> The next episode is on at 11PM, BBC Choice tomorrow. Watch it, and realise that the terrestrial alternatives could be much, much worse. I am on my knees, praying that it doesn't get transferred to BBC2, I suggest you do the same.
>

I missed this- but I thought tonight's was a repeat- are they stripping it across the week?

I heard this show is due to be screened on BBC2 later in the year. I'll be watching with interest to see whether it really is as bad as is suggested here.

Time Out's article about forthcoming comedy (contained in the double Christmas issue) took Fun At the Funeral Parlour as its starting point. It didn't look very promising, I have to say.

>Time Out's article about forthcoming comedy (contained in the double Christmas issue) took Fun At the Funeral Parlour as its starting point. It didn't look very promising, I have to say.

Don't say that, qwerty will have a go at you!

>>Time Out's article about forthcoming comedy (contained in the double Christmas issue) took Fun At the Funeral Parlour as its starting point. It didn't look very promising, I have to say.
>
>Don't say that, qwerty will have a go at you!

Not at all Alison. I had a go at you because of the following:
Time Out said that DG's live show was one of the best of the year. You slagged them off for it. You have since admitted that you haven't seen his live show. That is all.

>>>Time Out's article about forthcoming comedy (contained in the double Christmas issue) took Fun At the Funeral Parlour as its starting point. It didn't look very promising, I have to say.
>>
>>Don't say that, qwerty will have a go at you!
>
>Not at all Alison. I had a go at you because of the following:
>Time Out said that DG's live show was one of the best of the year. You slagged them off for it. You have since admitted that you haven't seen his live show. That is all.

'Craig' - My comments were that Time Out mentioned that DG was making a TV show based on his live show. I suggested that a lot of people on this forum disliked DG (which they do as far as I can tell) and that DG's TV show probably wouldn't be very good. I based this opinion on DG's TV work that I have seen. Time Out can say what they like about DG's show as far as I'm concerned. That was not the issue.

>>>>Time Out's article about forthcoming comedy (contained in the double Christmas issue) took Fun At the Funeral Parlour as its starting point. It didn't look very promising, I have to say.
>>>
>>>Don't say that, qwerty will have a go at you!
>>
>>Not at all Alison. I had a go at you because of the following:
>>Time Out said that DG's live show was one of the best of the year. You slagged them off for it. You have since admitted that you haven't seen his live show. That is all.
>
>'Craig' - My comments were that Time Out mentioned that DG was making a TV show based on his live show. I suggested that a lot of people on this forum disliked DG (which they do as far as I can tell) and that DG's TV show probably wouldn't be very good. I based this opinion on DG's TV work that I have seen. Time Out can say what they like about DG's show as far as I'm concerned. That was not the issue.

Alison, your original post on this subject began with this:

"Fairly predictably it's top 10s of the year feature Dave Gorman and others we hate in the comedy section."

That was their appraisal of live comedy. You hadn't seen the live show. You have no idea if this is merited or not.

Craig

PS: there's no reason to put my name in quotes.

>>>>>Time Out's article about forthcoming comedy (contained in the double Christmas issue) took Fun At the Funeral Parlour as its starting point. It didn't look very promising, I have to say.
>>>>
>>>>Don't say that, qwerty will have a go at you!
>>>
>>>Not at all Alison. I had a go at you because of the following:
>>>Time Out said that DG's live show was one of the best of the year. You slagged them off for it. You have since admitted that you haven't seen his live show. That is all.
>>
>>'Craig' - My comments were that Time Out mentioned that DG was making a TV show based on his live show. I suggested that a lot of people on this forum disliked DG (which they do as far as I can tell) and that DG's TV show probably wouldn't be very good. I based this opinion on DG's TV work that I have seen. Time Out can say what they like about DG's show as far as I'm concerned. That was not the issue.
>
>Alison, your original post on this subject began with this:
>
>"Fairly predictably it's top 10s of the year feature Dave Gorman and others we hate in the comedy section."
>
>That was their appraisal of live comedy.

Indeed it was. But did I actually say that I thought Dave's live work was bad? All I said was that a lot of people on this forum dislike Dave Gorman. I do, based on his TV work. And I later expressed doubts that Dave's TV work would be good.

>You hadn't seen the live show. You have no idea if this is merited or not.

I freely admited that I have never seen Dave's live show. Even if his live show was the greatest thing ever I have doubts that it would transfer well to TV given DG's TV appearances that I've seen. He came across as particularly unfunny. Some people are better live. Now if Dave is a great live act then given his TV work he must be better live.

