This is a mistake because you should concentrate on the writing of a show, the quality, rather than what will make it commercial or appealing to foreign buyers, that is if you like good comedy better than money. The 24 episode format also a big stretch, I believe it is brave for Herring and Murray to attempt this, but it is obviously not working, at least for the format they've tried. For instance, the whole point of the Landlord's character is that he is a complete bigot but also a hypocrit and obviously a repressed homosexual. This premise is forcefully lambasted into our faces as early as the first episode, rather than actually attaining a much more funny and long running approach using subtlety. The only time I think I even laughed loudly once throughout the entire series so far was the first episode when the Landlord answered one of the dirty phone calls and exclaims how disgusted he is, but stays on the line because he is getting some kind of perverted repressed joy out of it, this was funny but should have been left until slightly later in the series, not helped by Murray's overacting, but his shouting out spasmodically of "I was never confused!" in the middle of it all I admit was quite funny, but at the time I thought this was just a one off line, little did I know it would be flogged to death 10 times an episode for the rest of the series in the most unfunny situations.

If you are trying to write a series as long as Time Gentlemen Please, you need to make things like this a lot subtler because it has to drag on for so many many episodes, and making it subtle would actually make it a lot funnier in my opinion as well as make it a lot more pleasurable to watch progress as the series runs along. By the second episode you had the Landlord trying to strip in front of a crowd of firemen for Christ sake! Even if the series was the normal 6 episodes I would say this was waaay to early to get so strong, but it's bloody 24 episodes long! Also as well as his 'I was never confused' catchphrase he also has about 10 more unfunny repetative ones, Murray and Herring attributed these lazy catchphrases as, I quote "The Landlord's deep inner torment, his monsters affecting his mind." but this is ludicrous, they are obviously catchphrases based around cheap laughs, everytime homosexuality is mentioned the Landlord has to shout out "I was never confused!", everytime sex is mentioned "It's been a year." etc etc, and Murray overacts the part in such an incredibly over the top manner that the whole show just appears like a cheap Pantomime, the incredibly two dimensional characters parading around the stage shouting their various catchphrases at every opportunity and the audience cheering back. I doubt someone mentioning his wife as he then goes ballistic with screaming while pulling stupid faces and shouting "My wife! My wife! The Whore!" could really be classed as 'A deep inner torment' and not a cheap laugh.

Also another thing is, it appears as if TGP is mainly being played for the studio audience. Most people who have seen the show filmed live seem to have quite positive experiences, and I don't doubt this, but they often come back saying the actual bits inbetween filming were much funnier than the actual show, and doesn't this just completely destroy the point? Creating those little cathphrases like 'Fact Hunt' are probably a fun little game for the performers to play with the audience in between takes, but using it as the main joke in various shows just seems pointless, as well as then trying to follow it up with more of the same with 'Fact Hunt II - Big Hunt'. None of this audience aimed stuff transfers to the TV show and just makes already awkward material seem even more static and out of place, as well as some of the editing where you cut from something happening upstairs and relating it to something that is going on in the pub area are corollated badly and destroy the humour. When the boiler explodes upstairs and it cuts to Phil Daniels downstairs against the Fact Hunt machine saying something like "That must of been one hell of a build up.." as a punchline, does not work for me, I just see the cast sitting at the side of the set and someone explaining the studio audience what Phil is about to do and how it relates to the plot, and then Phil Daniels leaning against the wall and saying his line awkwardly and the audience laughing nervously and then ending the take. I have no idea how the show is filmed or anything like that, but the editing and performances makes it very awkward and makes me sit and assume these things instead of actually laughing at the jokes which is a big problem.

Another giant problem is

Another giant problem is that I am a big fan of Richard Herring's work, and tuned into TGP expecting a good laugh, after his much baited defending of it as 'the best thing I've ever written' to the Corpses. So I am in his prime audience group, someone who likes Richard Herring's work, who makes it his business to tune into the show and expects it to be good, and as you can see this is not what happened. How much harder is it going to be for you to appeal to people who will just watch a bit of the show by chance, which is what you should really want your aims to be, not base it around the few hundred fans of yours that trekked to the studio to see it being filmed, they don't have to be won over. Someone who has never heard of you or the show will be probably be a lot less likely to like the show at all, nevermind just from watching a small bit of it then discarding it. I'm a big fan of your work and I hate the show, but I keep watching just because you write it, and I want to see if it will get better at any point. I still think the best episode was episode 1, which wasn't very funny, but at least the show was fresh and could see the potential of certain things could appreciate jokes as one-offs, before I knew they would be used again and again and again. Actually one of the few jokes I could of actually seen you getting some mileage out of was the dirty phone calls one, which could of ran for quite a long time, if it was more subtle of course, but this was scrapped in the first episode.

