Funny you should start a thread on this - I was reading it last night and was thinking about exactly the same thing.

They really are awful aren't they? Carping on about how Barrett and Fielding are so great that they 'get away with stuff that lesser acts would destroy' or something like that. Getting away with having a face like Mr. Punch in the case of the Noel one, anyway.

The stuff about that 22 year-old getting his own sitcom on BBC Choice is slightly odd. Can't really see whether it will be any good, but the article has that horrible Time Out journalistic style that makes you cross about him regardless.

Alison, what do you mean that "we" hate?

I don't hate comedians just because Joe Champniss and Mike Scott do. I watch their work and judge them on that. And I don't presume to speak for other people.

>Alison, what do you mean that "we" hate?
>
>I don't hate comedians just because Joe Champniss and Mike Scott do. I watch their work and judge them on that. And I don't presume to speak for other people.

3 real name "outings" in a single post! Who else can ya do?

>Alison, what do you mean that "we" hate?
>
>I don't hate comedians just because Joe Champniss and Mike Scott do. I watch their work and judge them on that. And I don't presume to speak for other people.

Ok, so not everyone here hates Ross Noble, Dave Gorman et al. However you do have to resort to personal abuse to make your point which is a sure sign that you have nothing much to say.

You tell us your reasons why they're great comedians qwerty. Come on! I'd certainly like to hear them. And let's keep it nice, OK?

My name has never been a secret. Lots of people know who I am. So what?

I'd rather be accountable for my views in that way than some psuedonym no one's heard of before who turns up and abuses those involved with the site for God knows why.

Come on qwerty, let's hear YOUR opinions. And let's see you publicy state them and stick by them.

>My name has never been a secret. Lots of people know who I am. So what?
>
So what indeed. I didn't intend to make an issue of your name, I just used it.

>I'd rather be accountable for my views in that way than some psuedonym no one's heard of before who turns up and abuses those involved with the site for God knows why.
>
If you'd rather be accountable for your views, then why bother adopting a pseudonym in the first place? Apparently your pseudonym is better than mine because no-one's heard of me before? Oh right.
And my post in this strand didn't involve abuse.
I did say that you were ugly in another strand, but that's because you were calling an unknown actress from an advert ugly. You started the name calling when you did that. Oh, and I've seen you and think that you are ugly.

>Come on qwerty, let's hear YOUR opinions. And let's see you publicy state them and stick by them.

Yes I like Ross Noble and Dave Gorman. But that's not "everyone'. That's two people. I like some others also. And there are others I don't like so much. But I do go and see shows and judge people on their merits. And I don't think you do.
My initial post was about you glibly saying that you hate people but giving no justification. Tell me why *you* hate them, more importantly, tell me why you hate their *shows*. Anything else is irrelevant. And do try to do it with an opinion of your own, not a received opinion from this site.

That's all.

>>My name has never been a secret. Lots of people know who I am. So what?
>>
>So what indeed. I didn't intend to make an issue of your name, I just used it.

You didn't just use my name (or Joe's or Mike's name for that matter). What you did was reveal to the world who the dastardly Corpses are and who I am. It was an attempt to out us or embarrass us in some way. By doing that you are simply proving to anyone who's read your posts that you have a vendetta against the Corpses and because you can't come up with anything much to say about them, you're chosing the softer option, me.

>>I'd rather be accountable for my views in that way than some psuedonym no one's heard of before who turns up and abuses those involved with the site for God knows why.
>>
>If you'd rather be accountable for your views, then why bother adopting a pseudonym in the first place?

Most people use a pseudonym on the internet. It's not entirely so you can remain annoymous, it's also about creating an online identity. Mine is Bean Is A Carrot and it has been for a while now. I use it throughout all of my internet activities, often in conjunction with my real name. In the context of these forums I wanted to have a silly name like a lot of the other regulars. It was the only choice.

>Apparently your pseudonym is better than mine because no-one's heard of me before? Oh right.

