Steven isn't the World's Most Mental Man. This guy is...

http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/

http://willburs.diaryland.com/ more like.

So let me get this straight, I'm apparently the 'Worlds Most Mental Man' because I got into an argument about comedy? The guy on that page obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in the slightest and has no real grasp of what the argument was about, or indeed this entire site (describing it as 'funny'). And is obviously a total hypocrite because he complains about me dissing stuff on a website which is entirely devoted to dissing stuff. Also, I said I made "typing errors" because of my speedy typing on a crappy keyboard, any spelling mistakes are because I either don't know how to spell the word right or are being absent minded and don't read over my posts before I press send. Yet this guy's grasp of grammar and punctuation are far more in decline, and after reading my name 1000 times he still can't even spell it fucking right.

If the 'English comedy scene' is bitchy, how does he explain all those American internet users dissing Sienfeld and the Simpsons to their writers. Yes, both went on a decline in comedy quality, but that's to be expected in such long running shows, it's amazing that either ran as long as they have, top quality shows to be thankfull for.

>http://willburs.diaryland.com/ more like.

That's evil subbes, but soooo true.

Curiously, I'm really quite friendly with the guy who wrote the stuff about Steven. And I didn't know he even read this forum.

Curious.

Hi stephen, sorry Steven,
ok :
1 > the dissing thing is pretty tongue in cheek, i didnt name it, register it, or really diss anything, i just write a little bit of nonsense every few days

2> its not really my position to explain anything about people bitching about seinfeld and the simpsons. i generally dont read comedy web boards or whatnot, but i saw your posts because my friend saw them and was so amazed at how anyone could care that much about what somsone else does.

3> like yourself i dont really read over what i write, my grammer and puncutation are usually well off - i usually speak Gaeigle or Ceant (the tinker tongue), its not as if i'm writing anything of any great importance, big deal, i misspelled your name - please dont cry because of me.

4> i think you are an absolute nut because you care so much how someone else makes their money. there you go - i've said it. if charlie brooker was contiously sneaking into your room at night and touching you, taking photos of it and posting them to your mum, then i could understand you being a little pissed off with him, but because you dont like his site?!? madness! i doubt i'm the first person to tel you this, if you dont like it dont look at it. its not big deal. its not as if its going to be remembered in a million years time.

to quote my dear father, "Dont hate tha playa, hate tha game"

remember - stay clear of guns and belltowers and tv go home - it could be a bad combination.

regards
Andy

1 > That website is a bit childish, the entire premise is to go on and insult stuff. While even in all irony, I think this website is about the praise, damnation and general discussion of comedy. I see no crime in my getting into a strong argument about comedy, and if heaven forbid you felt so strongly about the issue of my ranting you could of easily posted a message in the thread to question my exasperated 'ravings'.

2 > If you're in no position to explain people arguing over American comedy like the Simpsons or Seinfelf, how does that possible justify your position on UK comedy, which I gather you apparently know even far less about, do you see the hypocracy here? And pertaining to your amazement about how much I 'care' about what Charlie is doing. That particular thread was a culmination of a long running argument, which I think is now resolved (for the most part). I'm extremely sure that if that particular thread showed my posts in-between a barrage of similar posts directed at Charlie then you would have had nowhere near the opinion of me you have now. It is simply the fact that I was a lone voice amongst Charlie's defendants that rifled you, if it was a safety in numbers attack on Charlie's work I'm sure you would of been on my side and would of seen Charlie's passionately snide comments as 'mental'. Again, this has been a long running debate, and similar things have happened in the past, you're witnessing of the culmination of the argument does not in the least bit justify your opinion.

3 > Grammar, I don't really care about people not using amazingly accurate grammar on the internet, especially in just quick personal messages etc, but many people have used poor grammar as an excuse to rubbish my arguments in the past, and the fact that you used it also and in an argument you had written with terrible grammar, it seemed extremely hypocritical. Secondly, you made up a quote that I never said, I said my fast typing on my crap keyboard results in many typos, but I never said it creates my misspelling's.

