Why does Brooker bother watching all that bad TV? It must be ghastly for him, no?
So, if I was being paid to have an opinion, that would be fine? What a poor argument.
Well, no - the point appears to be "don't be a critic of this critic", no matter how it's framed.
It's a quick scan to keep up with conversation
So why object to my remark specifically?
It was a good post, and this is the brooker hate thread(and I'm generally pro-brooker anyway, so...)
God, tons - I haven't time to read at the mo, but Neil, you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying criticism isn't important - as I said, the ones you mentioned were masters, taking their jobs very seriously - I'm saying it isn't by it's nature important. Are you telling me Baz Bazinboye's reviews in The Mail are art? Or the bits in Radio Times? Of course they're not. And I see Brooker as somewhere in between that and those who took their profession ever so seriously. You lift my quote that directly answered your claim that Brooker's books aren't ephemeral (which they are) then use it to argue against a point I was never making there. No fair.In fact, reading the rest you've repeatedly pulled quotes out of context, so I'll fuck it off here before it gets annoying.
It's not. I may hate his work, but I don't hate him. Important distinction. Nor do I want this to be a general 'sling shit' thread - this was meant to tackle a particularly persistent motif in his writing.
That's exactly what the thread is about, amongst a multitude of other things, regardless of how many times you pretend it isn't.
My full reply to this was here, rudi. I was very annoyed at the time that you accused me of 'repeatedly pulling quotes out of context', as it tacitly implied that I did so purposely. I can assure you I did not, and would not, and I'm still curious to know exactly which quotes I am meant to have 'pulled out of context.' Can you settle this for me, finally, now you're back in this discussion? Either that, or retract the accusation. Thanks.
And yet when I suggested that you'd strayed from the central "why all the jizz, Charlie?" subject and asked if a more general thread asking "is he funny?" should perhaps be launched you replied
OK I've re-read the thread now. Do you really want to go through this (six months ago!) or were you just pissed, in the mood for disagreement and had run out of tag space in that thread you disapproved of?
That's because people like you tried to thread-shit on it from the first page onwards, and seized on an off-hand comment I made about listing, which was then used to try and reductively turn it into a 'hate thread' - you yourself likened it to a 'Gervais the evidence' style thread. I think it's screamingly obvious I'm trying also trying to get people to have specific, topical, short-lived threads, and therefore I don't want this used as (or known as) a "Brooker hate thread". This isn't Digital Spy, after all, and we don't need such black-and-white distinctions.
I like how you've tried to paint me as a hypocrite, while referring back to something I said six months ago.
Despite the fact that, because I did say it six months ago, that might then give some obvious indication why I'd then want to point out that it's not a general criticism thread.
I'm not the one who bumped it, and I'm not the one who flounced out of the thread after making some pretty unpleasant accusations
(and then kept sneaking back, despite neither explaining nor aplogising).
our bullying, aggressive, cross-thread attack here - and the needlessly personal tone to it - confirms what I originally thought, with regards why you actually flounced. So I'll leave it there.
Everybody's been able to see you Rudi, all the time.
let me guess, blaah and pb are going to pop up now.. ?
And cross-thread? Did I? If so it was unintended.
Author
Topic: Charlie Brooker's obsession with semen (Read 9868 times) Share
