They're ignoring real questions in favour of "have you ever wanted to be a rapper?" and "is it true you were in Hogan's Heroes?".

Yawn.

Now I've been given a 'warning' for asking why my questions were ignored by the chat editor.

Mmm, and full of people just quoting I'm Alan Partridge and swearing. I'm starting to see the point the Corpses were making about that show more and more, Iannucci said it was the show he was most proud of though.

The major problem of all these chats is the way they are modorated, anything interesting is discarded in favour of pointless stuff like 'cos you're on telly can you pick up woman with big tits?' by the Ch4 staff. I'm sure someone like Armando is clever and grown up enough to be able to read people's comments unaided, and won't be shocked by any amount of swearing or triviality and have the ability to pick stuff to answer himself.

That was an embarassment.

Some awful questions got through. I think he answered them all fairly well, but little information was gleaned.

That's not true now is it? He actually said there was no need to to do a commentary because the show basically is a commentary. And you know it. Shame on you TJ.

>...because he hasn't got a DVD player himself and thinks the commentary would be a waste of time.
>
>Well, that was an interesting webchat.
>

Another brilliant show, I thought.

oh..and he was referring to The Armando Shows not TDT..as you also know. Shame on you again.

>...because he hasn't got a DVD player himself and thinks the commentary would be a waste of time.
>
>Well, that was an interesting webchat.
>

>That's not true now is it? He actually said there was no need to to do a commentary because the show basically is a commentary. And you know it. Shame on you TJ.

He did say that if you look.

It was probably a joke, but didn't come across that way because of the way in which the moderators were setting out the chat.

No shame on me at all.

>oh..and he was referring to The Armando Shows not TDT..as you also know. Shame on you again.

The first question raised was in relation to TDT. The question about the Armando Shows followed immediately.

I guess I should post this down here now...

That web chat was absolutely terrible. It's not questioning by the public but questioning by the annoying chat editor. He/She selects the most inane questions out of a choice of 2000 so effectively you end up with an unqualified twat who knows nothing about anything performing a vapid and terrible interview.

Just like anything done "for the people" it ends up just being no better than those who commission programmes or select the question. A drooling media troll is going to produce drooling media troll poo no matter how much he consults with focus groups and opinion polls and submitted ideas. An idiot will produce idiocy. The only answer is to get the most talent dedicated people to do everything.

There's no reason to expect anything else, but just one interesting unexpected question would be nice.

(you put up a good fight TJ)

I thought he should have left the traffic cone bit in the web site sketch. The point that the guy was being dismissed made me laugh. Still good though. He should also have scrapped the 'we're good at tele' bits as they spoil it a little for me. As they aren't funny. Just an opinion.

>He should also have scrapped the 'we're good at tele' bits as they spoil it a little for me. As they aren't funny. Just an opinion.

Okay, here's another: I laugh my nuts off at them. Often, telly is so bad, you find yourself asking "Do the people who made this think it is good? Are they proud? Why didn't they stop themselves before it was too late?" And clearly Armando imagines them dancing around their office with pride. It's a fantastically funny idea.

>Another brilliant show, I thought.

another pile of steaming piss i thought.

only joking. i didn't watch it because the first two were so god awful. this new series isn't even as good as the friday night armistice, never mind TDT.

My favourite part was the most straightforward - when he discussed things that we wouldn't miss if they weren't there.

"The Daily Express...the Bluetones...the countries Chad, Paraguay and Laos..."

etc. Otherwise, weaker than the first two I thought.

I thought it was possibly the best one yet. Except for the second one which was maybe better than it.

>things that we wouldn't miss if they weren't there.
>
>"The Daily Express...the Bluetones...the countries Chad, Paraguay and Laos..."

sounds awful. are the bluetones even still together?

>sounds awful. are the bluetones even still together?
>

Yes they are, and it's the way he tells 'em. Ergo, probably not very helpful of me to quote it.

The charity appeal for British theatre - genius, surely? And the vicar.

>I thought he should have left the traffic cone bit in the web site sketch. The point that the guy was being dismissed made me laugh. Still good though. He should also have scrapped the 'we're good at tele' bits as they spoil it a little for me. As they aren't funny. Just an opinion.