Again, I enjoyed the first episode more because I could see a lot of ideas, or potentials that you could of carried on further in the series, but all of these were either not fulfilled or were just done badly. I do see a lot of ideas under all that cheese in the show that could of been very funny, but I don't know, were just eliminated totally in the format of the show. I have to come back to the repressed nature of the Landlord, as this is probably the main joke of the entire character and series, he should of been totally unaware of his homosexuality, and none of the other characters should bring up this subject to him, the immense humour you could of derived from this joke could have ran for the whole series and been very funny, but it was basically all ruined in episode one, and is not helped further by the obvious and copious gay references and 'Never confused!' remarks as well as 15 year old kids all shouting "Gaylord" to his face. Then there is the fact of the other characters falling into the same predicament, as you said with Janet being a Carry On style cheap sexual innuendo stereotype, maybe this was funny in conception but this does not come across in the series and simply looks like a badly written character. Same thing with Terry, just looks like some 2d puppet always there ready to spurt out some sexual innuendo or a fart to keep the script going. Many of the other characters also don't seem to have a point, just seem to be there for the Landlord or Janet to bounce their opinions off, Steve and the Prof just seems like someone just there to fill up a bit of dialogue between the Lanlord. And the Old Man just seems to have no point, and basically just stands there saying "I'm an Old Man..". You've tried to stir things back up a bit with the Greg Thompson character, trying to introduce some competativeness into the Landlord, but this doesn't really happen and he just seems to be there to provide some more 'clever' one liners for Janet involving tits. So all together it just seems like sort of like mediocre banter in between jokes for most of the show, but this banter is supposed to *be* the jokes apparently, and it just seems like filler space to me, and the entire show just seems slow and awkward, I think there are many missed opportunities.

I think far from persuading the BBC that American format shows can be made in Britain, this show is going to be seen as a warning that they can't. And the BBC will probably keep enforcing their 6 or 7 episode a series limit, which I think is fine, I would much rather have 6 well written strong episodes of a show than 14 Ok ones, or 24 weak ones. I realise this is hard work to write for Herring and Murray, but they let themselves in for it, and they were the ones who enforced this idea and the format, but I would think we would have at least a normal run of 5-6 funny episodes then a lot of unfunny ones, or maybe ending the series with a batch of strong episodes, but so far it has been quite weak throughout. And it might be more constructive if Herring and Murray listen to the points rather than picking at choice bits that they can twist the meaning of to fit their answer, or dismiss the entire argument simply because they don't agree with just one tiny certain point ala Steve Crosby is Richard Herring. This is my argument, make of it what you will, I hope there are at least some people that agree with me, as it was fairly one sided in the previous thread with everyone against me including obviously Murray and Herring. I am only really writing this because of the absence of a Corpse writt

I am only really writing this because of the absence of a Corpse written argument about the show, as amusing at the TGP cartoon was I think it would of been a lot better for them to of written a proper thought out argument, rather than just saying "Yes, Time Gentlemen Please is completely shit!", but they didn't, so I am putting forward mine, hopefully until they pull their thumb out and write something better than this.


..Told you it was long!

But why should it have to be subtle?

You argue that some character traits should have been left until later on in the series before they are revealed. I would argue that most comedy series introduce the characters very early on.

I think you have to accept, Steven, that, whatever motivations Herring and Murray had for writing TGP were their own, and because the series doesn't fit in with your own personal tastes, you really should not keep trying to tell them how they *should* have written it.

This will only ever be a circular argument.

Steven...

"I have no idea how the show is filmed or anything like that, but the editing and performances makes it very awkward and makes me sit and assume these things instead of actually laughing at the jokes which is a big problem."

Christ almighty, that problem arises with all TV comedy. Ever wondered why the audience laugh at the right moment in a panning shot, even though they must be able to see what's there already? I have, and then just forgot about it.

I don't think TGP is a classic or anything, a lot of it has been ropey but there have been some good bits and the last ep was the best so far. But you seem to be judging the show by standards that no one could ever reach. Cut them a bit of slack. And stop going on about the UK/US sitcom issue. It's not relevant, it's got more to do with the set-up of US TV.