>Craig
>
>PS: there's no reason to put my name in quotes.

I just found it interesting that you're posting under, what you tell us, is your real given name. What I find most interesting about this is that you stated on this forum that when on the net you use the name 'qwerty'. I don't know why you're changing your name all the time, but I can come up with a number of possible reasons.

>I just found it interesting that you're posting under, what you tell us, is your real given name. What I find most interesting about this is that you stated on this forum that when on the net you use the name 'qwerty'. I don't know why you're changing your name all the time, but I can come up with a number of possible reasons.

Alison, you are the person that objected to me using a pseudonym. Now you're objecting to me using my real name. What's a man to do?

>>I just found it interesting that you're posting under, what you tell us, is your real given name. What I find most interesting about this is that you stated on this forum that when on the net you use the name 'qwerty'. I don't know why you're changing your name all the time, but I can come up with a number of possible reasons.
>
>Alison, you are the person that objected to me using a pseudonym. Now you're objecting to me using my real name. What's a man to do?

I notice you're only arguing this point. So be it.

By using a different pseudonym you are simply attempting to confuse people who post to this forum, thereby making yourself less accountable. You don't catch me doing that.

>>
>>Alison, you are the person that objected to me using a pseudonym. Now you're objecting to me using my real name. What's a man to do?
>
>I notice you're only arguing this point. So be it.
>
I was only arguing this point because I feel the argument has come full circle and neither of us can convince the other. Personally, I don't really enjoy any of the panel games (although HIGNFY has it's moments) and I wouldn't judge a comedian on anything so scant as an appearance on these kind of shows. It seems to me that okay people often look a bit shit on these... which means they may be misjudges in doing them, but not hateworthy.
Incidentally, you say that stage shows don't tend to transfer well. You might be right... but do you have examples.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied that your supposed hatred (such a strong emotion to spring from such scant evidence) was more to do with trying to join in.


>By using a different pseudonym you are >simply attempting to confuse people who post >to this forum, thereby making yourself less >accountable. You don't catch me doing that.

Alison,
I am not using a 'different pseudonym'. I am using my name. Like I say, you weren't happy when I posted using the name 'qwerty' because apparently it meant I wasn't accountable. So, I told you my name. And now I'm posting using my name and you're still not happy because it means I'm not accountable! I still don't understand why you think your pseudonym is okay because everyone knows who you are. A very loose description of 'everyone' that. You hide behind your pseudonym, I'll continue to use my real name.
Bye

Craig (aka qwerty)

>>>Alison, you are the person that objected to me using a pseudonym. Now you're objecting to me using my real name. What's a man to do?
>>
>>I notice you're only arguing this point. So be it.
>>
>I was only arguing this point because I feel the argument has come full circle and neither of us can convince the other.

That and you're not willing to admit where you've misjudged what I've said.

>Personally, I don't really enjoy any of the panel games (although HIGNFY has it's moments) and I wouldn't judge a comedian on anything so scant as an appearance on these kind of shows. It seems to me that okay people often look a bit shit on these... which means they may be misjudges in doing them, but not hateworthy.

As far as I'm concerned unfunny comedians have no right to be on television, especially when they are called comedians and are blatently not funny. This may seem extreme or unfair, but it's simply a quality issue. You might say "well he's just starting out on TV, he's learning" which indeed he is, but he'll have to learn quickly if he wants to survive. If he is to be the next big comedy thing, I hope he does learn quickly, so that we'll see some quality comedy on TV.

>Incidentally, you say that stage shows don't tend to transfer well. You might be right... but do you have examples.

I have many. All of which are Australian which I doubt would have aired over here. An example is a show about the recession of the late 80s/early 90s (I forget its name). It was done on stage by the people who did the sketch series Fast Forward (which did air here) and then they made a TV version. It basically looked like all that footage you see of early television, when they did opera and ballet on TV and hadn't yet worked out that stage techniques don't work for TV. Australian playwright David Williamson discovered this (hopefully) when he co-wrote a comedy drama for ABC TV called Dogs Head Bay a few years back. He and his co-writer had completely forgotten they were writing for TV too. The set looked like a stage set thrust on to TV, the acting was stagey and the script was full of jokes that work well on stage, but die on television. People tell me the League of Gentleman had the same problem when they transfered from stage to radio to TV and when you listen to early ISIRTA sketches which were originally from Cambridge Circus they don't work as well on radio as you imagine they would on stage. And the same when they were done on At Last! The 1948 Show.