Oh, you're right. Mind you, I thought the net sketch was a lot tighter without the cone thing. The pain is a little more extended but the edit tonight was fine.

I should qualify that a bit. The "We're on telly sketches" are one of the few recurring elements of the show, and only really stand up as a passable one-off but sadly he's made several. The IRA sketch which introduced them was a particularly sluggish introduction.

>I thought he should have left the traffic cone bit in the web site sketch. The point that the guy was being dismissed made me >laugh. Still good though. He should also have

Could you explain what was in that bit?

The website sketch was a very accurate pisstake of the whole dotcom stupidity - another good bit in a quality episode.

Well, I liked it *all*. I think Armando should get more credit. More credit than Simon Pegg at any rate.

*except for the shouty bits

I was fairly pissed off (but not surprised) that none of my questions were picked even though, if I do say so myself, they were infinitely more intersting than "Are you Italina or an electrical appliance?" and someone trying to be funny by calling him "Mandy." I found myself cringing at some of the more asinine questions.

Believe it or not, not everyone is like most of the people on here. Using every given opportunity to take part in an intellectual penis measuring competition.
Not everyone analises every 'witty' comment they make because it doesn't matter that much to them.
They were fans who just wanted to ask a question. Stop being a cunt. That goes for most of you.
You'll be asking next why people laugh at Ali G and TH TV. It's because they find it funny. Deal with it and fuck off.
I bet you lot go to your Grandad's working man's club and make ironic comments about the performers with a stupid student grin. I've seen you.
And if my spelling is all wrong I don't give a shit either.
Fucking intellectuals do my head in. They just don't know how to be nice.


>I was fairly pissed off (but not surprised) that none of my questions were picked even though, if I do say so myself, they were infinitely more intersting than "Are you Italina or an electrical appliance?" and someone trying to be funny by calling him "Mandy." I found myself cringing at some of the more asinine questions.

>Believe it or not, not everyone is like most of the people on here.

But some people are. Whay are none of them allowed to have their questions chosen.

Whay don't you try reading the thread. People aren't criticising the people who asked the questions. They're criticising the moderators, who seemingly exclusively picked one type of question. To the exclusion of "us".

Hi

>But some people are. Whay are none of them allowed to have their questions chosen.

Rich Johnston got a question posted, I notice.

>Whay don't you try reading the thread. People aren't criticising the people who asked the questions. They're criticising the moderators, who seemingly exclusively picked one type of question. To the exclusion of "us".

Couple of points, not all directed at you, time_e.

1) Moderator, singular. A girl who works very long hours to get these chats online and who, it is worth pointing out, is not "one of us" (by which I presume you mean self-appointed comedy "experts" who can get upset by a chat that doesn't go their way), but a happy-go-lucky lady who likes a laugh and a drink and is very pleased when she can eke some joy from life. Her major concerns do not list among them the deleted scenes (and reasons behind) of I'm AP.

2) She picked the questions most representative of what was being asked, the ones that stood out, the ones that were most likely to entertain. Not "the most inane". She certainly doesn't apply the latter as one of her criteria.

3) Token Gesture: "so effectively you end up with an unqualified twat who knows nothing about anything performing a vapid and terrible interview". Define "qualified".

3 TG again: "The only answer is to get the most talent dedicated people to do everything". Attention to detail is *so* important, isn't it? Good to see you know how to right the wrongs (wrungs?) on the employment ladder, TG. There was me thinking that employing mentally subnormal, disinterested people was a viable alternative.

4) You want to ask Armando Iannucci a question? Write a fucking letter!

This place...

>Her major concerns do not list among them the deleted scenes (and reasons behind) of I'm AP.

With respect, her concerns are entirely unimportant. She shouldn't be moderating the chat for her own entertainment.

>4) You want to ask Armando Iannucci a question? Write a fucking letter!

Quite. How dare someone attempt to use a web chat that's been set up so that they can, erm, ask Armando Ianucci a question?

>With respect, her concerns are entirely unimportant. She shouldn't be moderating the chat for her own entertainment.