Steven. You're already made your views very clear. I don't agree with you. I think we're doing a good job. So please save yourself the time and don't watch the show
The way the boiler explosion worked is that we did the bit in the bedroom set and then cut to Phil on the pub set (immediately) and he said his line and thus it made perfect sense to the studio audience as well as the people at home, without explanation.
I think the Fact Hunt joke works for the Tv audience. We don't do anything different to with the audience.
How do you know that we haven't saved character nuances for later in the series. YOu haven'tseen the rest of the series yet. I think it was important to establish the LL's homosexuality very early or people would have taken him the wrong way.
And I'm not writing the series to get back at the BBC. I think they were foolish to turn it down. But as I have repeatedly said I am trying to create the best comedy show I can. I think I'm doing OK. You don't. So there we go.
But enough. I think I'm going to stop visiting this forum cos I don't think I'm really being helpful to anyone including myself and I should just let you all get on with it.
But thanks for all the fun along the way.

But some of us never slated TGP...

Yeah that's great Richard, just blackmail to never visit the forum again, that's really showed me not to have an opinion. And all you lot go on about why should my opinion be how the show should of been done, yet you're all drawn to the SOTCAA site to lovingly read articles all detailing the same thing about tons of other shows. Richard Herring doesn't like a long argument with (what I think were) many valid points, yet he can easily accept a nice sarcastic cartoon calling TGP complete shit and having him wear a Murdoch T Shirt.

Anyway I will not bring up the subject again unless someone else does, and it would be a shame for Herring to leave the forum because I'm sure I'm not the only one to enjoy is presence here, but threatening to leave just because I write an argument against your show is silly. If the Corpses were still here there would be a giant article ripping the piss out of the show I bet, yet I doubt you would threaten such things if it was written by the Corpses.. cos you know them. Most critics in future won't be your mates Mr Herring and won't act as such, and yeah most of what they say can be utter crap, but they do make quite valid points sometimes wether you agree with them or not.

Didn't sound like he was "threatening" to leave... he's probably just getting a bit fed up with constantly being told how he should be doing his job, getting involved in lengthy counter-productive arguments. He's been nothing but honest and polite to everyone IMHO, and if he wants to concentrate more on writing scripts than posting here, he's got every right to do so.

>I think it was important to establish the LL's homosexuality very early or people would have taken him the wrong way.


Cheeky!

>Didn't sound like he was "threatening" to leave... he's probably just getting a bit fed up with constantly being told how he should be doing his job, getting involved in lengthy counter-productive arguments. He's been nothing but honest and polite to everyone IMHO, and if he wants to concentrate more on writing scripts than posting here, he's got every right to do so.
>

I agree with Quimby, Richard can do what he likes. Most of these arguments are repetitive and circular and it is disappointing that so many of them these days are ending in abuse. And yes I'm guilty of that to an extent also. It is a shame as this forum used to be a lot more enjoyable and it is a shame that Richard is so annoyed with it that he doesn't intend to visit again as his opinions as a profesional comedy writer were interesting, whether you agree with them or not.

And I'm getting very sick of the phrase "it was better on the radio" and all its variations.

>And I'm getting very sick of the phrase "it was better on the radio" and all its variations.



Aaaaaaaaaah, poor ickle baby.

Don't leap to SOTCAA's defence all the time then, because it was they who started using it as a reference to Justin and TJ.

>>And I'm getting very sick of the phrase "it was better on the radio" and all its variations.
>
>Aaaaaaaaaah, poor ickle baby.
>
>Don't leap to SOTCAA's defence all the time then, because it was they who started using it as a reference to Justin and TJ.

This is the problem! We're forming factions and starting to get bitchy. It is very unfortunate.

You may be interested to know that I don't think the TGP send-up is SOTCAA's best work. Although I reject the notion that it was a waste of time. I think it's perfectly valid. As valid as Justin's or TJ's or your opinions, whatever they might be.

>We're forming factions and starting to get bitchy. It is very unfortunate.

Yes, but it's because some of us are right and some of us are wrong.

>>We're forming factions and starting to get bitchy. It is very unfortunate.
>
>Yes, but it's because some of us are right and some of us are wrong.

Presumably you think you're right and I'm wrong. Whereas I think that I'm right and you're ignoring the real points I'm making and focusing instead on ways to get at me. I'm not quite sure why, but I'd be fascinated to find out.

Bean, you've been a right cunt over the last few days (quite out of character and seemingly out of the blue). So when someone starts having a go you shouldn't really be surprised.