4 > Regarding your view that I'm a 'nut' and not to look at his site if it 'upsets' me. I never had a problem with Charlie running his little sites, until people started coming on here and posting threads about how great they apparently were, this forum is for comedy debate, I have a contrary opinion and was perfectly in the right to express it. And I have known Charlie's work for well over 10 years now, waaay before Tv Go Home, you are making rash judgements on things you don't know about. And also another thing you don't know about UK comedy, is how utterly terrible it now is. And how these media savvy comedians are prosituting their badly written, single-joke acts on television to make money, it is a sickening sight, and I don't want any more of them sponging off the media's stupidity. There is a much bigger argument going on behind the `Steven hates TV Go Home' conceit.
And as for your other comments, they were just petty insults, saying I should steer clear of guns and belltowers. I could give petty comments about commercialised American comedy being the cause for the drop in quality over here, or Americas rash of insane gun freaks, or things along the lines of all Americans are 300 pound cheeseburger eating idiots etc, but that would just be petty and derogatory comments, and we wouldn't want to use them now would we?

I think my argument with Charlie was perfectly justified, apart from the plagiarism issue, which I still think is due to Charlie's fault at not wording his terms very well on his site. I do think TV Go Home is formulaic and a prostitution of comedy, etc etc, but I still think it's better than some stuff that IS on television, that's not justifying it, it's simply showing how bad things have become.

Steven shoots self in foot. Game over.

ok Mr Steve, i dont want to get into a month long arguement with you on this, but..

>1 > That website is a bit childish, the entire premise is to go on and insult stuff.

kinda. maybe. yes. not necessarily. its just ramblings on my part. some of its silly, some of its a genuine dislike for things.

While even in all irony, I think this website is about the praise, damnation and general discussion of comedy. I see no crime in my getting into a strong argument about comedy, and if heaven forbid you felt so strongly about the issue of my ranting you could of easily posted a message in the thread to question my exasperated 'ravings'.

-----------
nor do i! i'm an opinionated person too - but from what i saw of your posts, i dont think the term opinionated is nearly strong enough, maybe we'll call you HYPER-opinionated, or TURBO-Opinioned etc...

>
>2 > If you're in no position to explain people arguing over American comedy like the Simpsons or Seinfelf, how does that possible justify your position on UK comedy,
==========
its a magic combination of keyboard, brain and looking at this page that left me in a position to comment - EVERYONES GOT AN OPINION ON ANYTHING DIDNT YA KNOW! What I dont understand is why you brought the seinfeld/simpsons thing into the equation thats all...

which I gather you apparently know even far less about, do you see the hypocracy here?

hypocracy schmocracy - you want me to learn your and charlie brookers life history before i DARE speak about someone spending their afternoons/days/years spouting such venomous bile about something - you miss my point i think - i wasnt really commenting on WHAT you were saying, just the sheer "passion" for want of a better word you seem to have for trying to tell the world how much you dislike charlie brooker.


It is simply the fact that I was a lone voice amongst Charlie's defendants that rifled you, if it was a safety in numbers attack on Charlie's work I'm sure you would of been on my side and would of seen Charlie's passionately snide comments as 'mental'.

==========
no no no no no.
i dont really care too much for the content of the arguement, as i said before, i was just amazed at the lengths you were going to to express a point, thats all. it could have been any point. with regard to "if more people had agreed with me, you'd have agreed with me" - a tad presumptious - al'yall dont know me, sit down scrub.


>>>
Again, this has been a long running debate, and similar things have happened in the past, you're witnessing of the culmination of the argument does not in the least bit justify your opinion.

========
like wathcing a car crash.

>

>4 > Regarding your view that I'm a 'nut' and not to look at his site if it 'upsets' me. I never had a problem with Charlie running his little sites, until people started coming on here and posting threads about how great they apparently were,
=====
ignore them so! the threads that is. you have your opinion they have theirs. bite your own tongue off if needs be! no point being some internet-martyr, make your point, but dont make yourself look incredibly silly by making it 5000000 times in an hour.