No, you using a pseudonym for your recent posts to this forum is bad because no one knows who you are. By using it you can come on here and abuse people and not be accountable. People who can be bothered can search the internet for Bean Is A Carrot (or indeed Alison Bean) and see exactly what I've been up to online. No one can do that to you. You are not accountable for your views, you are simply a vitriolic person who doesn't have the guts to abuse me (and Corpses) and own up to it. Own up to who you are qwerty and be accountable or your arguements stand for nothing.

>And my post in this strand didn't involve abuse.
>I did say that you were ugly in another strand, but that's because you were calling an unknown actress from an advert ugly. You started the name calling when you did that. Oh, and I've seen you and think that you are ugly.

Granted it was in another thread. But you have resorted to personal abuse towards myself, Mike, Joe and Rob. Personal abuse is not an arguement, it's just mean.

My comment about the actress who looks like Ross Noble was basically that I felt sorry for her because she looked like a bloke. No doubt you'll now tell everyone that I have short hair and therefore look like a bloke. Go on then, let's hear it...

The Quality Street ad in question was a bit of a running joke between myself and others on this forum. The main joke being that no one has ever seen this ad except for me.

OK so personal jokes don't work in public and it was a frivilous post and I'm a contradictory bitch for slagging off Paul Merton on the TV Forum the other day for doing running jokes and it is mean to have a go about people because of their looks. I apologise and I thoroughally deserved to be banged to rights for it.

But if you'd really wished to have a go at me about it you shouldn't have resorted to the "well you're ugly too" arguement. It's not very clever, is it qwerty? And it hardly ensures that you have the moral high ground. And are you going to apologise for calling me or Mike or Joe or Rob ugly? I doubt it. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

>>Come on qwerty, let's hear YOUR opinions. And let's see you publicy state them and stick by them.
>
>Yes I like Ross Noble and Dave Gorman. But that's not "everyone'. That's two people. I like some others also. And there are others I don't like so much. But I do go and see shows and judge people on their merits. And I don't think you do.

You think wrong qwerty. I love comedy and go to see a lot of it. You ask the BBC Radio Ticket Unit how often I pester them for tickets. And you may be interested to know that I went to the Edinburgh Fringe and saw 7 shows in 2 days. I wished I'd been able to spend longer there so I could have seen more. And I would have gone to see Dave Gorman to see whether he was any good or not had he not been sold out on both the days I was there.

Whilst I didn't see Dave's show in Edinburgh and couldn't afford his shows in London (the Australia dollar/UK pound exchange rate is a complete nightmare qwerty believe me), I have seen Dave on various TV things and in print. Judging by that he is not a very funny comedian in my view, simply because he didn't make me laugh much. That is my honest opinion.

In my original post my comments that everyone on this Forum hates Dave Gorman et al are based simply on the fact that that seems to be the general concensus. You and a few others are the exception. And that's fine. And well done you for pointing that out.

>My initial post was about you glibly saying that you hate people but giving no justification. Tell me why *you* hate them, more importantly, tell me why you hate their *shows*. Anything else is irrelevant. And do

>You didn't just use my name (or Joe's or Mike's name for that matter). What you did was reveal to the world who the dastardly Corpses are and who I am. It was an attempt to out us or embarrass us in some way.

I've cut out quite a bit here because it's a huge circular argument. Your annoyed at me for using your real names and annoyed at me for using a pseudonym. So you should have the right to be anonymous. But I shouldn't. So I should use my real name so as to be accountable and the corpses shouldn't. Bollocks. Clearly.

>>By doing that you are simply proving to anyone who's read your posts that you have a vendetta against the Corpses and because you can't come up with anything much to say about them, you're chosing the softer option, me.
>
No vendetta. And you're not the softer option. You are not one of the corpses. I'm having a go at you for blindly repeating the corpses opinions.

>
>Most people use a pseudonym on the internet.

Hey me too!

> It's not entirely so you can remain annoymous, it's also about creating an online identity. Mine is Bean Is A Carrot and it has been for a while now.