>Bean, you've been a right cunt over the last few days (quite out of character and seemingly out of the blue). So when someone starts having a go you shouldn't really be surprised.

What specifically are you refering to?

>Been at the physics revision again, have we?

No just watching Boothby, again, and again, and again, and again...

>What specifically are you refering to?


OK, my last post was perhaps a little...glib ("I can think of a better word" - Everyone). I was refering to your sniffy "What most of you fail to understand" comments in the "Corpses do TVGH" thread, and your finger-wagging about "it was better on the radio" (yes, I'm bored with it too, but it's just a bit of fun which can co-exist quite happily with the more serious debate on this forum). I don't want a fight, it's just that this sort of high-horsiness (that IS a word) isn't like you, at least I've never seen it in your postings before. I'm worried about you, that's all. (OK, OK, so calling you a cunt isn't the best way to express that. Sorry.)

Btw, do you also post as 'The Bean' or is that someone else?

I used to wonder how 'Best Local TV Programmes' got so many postings. Now I know it's because the ident gang, who are without question the most persecuted faction on the forum, have avoided all of this silly crying over people daring to have a different opinion to them, and just got on with discussing things.

"Most persecuted faction"??

*How* are they persecuted? Are you one of them? If you are, why do you feel "persecuted"? If not, why do you think you can speak for them?

>>What specifically are you refering to?
>
>
>OK, my last post was perhaps a little...glib ("I can think of a better word" - Everyone). I was refering to your sniffy "What most of you fail to understand" comments in the "Corpses do TVGH" thread, and your finger-wagging about "it was better on the radio" (yes, I'm bored with it too, but it's just a bit of fun which can co-exist quite happily with the more serious debate on this forum). I don't want a fight, it's just that this sort of high-horsiness (that IS a word) isn't like you, at least I've never seen it in your postings before. I'm worried about you, that's all. (OK, OK, so calling you a cunt isn't the best way to express that. Sorry.)
>
>Btw, do you also post as 'The Bean' or is that someone else?
>

'The Bean' is not the same person that is 'Bean Is A Carrot'. I know this because I am the person that is 'The Bean'.

>>>What specifically are you refering to?
>>
>>OK, my last post was perhaps a little...glib ("I can think of a better word" - Everyone). I was refering to your sniffy "What most of you fail to understand" comments in the "Corpses do TVGH" thread, and your finger-wagging about "it was better on the radio" (yes, I'm bored with it too, but it's just a bit of fun which can co-exist quite happily with the more serious debate on this forum). I don't want a fight, it's just that this sort of high-horsiness (that IS a word) isn't like you, at least I've never seen it in your postings before. I'm worried about you, that's all. (OK, OK, so calling you a cunt isn't the best way to express that. Sorry.)
>>
>>Btw, do you also post as 'The Bean' or is that someone else?
>
>'The Bean' is not the same person that is 'Bean Is A Carrot'. I know this because I am the person that is 'The Bean'.

And I am the person that is Bean Is A Carrot.

Ewar, re me being a cunt and my opinions re TVGH. I think The Corpses have a point. The first time I saw TVGH I had a good laugh. But every week it is very much the same and it's getting boring. I think The Corpses were pointing out fairly effectively how repetitive the whole thing is. If I expressed this opinion in a pompous way I'm sorry, I just felt that people were missing the point of the parody a bit.

I don't think calling someone a cunt is a particularly great way to make your point, as The Corpses did, but given that the author of TVGH uses that word a lot, I feel it was appropriate.

Re TVGH appearing in sanitised form in FHM or whatever isn't a problem for me (FHM's a load of crap IMHO anyway), except that again, it's repetitious. For me it's a quality issue. A great many comedians (the Fast Show in particular) should have said "yes that was funny the first time, but let's not do it again unless it remains funny and doesn't become a stupid catchphrase and nothing else".

>A great many comedians (the Fast Show in particular) should have said "yes that was funny the first time, but let's not do it again unless it remains funny and doesn't become a stupid catchphrase and nothing else".


If you've failed to grasp that 'stupid catchphrases' were the raisons d'etre of The Fast Show, one has to wonder whether you've got the point of anything at all.

>>A great many comedians (the Fast Show in particular) should have said "yes that was funny the first time, but let's not do it again unless it remains funny and doesn't become a stupid catchphrase and nothing else".
>
>If you've failed to grasp that 'stupid catchphrases' were the raisons d'etre of The Fast Show, one has to wonder whether you've got the point of anything at all.

