Oh, and cvalling them a twat is going to do something, mister anonymous.

>You may not like someone's work... but you will immediately create motivation for them that does not exist and end up with wild conspiracy theories. Most of which are wrong.

Well, that's why I read it. For gentle, 'reasoned' criticism get Lewisohn. Or listen to one of Jo Brand's fine Radio 2 comedy compilations!

The context of 'twat' was clearly bathetic. The basic argument still stands.

You fantastic person.

I gather this particular 'anonymous' is the same delightful individual who called somebody a cunt on here recently for not particularly liking Matthew Holness.

Somebody with a protective streak towards Hens and Chickens I would imagine...

Some funny people about.

I called someone a cunt - not for disliking Mr Holness but for dismissing him on the basis of one gig in which he is experimenting with a new character.

I think the Corpses were wrong to dismiss him as worthless months ago when the Garth Marenghi thing was in it's infancy. It turned into a show of great originality, flair and worth.

But the nature of the sites is that it's a black and white world. Anyone doing something not up to standard is immediately branded a twat. You create a world of good guys and bad guys and no-one can cross the line. When Garth Marenghi turned out to be a show of great merit you looked like fools.

If you stuck to criticising the work and not the individuals you'd have a point.

But you always think you know why things are bad. So you don't like TGP. Fair enough. That's your opinion. And you explain what you think is wrong. Fair enough. But you have the arrogance to tell us what RH & AM are thinking. Which is bollocks because you don't have the faintest idea what they're thinking or why they made decision A instead of decision B.
You know the difference between criticism and abuse as you demonstrate in the article on the 100 worst whatever blah blah blah.

But you fall into the same trap. Your trying to get an academic message across to people who only read the site for the name calling. You might as well be Zoe Ball.

You Cunts

>I called someone a cunt - not for disliking Mr Holness but for dismissing him on the basis of one gig in which he is experimenting with a new character.

Or one of Steve Coogan's old ones? No, but seriously...

>I think the Corpses were wrong to dismiss him as worthless months ago when the Garth Marenghi thing was in it's infancy. It turned into a show of great originality, flair and worth.

>But the nature of the sites is that it's a black and white world. Anyone doing something not up to standard is immediately branded a twat. You create a world of good guys and bad guys and no-one can cross the line. When Garth Marenghi turned out to be a show of great merit you looked like fools.

We've not seen this 'show of great merit' of which you speak. We've described Holness' attitude as part of the Footlights, his appalling contributions to the waste of time BBC2 comedy Bruiser and the version of Garth Merenghi which he did as support to the Boosh (which we said wasn't fantastic but still better realised than the Boosh). Why does this make us look like fools? It may well be a wonderful show. We'll make our own minds up when we see it.

>If you stuck to criticising the work and not the individuals you'd have a point.

What would be the point of criticise something without criticising the attitude of those who created it? That would have no worth whatsoever.

>But you always think you know why things are bad. So you don't like TGP. Fair enough. That's your opinion. And you explain what you think is wrong. Fair enough. But you have the arrogance to tell us what RH & AM are thinking. Which is bollocks because you don't have the faintest idea what they're thinking or why they made decision A instead of decision B.

But if we're explaining it in terms of isolating an 'attitude' then it's perfectly valid, surely? Not a vague slagging of individual personality traits but a more general dissection of attitudes within the industry as a whole.

As for Rich Herring - I think I understand his aspirations as much as anybody else. Alcohol-fuelled conversations in his presence have helped this.

We've not published our big article about TGP yet. You might even be surprised at its contents...

>You know the difference between criticism and abuse as you demonstrate in the article on the 100 worst whatever blah blah blah.

>But you fall into the same trap. Your trying to get an academic message across to people who only read the site for the name calling.

No we're not - read the FAQ piece. If it were mere name-calling then we wouldn't have received the feedback we have. You yourself are making rather wide assumptions about the site's audience.

>You might as well be Zoe Ball.