With similar respect, she should be moderating it for the entertainment of Armando Iannucci's audience, not a minority of hardcore fans. I would argue that she used her editorial skill and judgement to do so.

>>4) You want to ask Armando Iannucci a question? Write a fucking letter!
>
>Quite. How dare someone attempt to use a web chat that's been set up so that they can, erm, ask Armando Ianucci a question?

That wasn't my point. How dare someone whinge and complain in such a pompous, insulting and self-regarding way that their question wasn't aired on a chat? Especially when considering that such an opportunity isn't that hard to come by if they REALLY wanted to ask those questions. I mean, Armando Iannucci's hardly Lord Lucan, is he? "Oh no, my question amongst thousands didn't get on screen. There must be a fuckwit moderating."

As I say, this place...

>"Oh no, my question amongst thousands didn't get on screen. There must be a fuckwit moderating."

I was the one who complained about questions not being asked. At no point did I refer to anyone as a 'fuckwit' nor imply that I thought they were, or indeed complain about anything other than the completely unjustified warning I recieved (and before you respond, I'm not interested in arguing that point with you, so don't bother).

Don't blur and confuse different people's points with each other. I don't speak for anyone else in this discussion, nor they for me, so stop ascribing ideals to people that haven't actually expressed them. It's not fair.

>I was the one who complained about questions not being asked.

You weren't the only one. I very clearly pointed out in my original mail who I was referring to, so no "blurring" there.

>At no point did I refer to anyone as a 'fuckwit' nor imply that I thought they were, or indeed complain about anything other than the completely unjustified warning I recieved (and before you respond, I'm not interested in arguing that point with you, so don't bother).

Ha! The "fuckwit" reference was not intended to be a reference to your complaint, TJ, but to Token Gesture's use of "unqualified twat" and "idiot" when referring to the moderator, who I know personally. It was made in the spirit of previous discussions concerning the abilities of staff at C4, and was intended to be light-hearted satire. I didn't realise you would take it so personally.

>Don't blur and confuse different people's points with each other. I don't speak for anyone else in this discussion, nor they for me, so stop ascribing ideals to people that haven't actually expressed them. It's not fair.

As pointed out, I named names. For what it's worth, TJ, I think that your reference to your own questions as "real" when compared to those that got published *is* a bit supercilious but, y' know, no offence.

Cheerio

>As pointed out, I named names. For what it's worth, TJ, I think that your reference to your own questions as "real" when compared to those that got published *is* a bit supercilious but, y' know, no offence.

I didn't mean every question published. I had specific examples in mind, some of which I reproduced on this thread. And I'm sorry if you find it 'supercilious', but I *do* consider "would you ever work with Lee and Herring again?" or "was this new series a conscious return to the style of your early solo radio shows?" to be 'real' questions when compared to the likes of "do you get girls with big bazonkas when you're on TV?" or "did you ever want to be a rapper?".

Other than that, point (as in the point you made directly to me above) taken.

If the worst comes to the worst, and this country DOES end up sending troops into Afghanistan, I want TJ to lead our boys into action. He seems a thoroughly serious fellow. And he's always right.

Iannucci's answers don't help in that webchat, though. Obviously, you're always going to get people whose messages read "Can I send you porn?". But Iannucci's just a bit couldn't-care-less - why *not* release more of his output on video or DVD - just because he doesn't own a DVD player himself is actually irrelevant. And it's a mite dispiriting to see the man who did On The Hour, The Day Today and Knowing Me Knowing You saying that the below-par (if enjoyable in parts) IAP's his best thing. As for "I missed BES" - yeah, right.

Ianucci said specifically that he had no ambitions for his work beyond their original broadcast. I believe this is why he's uninterested in their DVD release. Personally, I think that's quite reasonable and it's probably a similar perspective that many comics have of their work (Chris Morris, for instance - presumably he knew that there would be legal difficulties with the commercial release of 'Brass Eye', but he made the programmes as he wished anyway. Likewise, I remember Lee and Herring commenting somewhere that they disliked the idea of commercial release for Fist of Fun etc because they were just what you'd already taped of the telly but in a nice box).