Great. Mine is qwerty. It has been for a while now.

>>I use it throughout all of my internet activities, often in conjunction with my real name.

Which is why I don't understand you having a problem with me using your real name Alison. I think you're avoiding the issue.

>>In the context of these forums I wanted to have a silly name like a lot of the other regulars. It was the only choice.

Hey, so did I! We seem to have loads in common.

>>You are not accountable for your views, you are simply a vitriolic person who doesn't have the guts to abuse me (and Corpses) and own up to it. Own up to who you are qwerty and be accountable or your arguements stand for nothing.

Okay. My name is Craig. There does that make me any more accountable? Not really but if it makes you happy.

>
>>And my post in this strand didn't involve abuse.
>>I did say that you were ugly in another strand, but that's because you were calling an unknown actress from an advert ugly. You started the name calling when you did that. Oh, and I've seen you and think that you are ugly.
>

>My comment about the actress who looks like Ross Noble was basically that I felt sorry for her because she looked like a bloke. No doubt you'll now tell everyone that I have short hair and therefore look like a bloke. Go on then, let's hear it...
>
No. I wouldn't say that.

>The Quality Street ad in question was a bit of a running joke between myself and others on this forum. The main joke being that no one has ever seen this ad except for me.
>
>OK so personal jokes don't work in public and it was a frivilous post and I'm a contradictory bitch for slagging off Paul Merton on the TV Forum the other day for doing running jokes and it is mean to have a go about people because of their looks. I apologise and I thoroughally deserved to be banged to rights for it.

So stop being angry. You say it yourself - you're a contradictory bitch and you deserve to be banged to rights for it. Point made.
>
>But if you'd really wished to have a go at me about it you shouldn't have resorted to the "well you're ugly too" arguement. It's not very clever, is it qwerty?

No, but it got the message across and you've admitted you were wrong. Not clever - but effective.

>>And it hardly ensures that you have the moral high ground. And are you going to apologise for calling me or Mike or Joe or Rob ugly? I doubt it. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Certainly. I'm sorry if you were upset. But like I say, it got the message across didn't it. You've admitted that your posts were ill considered and that's a start.


>You think wrong qwerty. I love comedy and go to see a lot of it. You ask the BBC Radio Ticket Unit how often I pester them for tickets. And you may be interested to know that I went to the Edinburgh Fringe and saw 7 shows in 2 days. I wished I'd been able to spend longer there so I could have seen more. And I would have gone to see Dave Gorman to see whether he was any good or not had he not been sold out on both the days I was there.
>
>Whilst I didn't see Dave's show in Edinburgh and couldn't afford his shows in London (the Australia dollar/UK pound exchange rate is a complete nightmare qwerty believe me), I have seen Dave on various TV things and in print. Judging by that he is not a very funny comedian in my view, simply because he didn't make me laugh much. That is my honest opinion.

Ah. there you go. You hate him without having seen his work. There's lots of information on the site about how editing fucks up a lot of stuff. I think acts should be jusged on what they produce in their shows - when they have control - not on edited bits of TV. I'd agree with you that he hasn't always impressed on the box, but that doesn't put him on my hate list. Like I said, there are comedians you haven't seen that you *think* you hate. And I was right.

I'm sorry you couldn't see his show. In which case, reserve judgement.

>Okay. My name is Craig. There does that make me any more accountable? Not really but if it makes you happy.

No, you're right, it isn't your name, because it's Nev Fountain.

>Actually, I feel guilty that you think I'm someone else. But it's typically arrogant of you to assume that any disagreement must come from someone you know with a personal gripe I don't understand.

Oh shush - it's not the first time you've used the 'fat Welsh goth' joke on-line. No point back-pedalling now. Even if you are Kiki Dee.