Dave Gorman has his work cut out for him adapting a show which you and Time Out say is excellent for television. While with any luck he won't fall into the Dogs Head Bay or the Fast Forward recession show trap of making the thing look like it's a stage show that just happens to have been filmed for TV, he'll no doubt find adapting the material for TV will be harder, especially as he has (as far as I know) mostly done live work so far in his career. The Cambridge Circus sketches used in ISIRTA and later in shows like 1948 Show weren't as successful and the writers acknowledged this later. And what about Ben Elton's Man From Aunties and The Ben Elton Shows. You can't tell me his live shows weren't billions of times better. It wasn't just that he couldn't swear on TV, it was that when you saw Elton live, as I did in his 1994 and 1997 Australian tours, you could smell his passion and the material was written for that medium. On TV, particularly so on The Ben Elton Show, his wonderful hour long rants which went all over the place and came, gloriously, full circle at the end, had to be cut into sections.

As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong here), Dave Gorman did a show about traveling the world in search of other Dave Gormans. It was written as a 50 minute (?) monologue with slides or something (is that right?). On TV that will have to be cut into sections, dumbed down, oh sorry, adapted for television and I doubt it will be, as good as you and Time Out say the stage show was. This is my basic problem with Dave Gorman taking his live show to television, I don't think it's likely to work. If he prooves me wrong, I'll happily acknowledge it.

>As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied that your supposed hatred (such a strong emotion to spring from such scant evidence) was more to do with trying to join in.

Oh, what? Because I'm Australian and couldn't possibly know who's good or bad in British comedy so I have to blindly follow the opinions expressed here to fit in? If I cared so little about comedy I wouldn't have been terribly interested in this site and regularly posting to this forum for the past 6 months, would I?

>>By using a different pseudonym you are >simply attempting to confuse people who post >to this forum, thereby making yourself less >accountable. You don't catch me doing that.
>
>Alison,
>I am not using a 'different pseudonym'. I am using my name. Like I say, you weren't happy when I posted using the name 'qwerty' because apparently it meant I wasn't accountable. So, I told you my name. And now I'm posting using my name and you're still not happ

To complete my post...

>>By using a different pseudonym you are >simply attempting to confuse people who post >to this forum, thereby making yourself less >accountable. You don't catch me doing that.
>
>Alison,
>I am not using a 'different pseudonym'. I am using my name. Like I say, you weren't happy when I posted using the name 'qwerty' because apparently it meant I wasn't accountable. So, I told you my name. And now I'm posting using my name and you're still not happy because it means I'm not accountable! I still don't understand why you think your pseudonym is okay because everyone knows who you are. A very loose description of 'everyone' that. You hide behind your pseudonym, I'll continue to use my real name.

I'm just not entirely convinced that you are called Craig. I think you're actually someone else. And I've a fair idea who.

>>Incidentally, you say that stage shows don't tend to transfer well. You might be right... but do you have examples.
>
>I have many. All of which are Australian which I doubt would have aired over here. An example is a show about the recession of the late 80s/early 90s (I forget its name).<SNIP> People tell me the League of Gentleman had the same problem when they transfered from stage to radio to TV and when you listen to <SNIP> And the same when they were done on At Last! The 1948 Show.
>
The only one of these shows I'm able to comment on would be LoG. I think the first series was the best. In another recent strand I think people were arguing that series 3 was worse because it hadn't been tested live.

>Dave Gorman has his work cut out for him adapting a show which you and Time Out say is excellent for television. While with any luck he won't fall into the Dogs Head Bay or the Fast Forward recession show trap of making the thing look like it's a stage show that just happens to have been filmed for TV, he'll no doubt find adapting the material for TV will be harder, especially as he has (as far as I know) mostly done live work so far in his career.>

That's odd, I'm sure I remember you calling him a "TV savvy guy".

>And what about Ben Elton's Man From Aunties and The Ben Elton Shows. You can't tell me his live shows weren't billions of times better. It wasn't just that he couldn't swear on TV, it was that when you saw Elton live, as I did in his 1994 and 1997 Australian tours, you could smell his passion and the material was written for that medium. On TV, particularly so on The Ben Elton Show, his wonderful hour long rants which went all over the place and came, gloriously, full circle at the end, had to be cut into sections.>

You're quite right, I disliked BE's TV shows. But do you hate him for it? No, it seems you don't. And yet by the argument you apply to DG you should. Only The Corpses don't. Incidentally, did you see BE praising DG to the heavens on TFI recently?