For all the good of reaching an understanding with people with your attitude, yes we might as well. But we'll keep questioning the media, if that's okay with you. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye. So why don't you stay on your side of the comedy fence and we'll stay on ours? It'll be easier all round, I think.

>You Cunts

Well, there y'go then.

And anybody who thinks R2 is beneath them IS a twat.

As indeed is anybody who calls someone a cunt and signs themselves "anonymous".
Twat.

Mitch... yes, anyone that thinks R2 is beneath them is a twat. But nobody has said that it is beneath them. It is purely imagined by a corpse.

Which is my point. It's a great clue to their attitude that they think they know what people are thinking and it's groundless.

The journalism here is great, except that when the facts run out it turns to fiction (and abuse) instead of questions.

And I'm calling people "cunt" and remaining anonymous because that's what this site does. I thought it was the best way of demonstrating how stupid it was.

You twat.

There's a wonderful comedy quality to words like cunt and twat, don't you think? Just think of the scriptwriter's meeting...

"You cunt"
"You twat"
"You cunting twatting cunt"

I'm in hysterics already.

But a cunt or a twat in the mouths of Cook and Moore...

etc...

See you in the Hen & Chickens, anonymous...

Language!
There are young people present...

>Language!
>There are young people present...

I'm sure you've heard it all before (I had at two thirds your age anyway!), and it's not that pottymouthed round 'ere these days.

Eee, I remember whne all this were cunts...

Just cos I heard it doesn't mean I like hearing it...
much a similar approach to the o'show <shudder>

It's a good point. I promise not to say 'pottymouth' again.

Nah, YOU twat.
Your go.

Hello. It was me that anonymous called a cunt. I must admit I didn't think anyone else had noticed, and I can think of better things to be remembered for, but I just wanted to point out that I did post a couple of replies to his/her message explaining that I didn't write off Matthew Holness' entire career, just that I thought that the particular act I had seen wasn't very good. I can't be bothered to repeat it all now, but suffice to say my (I thought valid) arguements were ignored and the thread was swiftly consigned to the "old topics" bin, from where it has since disappeared. I seem to have that effect...
Anyhoo, I was just wondering why anonymous didn't acknowledge my replies.
Apologies if this thread now dies. I am the Mr.Chinnery of the forum, it seems. Just take solace in the fact I don't post here very often.

>Anyhoo, I was just wondering why anonymous didn't acknowledge my replies.

'Cos he's a twat.

Ahhh, of course. What was I thinking?

Yep. I've done it again. Two days and no replies. How long is it before topics become "old"?
Sorry.

Stop smothering them with the pillows.

I mean, honestly, eh?

>Yep. I've done it again. Two days and no replies. How long is it before topics become "old"?
>Sorry.

Mitch can only get on the net when he's in Cyber cafes- i.e. doing a gig on Thurs lunchtimes etc. He will get back to you soon. I'm sure...

>Stop smothering them with the pillows.
>
>I mean, honestly, eh?

So you mean you're not supposed to do that then? I thought a pillow over the face had just become a recognised panacea...





...oh my God. Grannyyyyyyy!

Also, RHC, thanks for the words of reassurance.
Now I just have to worry about the fact that I may have just taken a life.

>Now I just have to worry about the fact that I *may* have just taken a life.

_*May*_ remember to emphasize this at the trial.
"may"!

If only that worked.
JUDGE: How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT (me): Maybe.
JUDGE: Right. I sentence you to some time in a place somewhere.

Vague trials (very much like Mark & Lard's vague news). They could catch on. Some people would say they already have.

Ooooh. Hark at me, attempting political satire.
Yeah...
I'll go now.

Probably a good idea. Here, you couldn't give my Gran one of your "panacea"s, could ya?

That depends.
How much are you offering? These panaceas don't come cheap, you know.
And my stab at satire wasn't that ba-
OK, yeah it was. But you didn't have to agree with me.

I'll, er... you can have some of my crackers?

Sounds fair. So long as they're luxury ones- with mini screwdriver sets & padlocks & gold-plated earrings and stuff. None of your cheap tat.
Let me know the time and place. I'll bring the pillow.