>In fact, I'm just someone who doesn't like the site. I don't like it because you slag off people without watching them. As far as I can see you hate them because of what the Guardian wrote about them and not because of something they've done. Well don't be a cunt. If that's your problem, hate the Guardian. You decided that they are cunts and that's that. Well that's shit. And people like Alison write glib sentences about "people we hate". She hasn't seen their work either. She has been taught that opinion by you.

Believe it or not, qwerty, not everybody 'learns' their opinions from us. Isn't it valid that other people may share our viewpoint and have been attracted to the site for that reason?

If we were so enigmatic and sexy that we were able to influence everybody's opinion with mere words, Mike and I would have been safely installed on the throne years ago.

>>>You didn't just use my name (or Joe's or Mike's name for that matter). What you did was reveal to the world who the dastardly Corpses are and who I am. It was an attempt to out us or embarrass us in some way.
>
>I've cut out quite a bit here because it's a huge circular argument. Your annoyed at me for using your real names and annoyed at me for using a pseudonym. So you should have the right to be anonymous. But I shouldn't. So I should use my real name so as to be accountable and the corpses shouldn't. Bollocks. Clearly.

The Corpses do use their real names. Mike4SOTCAA and Joe4SOTCAA. You used their full names and mine. Why? You did it in a very show-offy manner qwerty, oooh look I know their full names is basically what you were saying. I think you were trying to embarras them and me for some reason. I'd be fascinated to know why.

Basically you can find out our real names if you want to. They aren't secrets and I don't care that you know mine. What I object to is your motivation for using them, which I do not think was a particularly friendly one.

>>>By doing that you are simply proving to anyone who's read your posts that you have a vendetta against the Corpses and because you can't come up with anything much to say about them, you're chosing the softer option, me.
>>
>No vendetta. And you're not the softer option. You are not one of the corpses. I'm having a go at you for blindly repeating the corpses opinions.

I "blindly repeat" all Corpses opinions I agree with because I AGREE WITH THEM. I also blindly repeat differing opinions, often. That's me, I like to share my opinions and discuss them. Read my posts to this and the TV Forum for evidence of this.

>>Most people use a pseudonym on the internet.
>
>Hey me too!

And that's fine. But if you're going to go around parading people's real names about like they're some kind of secret, you have no right to hide behind one.

>> It's not entirely so you can remain annoymous, it's also about creating an online identity. Mine is Bean Is A Carrot and it has been for a while now.
>
>Great. Mine is qwerty. It has been for a while now.

Jolly good. Do you have a website I can visit?

>>>I use it throughout all of my internet activities, often in conjunction with my real name.
>
>Which is why I don't understand you having a problem with me using your real name Alison. I think you're avoiding the issue.

I'm not. You're avoiding telling us all why you feel it's necessary to use our real names and insult our looks and voices.

>>>In the context of these forums I wanted to have a silly name like a lot of the other regulars. It was the only choice.
>
>Hey, so did I! We seem to have loads in common.

Great.

>>>You are not accountable for your views, you are simply a vitriolic person who doesn't have the guts to abuse me (and Corpses) and own up to it. Own up to who you are qwerty and be accountable or your arguements stand for nothing.
>
>Okay. My name is Craig. There does that make me any more accountable? Not really but if it makes you happy.

Hello Craig. Congratulations, you have become more accountable, whether you agree that you have or not.

>>>And my post in this strand didn't involve abuse.
>>>I did say that you were ugly in another strand, but that's because you were calling an unknown actress from an advert ugly. You started the name calling when you did that. Oh, and I've seen you and think that you are ugly.
>>
>
>>My comment about the actress who looks like Ross Noble was basically that I felt sorry for her because she looked like a bloke. No doubt you'll now tell everyone that I have short hair and therefore look like a bloke. Go on then, let's hear it...
>>
>No. I wouldn't say that.

Oh, that's nice.