Mr Finger: I may have used the words "should have" but nevertheless the above statement was AN OPINION, something you failed to get the point of.

I realise The Fast Show was about catchphrases, but I didn't think they were funny after their 2nd or 3rd outing and I don't think repetition of that nature is a good idea in comedy as things get boring. That was my point.

>I realise The Fast Show was about catchphrases, but I didn't think they were funny after their 2nd or 3rd outing and I don't think repetition of that nature is a good idea in comedy as things get boring. That was my point.

Fair enough, but you seemed to imply that it was repetition per se that was the problem, and that Whitehouse etc were unaware of that repetition. The Fast Show was designed *around* repetition, and in fact required to make any sense. I agree that by the end it was getting stale, but that was due to inertia rather than repetition.

>>I realise The Fast Show was about catchphrases, but I didn't think they were funny after their 2nd or 3rd outing and I don't think repetition of that nature is a good idea in comedy as things get boring. That was my point.
>
>Fair enough, but you seemed to imply that it was repetition per se that was the problem, and that Whitehouse etc were unaware of that repetition. The Fast Show was designed *around* repetition, and in fact required to make any sense. I agree that by the end it was getting stale, but that was due to inertia rather than repetition.

Yes, inertia as well. But perhaps that occured because they'd run out of good ways in which to use their catchphrases and be repetitious.

>But enough. I think I'm going to stop visiting this forum cos I don't think I'm really being helpful to anyone including myself and I should just let you all get on with it.

Has Richard Herring really gone?



Phew 'Time Gentlemen Please' really IS complete shit isn't it?

btw Steven I am one of the few who enjoys every single word of your prolongued paragraphs. I agree about the dirty phone call being one of the few moments of potential squandered with the tiresome format. The thing is the combo of Murray and Herring brings two comedy connoisseurs together to do what they do worst - Murray having to stick to a script cutting dead his impromptu and acrhaic appeal, and Richard having to sculpt funny lines to be delivered by someone who cannot deliver funny lines - but is however excellent when it comes to rampant dialogue regarding members of his audience. TGP is officially cracker jokes being read...on acid by someone who usually relies on ale as a means to obtain laughs.

> TGP is officially cracker jokes being read...on acid by someone who usually relies on ale as a means to obtain laughs.

"On acid"???

You were being deftly ironic in using this phrase, right? Right????

>> TGP is officially cracker jokes being read...on acid by someone who usually relies on ale as a means to obtain laughs.
>
>"On acid"???
>
>You were being deftly ironic in using this phrase, right? Right????

Of course not, for I am being read in your mind by one of your under-estimated ideas of what a layman may sound like. May I take this chance to say I think the vancancies in here make for very boring visuals and that I'm sick of that repetitive fantasy involving your neighbour's ruptured apendix.

>>But enough. I think I'm going to stop visiting this forum cos I don't think I'm really being helpful to anyone including myself and I should just let you all get on with it.
>
>Has Richard Herring really gone?
>
If so, I think it is a shame because I looked forward to reading the occasional behind the scenes info from him about his shows. Being able to get direct answers from actual comedy writers is interesting and there have been several people who have posted 'attacks' on Richard Herring & Mitch Benn over the last few weeks, unnecessarily in my opinion when both have been reasonable and polite to their fans here. This is a great opportunity to find out information from comedy professionals and it is a pity to spoil it for the rest of us.

Whereas I feel that people should be able to express their opinions in an open forum like this, I do think that Steven's insistence of criticising TGP with over 20 lengthy postings was well over the top & served just to irritate RH after those initial comments were answered. There was little humour left in the dialogue once Steven seemed bent on trying to get RH & AM to back down in their opinions somehow. Given they are in the process of making the show, they are hardly likely to say they dislike their own work; were both ready to hear criticisms as well as praise and gave a lot of info about how they'd developed TGP. This was all a valuable insight & could have continued for those of us who ARE enjoying the show. Unfortunately, it looks like this aspect may now be spoilt.

It is often very difficult to get one's point across when giving written postings like this but you have to use some common sense to stop yourself going too far and alienating individuals. When doing the same thing repeatedly it looks more deliberate. Once others start commenting on it and the poster ignores them, it starts to look malicious. Whether that was the aim or not, what was originally quite an interesting debate turned sour.

I hope this does not change Richard Herring's views on his fans and that he feels he can return to the Forum at some stage; L&H have always been very good about providing responses about their work and this is really the only medium where they are giving answers whilst they are working on separate projects.