>As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong here), Dave Gorman did a show about traveling the world in search of other Dave Gormans. It was written as a 50 minute (?)>

60 minutes Edinburgh. 90 minutes West End. I saw both.

>monologue with slides or something (is that right?). On TV that will have to be cut into sections, dumbed down, oh sorry, adapted for television and I doubt it will be, as good as you and Time Out say the stage show was. This is my basic problem with Dave Gorman taking his live show to television, I don't think it's likely to work. If he prooves me wrong, I'll happily acknowledge it.
>
So why do you say you hate him? Nothing here suggests hatred.

>>As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied that your supposed hatred (such a strong emotion to spring from such scant evidence) was more to do with trying to join in.
>
>Oh, what? Because I'm Australian and couldn't possibly know who's good or bad in British comedy so I have to blindly follow the opinions expressed here to fit in? If I cared so little about comedy I wouldn't have been terribly interested in this site and regularly posting to this forum for the past 6 months, would I?
>
No because you've seen very little of someone and yet can muster such a strong emotion.

>To complete my post...
>
>>>By using a different pseudonym you are >simply attempting to confuse people who post >to this forum, thereby making yourself less >accountable. You don't catch me doing that.
>>
>>Alison,
>>I am not using a 'different pseudonym'. I am using my name. Like I say, you weren't happy when I posted using the name 'qwerty' because apparently it meant I wasn't accountable. So, I told you my name. And now I'm posting using my name and you're still not happy because it means I'm not accountable! I still don't understand why you think your pseudonym is okay because everyone knows who you are. A very loose description of 'everyone' that. You hide behind your pseudonym, I'll continue to use my real name.
>
>I'm just not entirely convinced that you are called Craig. I think you're actually someone else. And I've a fair idea who.

Well, this is just another case of you being wrong then. My name is Craig. Get over it.

I still reckon it's Kiki Dee.

>>As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong here), Dave Gorman did a show about traveling the world in search of other Dave Gormans. It was written as a 50 minute (?)>
>
>60 minutes Edinburgh. 90 minutes West End. I saw both.

only because you luurrrrrve him.....

>>>Incidentally, you say that stage shows don't tend to transfer well. You might be right... but do you have examples.
>>
>>I have many. All of which are Australian which I doubt would have aired over here. An example is a show about the recession of the late 80s/early 90s (I forget its name).<SNIP> People tell me the League of Gentleman had the same problem when they transfered from stage to radio to TV and when you listen to <SNIP> And the same when they were done on At Last! The 1948 Show.
>>
>The only one of these shows I'm able to comment on would be LoG. I think the first series was the best. In another recent strand I think people were arguing that series 3 was worse because it hadn't been tested live.

I've seen bits and pieces of the LoG, I've not been overly impressed I must say, but to get back to the point...

>>Dave Gorman has his work cut out for him adapting a show which you and Time Out say is excellent for television. While with any luck he won't fall into the Dogs Head Bay or the Fast Forward recession show trap of making the thing look like it's a stage show that just happens to have been filmed for TV, he'll no doubt find adapting the material for TV will be harder, especially as he has (as far as I know) mostly done live work so far in his career.>
>
>That's odd, I'm sure I remember you calling him a "TV savvy guy".

I think you'll find I said "media savvy". A very different thing indeed.

>>And what about Ben Elton's Man From Aunties and The Ben Elton Shows. You can't tell me his live shows weren't billions of times better. It wasn't just that he couldn't swear on TV, it was that when you saw Elton live, as I did in his 1994 and 1997 Australian tours, you could smell his passion and the material was written for that medium. On TV, particularly so on The Ben Elton Show, his wonderful hour long rants which went all over the place and came, gloriously, full circle at the end, had to be cut into sections.>
>
>You're quite right, I disliked BE's TV shows. But do you hate him for it? No, it seems you don't. And yet by the argument you apply to DG you should. Only The Corpses don't.

I have mixed feelings about Ben Elton. I used to think he was the greatest thing ever, I think he's gone a bit downhill of late. I think it's more his choice of subject matter that doesn't grab me, rather than his ability to actually write good comedy. Back in the 80s/early-mid 90s Ben Elton was doing interesting, often thought-provoking material about politics and society. His books and plays were on similar themes and they were great. These days he's writing books about spoilt middle-class couples who can't have children. Now "Inconceivable" was very valid and all, but ultimately it was boring and whiney. I wanted to kill the wife character by the end of it and the only thing that saved the book was the brilliant satire on the media, specifically contemporary comedy, TV and the rock scene. The film version was worse, with more middle-class couple pap and less media satire and deservedly wasn't a big hit. So in conclusion Ben Elton is becoming hate-worthy. I haven't seen "Beautiful Game" yet, but that is potentially hate-worthy. It's not too late for Ben though, he can save himself if wakes up and smells the coffee.