>>The Quality Street ad in question was a bit of a running joke between myself and others on this forum. The main joke being that no one has ever seen this ad except for me.
>>
>>OK so personal jokes don't work in public and it was a frivilous post and I'm a contradictory bitch for slagging off Paul Merton on the TV Forum the other day for doing running jokes and it is mean to have a go about people because of their looks. I apologise and I thoroughally deserved to be banged to rights for it.
>
>So stop being angry. You say it yourself - you're a contradictory bitch and you deserve to be banged to rights for it. Point made.

I'm not angry at having to admit my mistakes, I feel I've learnt my lesson. I just don't like your manner much.

>>But if you'd really wished to have a go at me about it you shouldn't have resorted to the "well you're ugly too" arguement. It's not very clever, is it qwerty?
>
>No, but it got the message across and you've admitted you were wrong. Not clever - but effective.

It didn't got the message across. Your actual arguements got the message across. The name calling was just an unpleasent side salad served with the main dish.

>>>And it hardly ensures that you have the moral high ground. And are you going to apologise for calling me or Mike or Joe or Rob ugly? I do

>Oh shush - it's not the first time you've used the 'fat Welsh goth' joke on-line. No point back-pedalling now. Even if you are Kiki Dee.
>
I'm not Kiki Dee (??) and I've never used the fat goth joke before. Didn't know you were Welsh.

>>In fact, I'm just someone who doesn't like the site. I don't like it because you slag off people without watching them. As far as I can see you hate them because of what the Guardian wrote about them and not because of something they've done. Well don't be a cunt. If that's your problem, hate the Guardian. You decided that they are cunts and that's that. Well that's shit. And people like Alison write glib sentences about "people we hate". She hasn't seen their work either. She has been taught that opinion by you.
>
>Believe it or not, qwerty, not everybody 'learns' their opinions from us. Isn't it valid that other people may share our viewpoint and have been attracted to the site for that reason?
>
That'd be fine. And I'm sure that's true of some people here. But it isn't true of everyone. Some people do learn their opinions from you. And I think Bean is one of them. She's admitted that she hates people she hasn't seen. That's my point. The "we all hate these people" culture. It was a vapid post made in the spirit of "joining in". Or in other words, it was received opinion.

Bye,

Q

>I'm not angry at having to admit my mistakes, I feel I've learnt my lesson. I just don't like your manner much.
>
Bean. As you say, most people know your name and you are accontable for your views. Good. I thought that was the case. I used your name. That doesn't change anything then does it? I had no malign intent in using it.


>It didn't got the message across. Your actual arguements got the message across. The name calling was just an unpleasent side salad served with the main dish.
>
But my message was about your name calling. Do you see? And it made the point and I hope you will think more carefully in future. That was my argument.

Interestingly - the main point of my post was about you "hating" people you hadn't even seen. You've admitted I was right about that. But now you're harping on about all the minor points and ignoring the major issue.

Basically, I indulged in a bit of name calling (much like yourself), but you've conceded each of my arguments.

Now stop being angry.

Q

I have not learnt my opinions from the Corpses. A friend told me about the site, I went to it and I discovered that I agreed with a lot of what they say. That's it basically.

I felt that you had malign intent in using our real names and I have only your word to convince me otherwise. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. As you say, that is not the real issue.

I have not admitted that I hate people I haven't seen.

I have read all of the TV Go Homes and they have dropped in quality since they started and become increasingly repetitive. They are also very sneery. I do give credit where it is due and I liked some of the Xmas edition's bits.

I may not have seen his live work, but I have seen Dave Gorman's TV work. I have a perfect right to judge him as a comedian on that, because it was work that he was paid to do. And I don't think he is very good on TV.

My initial post was basically to point out to people that predictably, Time Out were hailing Dave Gorman and Charlie Brooker as the next big things in comedy. Judging by their work which I have seen I disagree with Time Out. A lot of other people on this forum think the same from what I can gather. I'm reflecting the views of many others. And I just happen to agree with the Corpses too. That's it really.

I notice you haven't responded to my comments re editors being more likely to make Dave Gorman's TV work appear better than it actually was. Let's face it, it's pretty likely isn't it? It is you who is avoiding the issue now.