>>
this forum is for comedy debate, I have a contrary opinion and was perfectly in the right to express it.
=====
yeah, you got a right to express a point and boy did you express it, and then you expressed it again, and then someone else posted and you expressed it to them, and then you expressed it again.............
and then at 6.45 you were still expressing it......then 9 days later you were still expressing it...i'm sure if i looked up at that thread right now, you'd probalby STILL be expressing it.
trust me - your point wasnt THAT complex - everyone GOT it fist time! you hate tv go home! hurah! some people like tv go home! hurrah!

>>
And I have known Charlie's work for well over 10 years now, waaay before Tv Go Home, you are making rash judgements on things you don't know about. And also another thing you don't know about UK comedy, is how utterly terrible it now is.

====
yup it probalby is, but whats posting like a mentalist on an internet web board gonna do? it'll make you look a bit craxy! thats all.

>>>
And how these media savvy comedians are prosituting their badly written, single-joke acts on television to make money, it is a sickening sight, and I don't want any more of them sponging off the media's stupidity.

====
what an astute cultural observation...
excuse me while i say "duh" really loudly.
but i think its a little innacurate to go comparing tv go home to 2.4 children or something...fair enough it might be the same thing every week - but i'd imagine thats the point. its amusing. people laugh. do you hate The Onion too? <just curious>

>>
>And as for your other comments, they were just petty insults, saying I should steer clear of guns and belltowers.
*snip all the stuff about commercialism and america*
i wasnt being insulting, i was merely joking.
if it was being insulting i'd probably call

i was nearly finished anyways.

>if it was being insulting i'd probably call you a "stupih ballix" or something.
by the way i'm Irish, not american. so quit trying to get at me by pointing out flaws in american society which really dont matter to do me. at least i think thats what you're were doing. well i guess you're mental afterall, so you might not necessarily have been trying to do that...

anyway!

regards

Andy

Gah! This site *exists* because some people are irrationally passionate about comedy. It exists because of people like Steven, kind of. If you're going to mock him for "spending (his) afternoons/days/years spouting such venomous bile about something", then why not mock the Corpses for spending their afternoons/days/years writing their venomous articles? I mean, gosh, there are people who care enough about things to bother getting angry and writing about them. I suppose this makes them turbo-opinionated nutters in your little world? I would suggest you read "Anal Preventive", but I'm not sure you'd manage all those long words.
Now, Steven isn't alwways right, and he does sometimes argue himself into a corner, go around in circles, repeat himself and so on. But his "TURBO-opinionated" ways (something which I would rather call "passion") usually make for interesting reading - otherwise you wouldn't have noticed him in the first place - and are hugely refreshing in the midst of this post-modern, who-gives-a-fuck-about-anything? malaise that most of the western world (and you in particular) seems to be going through.
Oh yeah, and he might have clumsy typing fingers, but at least he knows what capital letters are for.
You suggested that Steven:
"ignore them so! the threads that is. you have your opinion they have theirs. bite your own tongue off if needs be!".
Can I ask you something, Andy? Do you even have the slightest idea what a Forum is *for*?
Steven does not come across as "a bit craxy"(sic), or a "mentalist". What he is is angry and intelligent, with a serious passion for comedy and a tendency to get sucked into arguments. And, as far as I'm concerned, long may he continue doing so.

Sir, I bid you good day.

i had a large response written, but i'm sick and tired <literally> so i decided to scrap it because you've summed up my view of him in your first line -
"irrational"
and long may he continue being irrational, it'll keep me amused next time i'm told about an 85 thousand post thread on corpses

thats all
regards,
andy

(ps - i think i may have called him passionate somewhere along the line, not sure, i certainly dont doubt that he is - i'm not steve wonder for heavens sake)

(pps - no, i dont know very many words, and i only listen to rap music)

RE: The fact you feel the need to keep going on and on about this guy Steven; posting messages, coming back to check for new ones, and reposting (often repeating yourself).
Please explain because I genually don't understand

Is this just extremely stupid or are you desperately trying to be ironic in an extremely dull and uninteresting way?