Now as for Mr Gorman, he is hate-worthy. Dave Gorman builds himself up to be the greatest thing ever, he gets his flatmate to plug him (I'm suprised Danny Wallace could get away with that on Funny Talk quite frankly), he hawls himself all over the media and then turns out to be utter rubbish on TV. The sheer arrogance of the man is what gets me. That and the fact that his comic style is basically having a go at others. Trying to get laughs by slagging off the other panelists on TV shows (and failing), basing an entire show on other Dave Gormans he's met and basically slagging them off too. Is slagging people off supposed to be innovative comedy? I feel sorry for the other Dave Gormans. They agreeded to meet Dave out of the kindness of their hearts and what does he do, make money by slagging them off. Ha, fucking, ha. I don't need to see that show to know that it's not clever, it's not funny, it's not innovative, it's just mean. And if you think I'm paying to see 60 minutes or 90 minutes of arrogance and meanness because I really shouldn't judge till I've seen it or because Time Out thinks it's good, you've got another thing coming. Is Dave Gorman hate-worthy? You bet he is!

>Incidentally, did you see BE praising DG to the heavens on TFI recently?

I have never seen TFI. And do you really expect me to change my views on DG simply because Ben Elton likes him? Ben Elton's mates with Prince Charles from what I hear, doesn't mean I'm suddenly rethinking my views on the monarchy. But if, as you say, Ben Elton was praising DG on TFI it seems odd in the light of Ben's comments about arrogant, publicity-hungry media savvy comedians in "Inconceivable".

>I still reckon it's Kiki Dee.

What's Kiki Dee done?

>That and the fact that his comic style is basically having a go at others.>

Err... no it isn't.

>basing an entire show on other Dave Gormans he's met and basically slagging them off too.>

Seeing as you've admitted you haven't seen the show how have you arrived at this conclusion? It is 100% wrong. One of the most enjoyable aspects of the stage show was that you could see how much DG liked the other DGs. He certainly didn't slag them off. Nothing in the show, and nothing I've seen written about the show, would suggest that he does that. But you haven't seen it so you don't know what you're talking about.

>I don't need to see that show to know that it's not clever, it's not funny, it's not innovative, it's just mean.>

Well this is an impossible argument then isn't it? You don't need to see a show to establish an opinion about it when you can make wildly inaccurate guesses about the content.

Once again qwerty/Craig you ignore the real issue about why Dave Gorman is a hate figure - because he basically hauls himself all over the media in the most disgusting way. But anyway...

>>That and the fact that his comic style is basically having a go at others.>
>
>Err... no it isn't.

He was trying to get laughs by having a go at the other Buzzcocks and They Think It's All Over panelists. And he failed.

>>basing an entire show on other Dave Gormans he's met and basically slagging them off too.>
>
>Seeing as you've admitted you haven't seen the show how have you arrived at this conclusion?

Eyewitness accounts, from trusted friends with whom I usually agree. What's your problem? Have you always been 100% informed about everything before drawing a conclusion? Of course you haven't, because it's impossible to have all the facts. So one bases one's opinion on those available. And to those eyewitness accounts I add my views on his comedy that I have seen. Now in terms of a discussion on whether Dave Gorman will be any good on TV, I think it's fairly safe to conclude that a stage show described by trusted-friends as mean-spirited, cheap and unfunny, when adapted for television by it's creator, a media-hungry man (and don't tell me that doesn't effect his comedy!) who has failed to amuse me or prove that his comedy isn't mean-spirited and cheap will be rubbish and hateful. Now if it turns out to be any different I will say so. And what's more I will say it on this forum and provide reasons as to why I think it's great. And the same goes for if it's rubbish. I await The Dave Gorman Collection with interest.

>It is 100% wrong. One of the most enjoyable aspects of the stage show was that you could see how much DG liked the other DGs. He certainly didn't slag them off. Nothing in the show, and nothing I've seen written about the show, would suggest that he does that. But you haven't seen it so you don't know what you're talking about.

Are you suggesting that my friends are lying to me?