Curse Me, Me, for making Steven this way!

<<Shakes fist>>

>>Has Richard Herring really gone?
>If so, I think it is a shame because I looked forward to reading the occasional behind the scenes info from him about his shows. Being able to get direct answers from actual comedy writers is interesting and there have been several people who have posted 'attacks' on Richard Herring & Mitch Benn over the last few weeks, unnecessarily in my opinion when both have been reasonable and polite to their fans here. This is a great opportunity to find out information from comedy professionals and it is a pity to spoil it for the rest of us.

Blimey, it always amazes me when someone tries to speak on behalf of the nation.

Jeanette (I'll stick to this pseudonym if that's ok with you), what you fail to understand is that this forum was never intended as a public relations exercise for any passing stray comedian. However, in recent months (particularly since SOTCAA's closure) this is how it has been treated. What you are actually suggesting is the end of free debate on this forum, so we can be thrown scraps of information the 'professionals' deem suitable. I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong place.

If you really want that type of forum, I suggest you start your own with some friends - there are plenty of places that will host one for you.

>Whereas I feel that people should be able to express their opinions in an open forum like this, I do think that Steven's insistence of criticising TGP with over 20 lengthy postings was well over the top & served just to irritate RH after those initial comments were answered. There was little humour left in the dialogue once Steven seemed bent on trying to get RH & AM to back down in their opinions somehow. Given they are in the process of making the show, they are hardly likely to say they dislike their own work; were both ready to hear criticisms as well as praise and gave a lot of info about how they'd developed TGP. This was all a valuable insight & could have continued for those of us who ARE enjoying the show. Unfortunately, it looks like this aspect may now be spoilt.

If some chooses to leave a forum, it is their own free choice. You *cannot* blame Steven (or anyone else) for Rich leaving this site. Given Rich's current workload, it is hardly surprising he is cutting down on the number of visits here.

>It is often very difficult to get one's point across when giving written postings like this but you have to use some common sense to stop yourself going too far and alienating individuals. When doing the same thing repeatedly it looks more deliberate. Once others start commenting on it and the poster ignores them, it starts to look malicious. Whether that was the aim or not, what was originally quite an interesting debate turned sour.

The thing is, until Steven posted his views there was no debate. It was one long endless stream of how the last episode was the best one yet. I find it laughable that Steven was criticised for the repetitive nature of his arguments by this group of people.

As far as I know Jeanette I never 'attacked' Herring once, I actually think he's a great bloke and his and Stew's previous works have always been of a very high quality, but that doesn't mean everything he is ever going to write cannot fall under criticism. Giving your opinions on his show after he posted a request for everyones opinions is inviting differing views from your own.

It's lucky for you Janet that I'm not a 'professional comedian' too, or from reading some of your attacks on me on the Lee and Herring forum I might of cried my sad little eyes out and ran away as well by now:

" Subject: Not BBC TV Forum [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Jeanette on Sat Nov 18 18:53:12 GMT 2000:
I think it's a pity that Richard Herring has decided he may stop visiting there because of the recent backbiting & sometimes offensive comments from a minority of individuals. I was finding the occasional behind the scenes info on the development of TGP most interesting, as I think were many others. It's a shame that people find it necessary to go on repeatedly after they've made their initial views known & seem insensitive about the recipient of their comments.

I have my own theory that perhaps the reason TGP - a show highlighting the foibles of a sad group of life's 'losers' with no friends but each other - may have inflamed such disturbed & repeated rantings from certain quarters is because it touched a raw nerve somewhere. The forum member couldn't face a comedy show with characters so closely related to his own shortcomings. Which probably means that the characterisation is spot on.

Or that the guy is a total tosspot.

Or both.

Someone should have nipped round to his place & nicked his keyboard - he might not have noticed for a couple of weeks!

Ah well, back to writing awful puns & messages about cress. All the best. "

Ah, so that's what I should of done, I should of just called Herring a total tosspot, that would of sorted all of that trouble out without having to criticise the show. Jeanette you hypocritical fool.
Jeanette, if you think my argument was bad, I don't know what the hell yours is, saying I have a right to my opinion and then skulking off to the L&H guestbook to insult me, very clever. Yes, *that's* why I don't like TGP, not because it's not funny or probably ruining Herring's career, it's because Terry reminds me so much of myself, and I simply cannot take it, every time I try and pronounce a long word I always fluff it and end up saying a cheap sexual innuendo with hilarious consequences.