Yes, but the thing about L&H was that they were very keen, given the opportunity, to add untransmitted material to the shows, had they been released on video. The reason (I think) that The Day Today's DVD release was brought up had a lot to do with all the MiniNews material (about 20 minutes worth) which, apart from two items, remain unreleased commercially. Surely, if KMKY and IAP could add extra material, why not TDT?

>unreleased commercially. Surely, if KMKY and IAP could add extra material, why not TDT?

They probably lost it.

>They probably lost it.

I don't know about rushes or studio sessions, but the Mininews shows certainly do exist in the BBC's archives.

The two brief clips included on the end of the tape look to me as though they are lifted directly from the masters.

Steve:

> 3) Token Gesture: "so effectively you end up with an unqualified twat who knows nothing about anything performing a vapid and terrible interview". Define "qualified".

Somebody with experience in performing interviews - I would have thought that was pretty obvious. I'm not saying there's a GCSE available but some people are better at interviews than others - they have experience, knowledge and passion for a subject. It wouldn't be a good idea to get, say, a footballer or a bus conductor with no experience of interviews to do interviews with famous people they know nothing about and don't care about.

The point is that if you are picking the questions from a list of two thousand then effectively *you* are doing the interview. You are choosing which words to say - just selecting them as phrases rather than individually - probably what Stephen Hawkings does - it's still communicating.

And the moderator may have been a very good moderator - hell they may have been the best moderator in the world but that *doesn't* mean they are going to be good at doing interviews.

If you had read more carefully instead of leaping on throwaway insults and that golden chance to be sarcastic you would have noticed that the point of the post was far more about criticising the format of the interview than criticising the moderator.

I am *not* saying she does not deserve the job of moderator - I'm just saying that the format is very poor because, under the guise of giving "the people" a voice, you just have a forum moderator performing a weak interview, which it frankly was.

When I say you should get the best people to do the job, the point was *not* criticising her *as a moderator*, OKAY? It was saying if you are going to do an interview you should get somebody with passion, interest and experience to do it and forget "the people" altogether. And if you are going to commission programmes you should get people who know and care about television and forget "the people" altogether, kay?, kay. Old point but relevent here.

At the end of the day it was a poor interview. And before you go off again I *know* there are other ways to ask the guy questions. I *know* I didn't have be there, and as I said originally I wasn't expecting much. You really don't need to point these things out to people. But that doesn't mean they can't criticise the format of the interview and the ethos behind it. You don't have to read the criticisms blah blah blah...

TG:

>At the end of the day it was a poor interview. And before you go off again I *know* there are other ways to ask the guy questions. I *know* I didn't have be there, and as I said originally I wasn't expecting much. You really don't need to point these things out to people. But that doesn't mean they can't criticise the format of the interview and the ethos behind it.

Then it would appear your beef is with the very format of a public "chat" via a web site, and I can do little to persuade you otherwise if that's how you feel.

Whilst I understand it's a frustrating circumstance for the user (to seemingly have one's submitted question ignored), the old adage "you can't please all the people all the time" would apply here.

Cheerio

moderating a live celeb chat is like playing bingo. hundreds of questions are fired at you in quick succession, and only an autistic moderator could possibly hope to register every question that comes in during a vaguely busy chat session. valid and interesting questions inevitably get lost amongst the flurry of inanities.

that said, if any blame is getting thrown around here, it should be thrown at the website's management, because running heavily promoted webchats with only one person sifting questions is really quite stupid.

>that said, if any blame is getting thrown around here, it should be thrown at the website's management, because running heavily promoted webchats with only one person sifting questions is really quite stupid.

It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site. Iain Lee gets 19 people, Armando gets a hundred or so, Big Brother types get thousands, then God himself gets only 2. Who'da thoughtit?

There are normally two moderators or more. The Armando chat coincided with some cock-up or other.

19? following the standard "talk to Iain Lee after the show on the channel 4 website" voiceover promo? have you thought about saying please?

God? meaning what exactly.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

>>It's actually impossible to guestimate flowthrough of traffic from TV to web site.

Now stand in the corner until you're sorry.

better steer this fascinating thread back to the vicinity of the original topic - any truth in the rumours about an "on the hour" rerelease?

i know the answer's almost certainly no, but i thought i'd better say something...