>>I don't need to see that show to know that it's not clever, it's not funny, it's not innovative, it's just mean.>
>
>Well this is an impossible argument then isn't it? You don't need to see a show to establish an opinion about it when you can make wildly inaccurate guesses about the content.

I wouldn't call eyewitness accounts, which is what they were, "wildly inaccurate".

'Alison',

When all this started you said you would have seen DGs show if it hadn't been sold out.

Then you said, "if you think I'd pay blah blah..."

After many, many posts on the subject, all of a sudden you decided the stage show *was* a reason for hating him. And you suddenly invented wildly innacurate content for the show to 'back up' your argument.

I don't think your friends were lying to you. I think you were lying to us when you invented these eye-witness accounts.

>'Alison',
>
>When all this started you said you would have seen DGs show if it hadn't been sold out.
>
>Then you said, "if you think I'd pay blah blah..."

I was in two minds about whether I should see the show. I was interested in going, but didn't have a lot of money to spend on entertainment. Then I heard what my friends had to say. The more I learnt about Gorman the more I disliked him. And I decided to save my money for something else.

>After many, many posts on the subject, all of a sudden you decided the stage show *was* a reason for hating him. And you suddenly invented wildly innacurate content for the show to 'back up' your argument.

That is not true. Once again you have a blind spot over the fact that he was crap on TV (you even admited he wasn't great on TV in a roundabout way in a previous post) and that he's basically got where he is by getting his flatmate, Danny Wallace to plug him constantly.

>I don't think your friends were lying to you. I think you were lying to us when you invented these eye-witness accounts.

And I think you're lying when you say your name is Craig.

Not a fan of Gorman myself (far from it), but my memory of him on MNTB was of him sat in silence, rather than trying to get one over on the other guests.

And I think you're both lying. So there.

>>'Alison',
>>

>I was in two minds about whether I should see the show. I was interested in going, but didn't have a lot of money to spend on entertainment. Then I heard what my friends had to say.>

Which is different to your earlier "if he hadn't been sold out" version of events. Like I say, you've clearly invented these eye-witness accounts.

>> And you suddenly invented wildly innacurate content for the show to 'back up' your argument.>>
>
>That is not true. Once again you have a blind spot over the fact that he was crap on TV (you even admited he wasn't great on TV in a roundabout way in a previous post) and that he's basically got where he is by getting his flatmate, Danny Wallace to plug him constantly.>

No. Firstly, if this is the main point of your argument, why have you only raised it this afternoon.
Secondly, yes, I said he was disappointing on the panel games. My point was that didn't make him hate-worthy. You seem to have accepted that point because it was when that point had been made that you suddenly changed your tack and decided that yes, it was the stage show after all that was the reason. You know, the stage show that you hadn't seen.
Thirdly, I genuinely don't know what plugging you are talking about or what funny talk is?
What I do know is that DGs flatmate is an integral part of the show. It would be odd if he didn't talk about it.


>And I think you're lying when you say your name is Craig.

We've been through this several times. My name is Craig. However, you're making up facts because your argument doesn't fit. The truth is as simple as this: Time Out praised DGs stage show and you slagged him off for no reason other than to join in. Childish, pavlovian nonsense.

>>>'Alison',
>>>
>
>>I was in two minds about whether I should see the show. I was interested in going, but didn't have a lot of money to spend on entertainment. Then I heard what my friends had to say.>
>
>Which is different to your earlier "if he hadn't been sold out" version of events.

He was sold out in Edinburgh which is why I didn't see him there. I was still interested in going when his London shows were announced. Then came poverty and my friends telling me about his show. And thus I didn't end up going.

>Like I say, you've clearly invented these eye-witness accounts.

No, you've re-read my previous posts a little too quickly.

>>> And you suddenly invented wildly innacurate content for the show to 'back up' your argument.>>
>>
>>That is not true. Once again you have a blind spot over the fact that he was crap on TV (you even admited he wasn't great on TV in a roundabout way in a previous post) and that he's basically got where he is by getting his flatmate, Danny Wallace to plug him constantly.>
>
>No. Firstly, if this is the main point of your argument, why have you only raised it this afternoon.

You've basically focused your arguement as to why he's great on his show. I've been too busy defending that point to get caught up with others.

>Secondly, yes, I said he was disappointing on the panel games. My point was that didn't make him hate-worthy. You seem to have accepted that point because it was when that point had been made that you suddenly changed your tack and decided that yes, it was the stage show after all that was the reason. You know, the stage show that you hadn't seen.