>I notice you haven't responded to my comments re editors being more likely to make Dave Gorman's TV work appear better than it actually was.

Can you tell me where that comment is. I can't find it.

>>Let's face it, it's pretty likely isn't it?

err no. I've been to recordings that were great and then look shit after the editor has been to work. 2hrs cut down to 29 minutes means subtlety is often destroyed. Even basic comic timing is often undone as hapless producers think "well all the words were there".

>> It is you who is avoiding the issue now.

Like I say, I can't find your post about this. Please, point it out.

Q

Bean IAC done:

>My initial post was basically to point out to people that predictably, Time Out were hailing Dave Gorman and Charlie Brooker as the next big things in comedy.

Is there a web site with this article on? The reason I mention this is because, naturally, Time Out doesn't reach all the places in the UK that people post from. I wonder sometimes if some of this anti-Gorman/Brooker feeling comes from those forum posters who live in London and, hence, are seemingly bombarded with lots of propaganda from the likes of Time Out. Thus, the reactionary "I don't like TVGH because the media bandwagon does" (and I'm not pointing the finger at individuals here, Bean, 'cos my memory isn't that hot).

Maybe those of us who live in the provinces (and thus have only the material/performances to go on) are forming less reactionary opinions. Just a thought.

Cheerio

Qwerty done:

>2hrs cut down to 29 minutes

Oh yes. I've been to 'Saturday Night Armistice' recordings too.

Cheerio

Steve

>>I notice you haven't responded to my comments re editors being more likely to make Dave Gorman's TV work appear better than it actually was.
>
>Can you tell me where that comment is. I can't find it.

It got cut off by the forum as my post was rather long. Basically my point was that in a TV recording the recording goes for longer than the show will have to. Let's just say that Dave Gorman does crap material on TV. A good editor would therefore cut out his crappest jokes, making him look better than he actually was. So basically if he's crap on TV then he'd have been was even worse at the recording. So your theory doesn't hold up.

>>>Let's face it, it's pretty likely isn't it?
>
>err no. I've been to recordings that were great and then look shit after the editor has been to work. 2hrs cut down to 29 minutes means subtlety is often destroyed. Even basic comic timing is often undone as hapless producers think "well all the words were there".

Yes, that is also true. But as someone who is paid to be funny Dave should be aware of this and should therefore do material that will work within these confines.

>>> It is you who is avoiding the issue now.
>
>Like I say, I can't find your post about this. Please, point it out.

OK, that was down to computer error. If you look at the post before my last one, you'll see it's cut off at the end.

>>>I notice you haven't responded to my comments re editors being more likely to make Dave Gorman's TV work appear better than it actually was.
>>
>>Can you tell me where that comment is. I can't find it.
>
>It got cut off by the forum as my post was rather long. Basically my point was that in a TV recording the recording goes for longer than the show will have to. Let's just say that Dave Gorman does crap material on TV. A good editor would therefore cut out his crappest jokes, making him look better than he actually was. So basically if he's crap on TV then he'd have been was even worse at the recording. So your theory doesn't hold up.
>
Actually, I've been to recordings of "Have I Got News For You" and then seen the broadcast. The (sometimes very funny) guests have a lot of stuff cut out in favour of Merton, Hislop and Deayton. It's their show, that's how it works.

My point is that when a comedian is doing their show (live or on TV) they take responsibility. When they are appearing on other peoples shows they don't. Only when you see someone doing their own thing do you actually learn what their comic vision is.
>
>>err no. I've been to recordings that were great and then look shit after the editor has been to work. 2hrs cut down to 29 minutes means subtlety is often destroyed. Even basic comic timing is often undone as hapless producers think "well all the words were there".
>
>Yes, that is also true. But as someone who is paid to be funny Dave should be aware of this and should therefore do material that will work within these confines.
>
Right. So comedians should avoid subtlety and timing. Great.


>>Like I say, I can't find your post about this. Please, point it out.
>
>OK, that was down to computer error. If you look at the post before my last one, you'll see it's cut off at the end.