'guestimate'. What a fucking awful word. What was wrong with estimate? *snorts and starts turning into Professor Trefusis*

>'guestimate'. What a fucking awful word.

But an appropriate and real one!

*snorts and sticks tongue out*

>A girl who works very long hours to get these chats online and who, it is worth pointing out, is not "one of us" (by which I presume you mean self-appointed comedy "experts" who can get upset by a chat that doesn't go their way), but a happy-go-lucky lady who likes a laugh and a drink and is very pleased when she can eke some joy from life. Her major concerns do not list among them the deleted scenes (and reasons behind) of I'm AP.

Great, maybe we should have people like this interview celebrities on TV- it'd be really entertaining and informative! We could could call it 'The Priory' or 'The Big Breakfast' or something. Sound like a good idea?

No, I didn't think so either.

>>'guestimate'. What a fucking awful word.
>
>But an appropriate and real one!

Speaking as a freelance scientist, guesstimate is normally used as shorthand for "order of magnitude estimate". So it is a real word. Cos I say so.

>Great, maybe we should have people like this interview celebrities on TV- it'd be really entertaining and informative! We could could call it 'The Priory' or 'The Big Breakfast' or something. Sound like a good idea?

That's got nothing to do with the web site, though, has it?

In an ideal world, it would be great to employ individual journalists with a specialised subject appropriate to the interviewee, train them up on the moderating software, give them a grounding of ITC regulations and let them loose on the "chat" section of the web site.

Oh, actually, no, it would be fucking stupid, expensive and unworthwhile.

T'ra

>In an ideal world, it would be great to employ individual journalists with a specialised subject appropriate to the interviewee, train them up on the moderating software, give them a grounding of ITC regulations and let them loose on the "chat" section of the web site.
>
>Oh, actually, no, it would be fucking stupid, expensive and unworthwhile.
>


How about just getting one of these journalists to look over the moderator's shoulder and go "That one"?

>Oh, actually, no, it would be fucking stupid, expensive and unworthwhile.

And would threaten your position.

Unfortunately, the word 'guesstimate' is in the OED. But this just goes to show how London-centric the OED is - any media-wank, chattering-classes-approved toss goes straight in, while worthy regional slang words which have existed for decades don't stand a chance. Words like 'wazzock'. And 'prannet'.

Still, mediaspeak like 'guesstimate' and 'flowthrough' and - my favourite - the use of the word 'action' as a verb, say a hell of a lot more about the user than a few provincial insults ever could.

>How about just getting one of these journalists to look over the moderator's shoulder and go "That one"?

Joke, right?

>>Oh, actually, no, it would be fucking stupid, expensive and unworthwhile.
>
>And would threaten your position.

In what way? I don't work on the community stuff. It doesn't affect me one way or the other who's employed as a moderator.

>Unfortunately, the word 'guesstimate' is in the OED. But this just goes to show how London-centric the OED is - any media-wank, chattering-classes-approved toss goes straight in, while worthy regional slang words which have existed for decades don't stand a chance. Words like 'wazzock'. And 'prannet'.

When I picture someone using the word "guestimate", it conjures up the image of a bloke fitting a washing machine overflow pipe. And he's tutting. And half my kitchen is flooded (the bottom half).

'Wazzock' is Yorkshire-derived, no? Which says "shredded wheat" and "common sense" to me.

>Still, mediaspeak like 'guesstimate' and 'flowthrough' and - my favourite - the use of the word 'action' as a verb, say a hell of a lot more about the user than a few provincial insults ever could.

I think we should absorb as much language as possible and use it where appropriate (see interesting G2 article today about "warspeak" or somesuch). Ideally, one should absorb about a pint of language in a week. IMHO.

How about Armando (or Iain Lee or whoever you've got on) chooses the questions?

That would make sense- I see no flaw In that. It wouldn't take long for the interviewee to scan through the list and say, 'I'd like to talk about that'.

>How about Armando (or Iain Lee or whoever you've got on) chooses the questions?
>
>That would make sense- I see no flaw In that. It wouldn't take long for the interviewee to scan through the list and say, 'I'd like to talk about that'.