You were defending his TV work by saying that something probably happened in post production that made him come across as a bit rubbish. I was pointing out why you were wrong about that. And defending my views on his stage show, that as you rightly point out, I have not seen.

>Thirdly, I genuinely don't know what plugging you are talking about or what funny talk is?
>What I do know is that DGs flatmate is an integral part of the show. It would be odd if he didn't talk about it.

Dave Gorman's flatmate, Danny Wallace, has been writing a weekly website called Funny Talk which is part of beeb.com. Danny Wallace used to be a staff writer for Comedy Review magazine and he is one of the few journalists who write exclusively about comedy. Last August he was writing from the Edinburgh Fringe and mercilessly plugging Dave Gorman's show. At some point he mentioned that he had some involvement in the show, as you've mentioned above. The fact that Danny Wallace was plugging Dave Gorman, hinting at how was Dave was tipped to get a Perrier nomination (and what do you know, he did) and generally talking about how well his show was going is a definite conflict of interest. It should have appeared in Private Eye and Danny Wallace should have been banged to rights about it. The fact that he could get away with openly admiting that he was plugging his flatmate's show is quite amazing. Anyway, had Danny Wallace had an integrity he wouldn't have done it. And had Dave Gorman had any integrity he wouldn't have allowed it to happen. This is one of the reasons I dislike Dave Gorman.

>>And I think you're lying when you say your name is Craig.
>
>We've been through this several times. My name is Craig. However, you're making up facts because your argument doesn't fit. The truth is as simple as this: Time Out praised DGs stage show and you slagged him off for no reason other than to join in. Childish, pavlovian nonsense.

I find it fascinating that you call me childish when you originally did little more than slag me off for being "ugly", when you have repeatedly bandied about the real names of people who post to this forum (in an attempt to expose this site in some way pressumably) like they're some great big secret anyway and in so doing behaved like a very small boy who's just learnt what else he can do with his cock, when you have consistently deleted things you can't rebut and when you have not admited that you couldn't rebut them.

>You've basically focused your arguement as to why he's great on his show. I've been too busy defending that point to get caught up with others.
>
Not at all. I've focussed my argument on the fact that you don't have any real reason to hate him. My argument hasn't shifted from this. Youyrs changes when you're losing

>>Secondly, yes, I said he was disappointing on the panel games. My point was that didn't make him hate-worthy. You seem to have accepted that point because it was when that .
>
And defending my views on his stage show, that as you rightly point out, I have not seen.
>
which speaks for itself. Well done for a self destructing argument.
>
>Dave Gorman's flatmate, Danny Wallace, has been writing a weekly website called Funny Talk which is part of beeb.com. Danny Wallace used to be a staff writer for Comedy Review magazine and he is one of the few journalists who write exclusively about comedy. Last August he was writing from the Edinburgh Fringe and mercilessly plugging Dave Gorman's show. At some point he mentioned that he had some involvement in the show, as you've mentioned above. The fact that Danny Wallace was plugging Dave Gorman, hinting at how was Dave was tipped to get a Perrier nomination (and what do you know, he did) and generally talking about how well his show was going is a definite conflict of interest. It should have appeared in Private Eye and Danny Wallace should have been banged to rights about it. The fact that he could get away with openly admiting that he was plugging his flatmate's show is quite amazing. Anyway, had Danny Wallace had an integrity he wouldn't have done it. And had Dave Gorman had any integrity he wouldn't have allowed it to happen. This is one of the reasons I dislike Dave Gorman.>

Presumably he liked the show. I read a piece he wrote for The Independent (I think) about being DGs flatmate. I think it's an interesting one. If he didn't own up to his involvement it might be dodgy. The show was selling out, it was getting extremely good press elsewhere and it was nominated for the Perrier. I think it would be odd if he didn't write about it? Or are you seriously suggesting that a page on beeb.com is responsible for creating that success. If you are, you are quite frankly madder than I thought. I went to see the show because I overheard people talking about it in the bar at The Pleasance.

>
>I find it fascinating that you call me childish when you originally did little more than slag me off for being "ugly",

Which was making a point about you being personally insulting. A point which you accepted.

> when you have repeatedly bandied about the real names of people who post to this forum (in an attempt to expose this site in some way pressumably) like they're some great big secret anyway>

Sorry, this bit makes me laugh. You're obssessed and your argument goes round in circles. I used your names because they're your names. You argue that I am exposing you and also that everyone knows your names anyway. They can't both be true. Grow up.

> and in so doing behaved like a very small boy who's just learnt what else he can do with his cock>

At least you believe that I'm male now. You're learning.