Basically your post had been "edited" by the forum. You should post things that will work within these confines. I'm going to judge you on that post and its contents and not on what you now say you were trying to say. And my judgement is that you are shit.

(That is an analogy by the way)

Q

>>It got cut off by the forum as my post was rather long. Basically my point was that in a TV recording the recording goes for longer than the show will have to. Let's just say that Dave Gorman does crap material on TV. A good editor would therefore cut out his crappest jokes, making him look better than he actually was. So basically if he's crap on TV then he'd have been was even worse at the recording. So your theory doesn't hold up.
>>
>Actually, I've been to recordings of "Have I Got News For You" and then seen the broadcast. The (sometimes very funny) guests have a lot of stuff cut out in favour of Merton, Hislop and Deayton. It's their show, that's how it works.

Yes that happens sometimes. But ultimately if a comedian is good enough, they will come across as funny.

>>Yes, that is also true. But as someone who is paid to be funny Dave should be aware of this and should therefore do material that will work within these confines.
>>
>Right. So comedians should avoid subtlety and timing. Great.

Graeme Garden can be subtle AND succinct. Have you see him on HIGNFY or the Clive Jame Show or when he's writing letters about Jane Root to the Independent? Loads of comedians can do it. Dave Gorman is a professional comedian, he should also be able to do that.

>>>Like I say, I can't find your post about this. Please, point it out.
>>
>>OK, that was down to computer error. If you look at the post before my last one, you'll see it's cut off at the end.
>
>Basically your post had been "edited" by the forum. You should post things that will work within these confines. I'm going to judge you on that post and its contents and not on what you now say you were trying to say. And my judgement is that you are shit.
>
>(That is an analogy by the way)

And it's a lovely analogy, which sadly does not stand up given that I wasn't aware that the forum would cut off what I was saying. It was a genuine mistake.

Dave Gorman on the other hand is a media savvy kind of guy. And he should know how editors are likely to treat his material on TV and work within those confines.

>
>Graeme Garden can be subtle AND succinct. Have you see him on HIGNFY or the Clive Jame Show or when he's writing letters about Jane Root to the Independent? Loads of comedians can do it. Dave Gorman is a professional comedian, he should also be able to do that.

If I had posted to the forum while Graeme Garden was writing for Noels House Party saying that he was shit, you would have defended him. I wouldn't do that because I would prefer to judge GG on the work that he truly owns. The Goodies. Brilliant. I wouldn't judge his career on the basis of House Party, HIGNFY or Clive James because there are shows he has created from scratch that are a far better clue to his comedic value.

My point is that this is a fairer way to judge people. Getting annoyed with Time Out because they liked a stage show that you haven't seen is without value and it is indefensible.

>>
>>Basically your post had been "edited" by the forum. You should post things that will work within these confines. I'm going to judge you on that post and its contents and not on what you now say you were trying to say. And my judgement is that you are shit.
>>
>>(That is an analogy by the way)
>
>And it's a lovely analogy, which sadly does not stand up given that I wasn't aware that the forum would cut off what I was saying. It was a genuine mistake.
>

>Dave Gorman on the other hand is a media savvy kind of guy. And he should know how editors are likely to treat his material on TV and work within those confines.

Well you're a forum savvy kind of gal. You should know how the forum is likely to treat your posts and work within those confines.

Q

Have you met Charlie Brooker, "qwerty"?

Just wondered.

That now reads like I'm saying "Are you Charlie Brooker?" I'm not, though.

>That now reads like I'm saying "Are you Charlie Brooker?" I'm not, though.

I haven't met him. Neither am I him. But thanks for your valuable contribution to a decent debate.

By the way, I don't have internet access at home and I'm leaving work shortly. Not back til the other side of Xmas.

Genuinely wish you all a happy christmas.

See you all soon,

Q

Right they've gone - let's get start then:

That qwerty, what an absolute cu-

-klutz!