The reason I kept going on about TGP was because everytime I made a post about it, Herring or Murray would pick it apart and usually only pick one small point and twist and contort it to fit their answer. And the fact that everyone said my arguments didn't make sense. Old Richard Herrings doesn't like me posting criticisms over and over, but it's ok for someone like sheep to post "Last night's episode was the best yet!" every week. So that large 3 page post I made was my last ever comment on the subject as far as I was concerned, I got my apparently weak argument and made a better contructed article of it. If this was the last thing to send Herring over the edge, I didn't mean any more harm. But the entire forum was one sided, I couldn't get any kind of viewpoint across. I just find it strange how Herring can take months of the Corpses slagging TGP off, using all manner of methods, yet finds a 3 week long argument from one little person unacceptable. Why doesn't he follow the advice he gives most people who complain about his programs, if you don't like what you see don't read it/turn over and watch something else.

Richard, go back to posting on the board, and I promise I will not slag off TGP, I've said all I have to say in that long post I think. I watched some old vids of TMWRNJ the other day, and still laughed more at the old jokes on one episode than I have during the series so far of TGP, *that's* why I kept on moaning. I think Herrings is very hardworking and very loyal to his fans, and I respect that enormously, I just hope he moves on to pastures new after this show.

Also if you remember correctly, I also criticised TMWRNJ, not really because of the material, but the 'live' format didn't really serve any purpose at all, but to hinder the performance really, and a couple of other things. But I'm just showing I didn't just leap upon TGP with some kind of pre-held motive to hate it.

>The reason I kept going on about TGP was because everytime I made a post about it, Herring or Murray would pick it apart and usually only pick one small point and twist and contort it to fit their answer.

Don't particularly want to get involved in this dispute, as I have no clear stance on it (unusual for me, but true), but I would like to confirm that Steven is right about Al Murray in this respect, as anyone who saw his ridiculous character assassination of me as a nostalgic idiot with his head in the clouds, which is the complete opposite of my character and based on something that I didn't actually say anyway, should be able to confirm.

>Blimey, it always amazes me when someone tries to speak on behalf of the nation.
>
>Jeanette (I'll stick to this pseudonym if that's ok with you.....
>
I was only stating my opinion, as have plenty of other people on the topic; I don't think that my comments have been particularly worse than many of the other postings I have seen here under various threads, but if I have somehow broken the rules in any way I apologise. I am aware that the forum is for a wide range of views; I wasn't advotating censorship, just a little common sense at times.

I'm not quite sure what your comment about my 'pseudonym' is meant to mean; I am posting here under my real first name (& have mentioned my surname in a couple of postings, for anyone who does know me). However, there is also my boyfriend and occasionally my brother posting from the same home PC which is why you may find the same IP address cropping up under different names in a single session; we have no interest in hiding our identities. If people want to post anonymously, then that's up to them.

I don't want to get into an acromoninous situation here, as I think on the whole the TVF is a fun place to visit.

>I don't want to get into an acromoninous situation here, as I think on the whole the TVF is a fun place to visit.

That's good, our "Come to the TV Forum for a fun holiday!" adverts must be working.

Calling someone a loser and a tosspot because they don't like a show, and you don't like the way they express this opinion, is a poor way to behave on a forum about television programs.
I don't think that personal attack was justified, and I think it was cowardly to say it on a different forum.

Re: Steven

I adore anyone who's that comfortable with themselves. We really shouldn't mock eccentricities for they are what make the world exciting. And Jon's points may be acute and nostalgia-filled, but I can't help loving the young blood Steven has pulsing through him.

>the young blood Steven has pulsing through him.

Considering the [unwarranted] hatred going for Steven, I think it will soon be pulsing out of him.

>Calling someone a loser and a tosspot because they don't like a show, and you don't like the way they express this opinion, is a poor way to behave on a forum about television programs.
>I don't think that personal attack was justified, and I think it was cowardly to say it on a different forum.

Caroline, I was just pointing out what a complete hypocrit Jeanette is. She criticises me for making 'Personal Attacks' on Richard Herring (Which I never did, just criticised his recent work), and then skulks off to the L&H Forum and calls me a loser and a complete tosspot, and then gets even more petty and says the only reason I don't like TGP is because I'm like the characters on it, which is laughable. I would call that a major bloody personal attack, what makes Herring any more exempt than me from such petty abuse.