> when you have consistently deleted things you can't rebut and when you have not admited that you couldn't rebut them.>

No, I've replied to only those things I am informed about. As you asked earlier, yes, I am always 100% informed before I come to a conclusion about things. You, by your own admission are not.

bye

>Not at all. I've focussed my argument on the fact that you don't have any real reason to hate him. My argument hasn't shifted from this. Youyrs changes when you're losing

On the contrary, my arguement has a lot of parts to it. You should never play all my cards at once.

>And defending my views on his stage show, that as you rightly point out, I have not seen.
>>
>which speaks for itself. Well done for a self destructing argument.

Oh rubbish. As I haven't seen the show, how do I know you aren't lying when you say my friends are wrong about what they said the show was like?

>>Dave Gorman's flatmate, Danny Wallace, has been writing a weekly website called Funny Talk which is part of beeb.com. Danny Wallace used to be a staff writer for Comedy Review magazine and he is one of the few journalists who write exclusively about comedy. Last August he was writing from the Edinburgh Fringe and mercilessly plugging Dave Gorman's show. At some point he mentioned that he had some involvement in the show, as you've mentioned above. The fact that Danny Wallace was plugging Dave Gorman, hinting at how was Dave was tipped to get a Perrier nomination (and what do you know, he did) and generally talking about how well his show was going is a definite conflict of interest. It should have appeared in Private Eye and Danny Wallace should have been banged to rights about it. The fact that he could get away with openly admiting that he was plugging his flatmate's show is quite amazing. Anyway, had Danny Wallace had an integrity he wouldn't have done it. And had Dave Gorman had any integrity he wouldn't have allowed it to happen. This is one of the reasons I dislike Dave Gorman.>
>
>Presumably he liked the show.

Firstly, Danny Wallace can hardly appear to dislike a show he had some involvement in. Or if he found fault in it, it would be difficult for him to admit it. Secondly if Danny Wallace didn't like the show it would also be difficult for him to admit it because he lives with Gorman and is his friend. Telling a friend you don't like their work is hard.

>I read a piece he wrote for The Independent (I think) about being DGs flatmate. I think it's an interesting one. If he didn't own up to his involvement it might be dodgy. The show was selling out, it was getting extremely good press elsewhere and it was nominated for the Perrier. I think it would be odd if he didn't write about it? Or are you seriously suggesting that a page on beeb.com is responsible for creating that success. If you are, you are quite frankly madder than I thought.

Of course not, it just happens to be a coincidence. But there are ways these things can be done. You've seen Getting A Gong, you heard what Max Clifford said. It's possible...and you don't necessarily need money either. You just whisper in a few ears.

>I went to see the show because I overheard people talking about it in the bar at The Pleasance.

You are one person. A lot of people read Funny Talk and believe it to be some kind of comedy bible.

>>I find it fascinating that you call me childish when you originally did little more than slag me off for being "ugly",
>
>Which was making a point about you being personally insulting. A point which you accepted.

Yes. But it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

>> when you have repeatedly bandied about the real names of people who post to this forum (in an attempt to expose this site in some way pressumably) like they're some great big secret anyway>
>
>Sorry, this bit makes me laugh. You're obssessed and your argument goes round in circles. I used your names because they're your names. You argue that I am exposing you and also that everyone knows your names anyway. They can't both be true. Grow up.

Why don't you! Win your arguements without resorting to expose tactics.

>> and in so doing behaved like a very small boy who's just learnt what else he can do with his cock>
>
>At least you believe that I'm male now. You're learning.

I said you were like a very small boy, not that you are one or that you are male.

>> when you have consistently deleted things you can't rebut and when you have not admited that you couldn't rebut them.>
>
>No, I've replied to only those things I am informed about. As you asked earlier, yes, I am always 100% informed before I come to a conclusion about things. You, by your own admission are not.

OK so I've never seen Dave Gorman's show. It ain't no crime. But I was right that an awful lot of people hate Dave Gorman on this forum. "We all hate" is a generalisation, but it's in the right ball park. You try and convince all of them that Dave's great. I'll believe you when I've seen and enjoyed "The Dave Gorman Collection".

Alison. There is literally nothing to say. Nothing in your last post I can respond to with anything but laughter. Conspiracy theories and nonsense.
This is my favourite bit:


>Oh rubbish. As I haven't seen the show, how do I know you aren't lying when you say my friends are wrong about what they said the show was like?
>

I mean. Really.

Craig