It wouldn't work because questions are submitted as the webchat takes place. Actually picking the questions presumably takes 100% of the webchat time and so it wouldn't be practical for the chat-ee to choose and answer the questions at the same time.

>It wouldn't work because questions are submitted as the webchat takes place. Actually picking the questions presumably takes 100% of the webchat time and so it wouldn't be practical for the chat-ee to choose and answer the questions at the same time.

And, of course, the chatee isn't actually present at the chat, but relaying their answers over the phone to the moderator. Even if the chatee owns a computer, they're not so committed that they sit and take part directly with the chat. Nine times out of ten they're on a train, eating their dinner or delousing the cat.

It's the 'live' aspect of webchats that's flawed. Until the internet works properly (which, as Danny Baker rightly said, it doesn't yet), I reckon all webchats should be conducted like 'Cash for Questions' in Q magazine. There'd be a month's delay, but at least you'd get some interesting questions.

In general, I don't think webchats are condusive to serious comedy discussion. But then neither are pubs.

>It's the 'live' aspect of webchats that's flawed.

And there's the rub. The "purpose" of hosting a web chat (from the point of view of the host) with a 'star' is to get people who've just watched a programme on the telly over to the web. At least it is in the sphere of commercial TV-based web sites.

>And there's the rub. The "purpose" of hosting a web chat (from the point of view of the host) with a 'star' is to get people who've just watched a programme on the telly over to the web.

And there's another rub - boring PR tactics getting in the way of people learning stuff about comedy.

>And there's another rub - boring PR tactics getting in the way of people learning stuff about comedy.

Same rub, shurely?

However, I would argue also (as was mentioned above) that Iannucci didn't seem particularly concerned with giving detailed answers, opting for flippancy most of the time. This, I think, is in most part due to people's attitude to the web (i.e. it's not a "proper" medium). And why is it not a "proper" medium? 'Cos you don't get paid £xxx thousand to make a programme for it. What's stopping people learn "stuff about comedy" ultimately comes down to basic economics.

i've got far more experience of organising webchats than i really need. here's some free advice.

if the chatee isn't absolutely fascinated by the prospect of spending an hour conversing with fans over the web, forget it. *don't* let them do it over the phone. make them come into the office, choose their questions, and type their own responses. fuck driving traffic to the site, cos if you do it wrong, you'll disillussion loads of potential regulars (see posts above), and that's *bad* for traffic.

having recently ceased working for a major uk isp/portal, i know how difficult it can be to explain such things to beancounters, who can only see as far as their next click. explaining it to celebs should be a piece of piss, however, and you'd be surprised how many of them will be up for it.

go on, give it a try.

>if the chatee isn't absolutely fascinated by the prospect of spending an hour conversing with fans over the web, forget it.

"I'd love to, baby - how much am I getting?" is the reaction I'm used to hearing. Also, bear in mind that it isn't just hardcore fans who log onto these things, but an web-enabled proportion of the viewing million(s). So selling it to any celeb is very, very difficult.

>*don't* let them do it over the phone. make them come into the office, choose their questions, and type their own responses.

Type their own responses??? I thought the main complaint was that not enough was being addressed during these chats.

>fuck driving traffic to the site, cos if you do it wrong, you'll disillussion loads of potential regulars (see posts above), and that's *bad* for traffic.

Not in my experience. With the web renowned for not working, most people log on in the certain knowledge that not everything is going to work fine. I'm the most impatient person in the world, but that's never put me off logging out and trying later.

So, as I said above, under the terms of your advice you'll either have chats of the standard a minority on this site don't approve of or you'll have no chats at all ("forget it").

>explaining it to celebs should be a piece of piss, however, and you'd be surprised how many of them will be up for it.

Very, very few, I can guarantee you.

>go on, give it a try.

Er, no thanks. C4 hosts about one chat a day (sometimes more) and the Interactive department is a commercial enterprise. It's the beancounters that call the shots.

i typed a really long response to all of that, but frankly it was very dull, so here's a precis.

a lazy chat does as much harm as good, both to your website and the celeb involved.

oh, one more thing - i suggested they type their own responses because it makes them more involved in the process. surely you don't need me to explain why this is desirable?