Tell me Jeanette, is Richard Herring expected to be treated better than anybody else on here, and treated as more of a person than me simply because he is famous?
By your view of things it seems if someone is famous then they are more of a person and should be treated better than anybody else, and if anybody disagrees with them then they should be rediculed.

Of course he should be treated with some respect as a comedian, but as a person posting on this forum he should be treated just like everyone else. He is a normal person like everyone else, except he has a few good shows under his belt, he's not fucking God. I know that for a fact, because if he was I wouldn't exist right now.

And anyway, I think Herring making a national broadcasted attack on Mel Smith as a money grabbing talentless twat in a sketch on TMRWNJ and also in their various tours is worse than anything I or the Corpses have done, and Herring falls under blame of the rules you are apprently laying down more than anybody.

>Tell me Jeanette, is Richard Herring expected to be treated better than anybody else on here, and treated as more of a person than me simply because he is famous?

Obviously, yes. Celebrities aren't human, they're Gods.



Excuse me while I wash my mouth out with soap.

>Caroline, I was just pointing out what a complete hypocrit Jeanette is. She criticises me for making 'Personal Attacks' on Richard Herring (Which I never did, just criticised his recent work), and then skulks off to the L&H Forum and calls me a loser and a complete tosspot, and then gets even more petty and says the only reason I don't like TGP is because I'm like the characters on it, which is laughable.

Steven darling, I think Jeanette was actually defending you and quite rightly too. Besides, fret not Steven I think you're great! The only reason Herringites are taking dislike to you is because you were brave enough to be the catalyst for the TGP argument. Which need not have continued for as long as it did, for anyone whose actually seen it can testify to how bad it is. Even Caroline a devout fish-licker is letting her guard down by criticizing the very characters she appears to love by tainting them with your name Steven!

>>Even Caroline, a devout fish-licker...

What?! Is this some filthy euphemism I haven't yet... oh, I see, "Herring". Right. Yes. Sorry.

>>>Even Caroline, a devout fish-licker...
>
>What?! Is this some filthy euphemism I haven't yet... oh, I see, "Herring". Right. Yes. Sorry.

I'm glad you explained that one Mogwai, I couldn't work out how lesbians were related to the topic of discusion.

>>>>Even Caroline, a devout fish-licker...
>>
>>What?! Is this some filthy euphemism I haven't yet... oh, I see, "Herring". Right. Yes. Sorry.
>
>I'm glad you explained that one Mogwai, I couldn't work out how lesbians were related to the topic of discusion.

In fact I take that back completely. I meant to say it was Jeanette who licked fish. Oh dear, I've shown myself up to be a very inaccurate Steven supporter.

"Calling someone a loser and a tosspot because they don't like a show, and you don't like the way they express this opinion, is a poor way to behave on a forum about television programs.
I don't think that personal attack was justified, and I think it was cowardly to say it on a different forum."

This was my previous post, and I thought it was clear I am a huge Steven supporter, as I pointed out in other threads!
Steven, you are paranoid, and rightly so, but READ THE POSTS!!

Who is the true fish-licker? Not me, anywho!

I'm wearing a life-like Cornelius from "Planet of the Apes" mask while I'm writing this. Yay!

Caroline, I wasn't criticising you, I was just adding to what you had said about Jeanette, showing that Jeanette was hypocritical and breaking her own rules. I wasn't making any other real reference, you've just been confused by kinder surprise's nonsensical postings.

Also, I don't really see the argument as splitting into factions (Steven supporters and Richard Herring supporters etc). That is just silly, I'm not a talented comedy writer, it's much easier to criticise a show than write a better one, but admitted;y. that is a bad argument because I never said I was a comedy writer. BUT, Richard Herring is a throughly talented and nice bloke, but I personally just think TGP looks like a large step down for his writing. I don't think there should be any kind of real animosity towards people that like the show, I just can't understand how people can praise it, as the entire thing just seems awkward and half written. I just found Herring and one a larger part Murray's replies to my argument really bad, and petty at times. But the whole thing has got a bit out of hand, the last thing I would of wanted is for Richard Herring to leave, and I hope he comes back, but as with the Corpses work, I think he should really listen to what the Corpses have to say about the show and do what he can within limits of his own personal taste to fix it.

But it's his and Murray's show, and it's going to be very difficult for him or Murray to change their idea around other people, so them listening to peoples opinions is all they can really do without discarding their own vision. But their vision so far I do not like one bit. I'm just looking forward to SOTCAA re-opening, then maybe we could read a well written critique on TGP.

Okay.