Author Topic: The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results  (Read 21395 times)

Saturday Boy etc

  • Guest
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2007, 03:34:34 PM »
Quote from: "mayer"
Stop being a coward and use your own login eh?

The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2007, 03:55:34 PM »
Quote from: "Saturday Boy etc"
Quote from: "mayer"
Stop being a coward and use your own login eh?


Well yes, that makes more sense than the above "'Ullo John!" post, certainly.  To be fair though, he's always been up-front about it being him under other logins.  

I'm not attempting to take sides here, incidentally; I think there's rather too much of that as it is, particularly with you now predictably chipping in too.

The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2007, 05:28:16 PM »
Well, I hopped logins now and again, but I never made up a new login to have a go at people. I just fancied a switch now and again, and everyone was firmly aware of who I was when I called them a cunt, or whatever.

Lalla and strang - you really don't like it up you eh? You shouldn't be so fucking rude then, both of you. I'm assuming you want your playground back, and chaps - even though you're far too old for it - you can have it. Well done.

I'm off for the weekend, but I'm sure I'll be back in a few days or whatever when I'm bored, or more likely, drunk. Take care!

The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2007, 05:32:44 PM »
Well, what's to say? Anyone with nice long memories will know that every single accusation Mayer Nissim has chucked in our direction above - small-mindedness, hackery, bullying, gallery-playing, reactionary mindsets, using CaB as a springboard to a career, etc - has been directed at him by ourselves in the past.

So, he continues to live up to the right-wing cliche  - behaves like a shit, gets called up on it and then attempts to turn the whole thing back on his accusers. "Hypocrites! You're no different - we're all in the gutter, end of story. People who look up at the stars are just smug cunts trying to be clever!"

You'll recall how Mayer psychotically chased ELW10 around the board - often flanking himself with dear old Custodian Of The Clique Almost Yearly - in a desperate attempt to turn him into a 'figure of fun'. Ooh, that feeling of shouting down one person with ideals while flanked by a mindset of dozy cunts. Gives you a nice little tingly thrill doesn't it, Nissim.

Go on, post another pic of 'Dr Evil' and 'Mini Me' captioned 'ELW10' and 'Bert Thung'. Being adults, we can of course take it on the chin - even enjoy a wee giggle at the idea of you panicking because someone else has publically displayed a viewpoint about popular culture which is similar to our own. Your reaction to Ben's video was eerily similar of course! "Eeerrrrrr - you touched the girl who smells of spam. You have the stinking spam disease!!!"

But - hey - when we decide to take the piss back, don't you think you should perhaps try acting like an adult too? Instead of firing off on all cylinders and bursting into flames like the worst kind of tit? "Who's for fizzy pop?", indeed. You'd think we'd just called your mother a whore or something.

You love dishing it out but you can't take it yourself. Well, I guess if there's one person who knows how much reputation-damage such gags can cause when applied frequently enough, it's someone who indulges in it with gusto like your delightful little self.

Be lucky.

The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2007, 05:35:38 PM »
Quote from: "mayer"
I'm off for the weekend, but I'm sure I'll be back in a few days or whatever when I'm bored, or more likely, drunk. Take care!


You should stop drinking, Mayer - you invariably end up revealing a little too much of your true self in the process.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

  • Rose-tinted glasses? No, they're x-ray specs
    • http://www.myspace.com/irkthepurists
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2007, 01:50:56 AM »
Quote from: "mayer"

I think that both strangy, and to lesser extent Lalla, are small-minded careerist hack bullies.


In contrast to your technique, which is to abuse me on the forums and then send me a cheery PM a day or two later. Or vice versa. And you're surprised when I don't reply?

'Small-minded', 'careerist', 'hack', 'bullies': you let those words hang in the air as if it's obvious how they apply to us, but how so? Take 'careerist' for a start. What sort of careerist would write the Tumbleweeds? What kind of strange reverse psychology would result in that furthering our own career or assisting others to further theirs? If we were careerist, we could make life a lot easier for ourselves, you know. As critics, we're pretty unemployable.

You didn't explain why you thought Ben Ordinary's James Bachman puppet was an example of bullying. Probably because you can't - you just know it's a well-worn SOTCAA word, so it sounds pretty saucy to throw it back at us. Maybe you thought I only posted it in order to piss Bachman off? If so, then I believe you only called it 'bullying' because you wanted to suck up to him.  Empty accusations can work both ways.

Quote from: "mayer"

I adored the NB parody, but parody is all these men can do. And in the same style (both the catchphrase laden 'ey lads' language and those hackneyed images that almost embarassingly hark back to past work in their similarity).


How would you do the Tumbleweeds without parody? Or without...well,  reacting? Apart from anything else, the thing only works if it's black, bitter, nasty and sarcastic. A more 'good-natured' ceremony would be pointless.

Our other work has no place on Cookd and Bombd, so you don't see it. It's not a market stall. Why do you only see parodies about comedians/comedy shows? Because it's Comedy Chat, not Up Your Arts.

Also, you know what our arguments about criticism and creativity are. They're two separate things - being a critic does not mean you're under any obligation to produce creative work of your own.  

Quote from: "mayer"
without any writing of comedy for the sake of comedy and the love of comedy.


Our criticism only exists because we love comedy. Again, you know that. It's me watching The Micallef Programme and Comedy Cuts on the same night and thinking 'Why in the name of buggering FUCK isn't the latter a patch on the former?' and genuinely wanting to know why. If I didn't love comedy, do you honestly think I'd bother ranting away? What on earth would I have to gain?

Quote from: "as in the Tumblies, alan and Lalla, after a little bitch session, posted up online in order to engage in a bit of bullying and gallery-playing"

Fuck 'em.


If it makes any difference, we discussed for quite a while whether includng those MSN chats was a good idea; whether it made us look like smug wankers etc. Maybe it did. But what meaning is being conveyed by 'Fuck 'em'? Neither of us know you personally, so it can only be a reference to an attitude which we often see in your posts. A desire to trip up arguments for the sake of it rather than because you're interested in exploring the subject. A desire to keep an ah-well-doesn't-bother-me-too-much attitude ticking over. A desire to reduce arguments to a tiresome semantic level when you know full-well what wider point we're getting at.

You're by no means the only person who does this, but I do wonder why you bother posting in Comedy Chat. You don't seem hugely interested in comedy, least of all its state and condition. Many posters have a casual attitude to comedy, but you seem to be obsessed with 'exposing' SOTCAA as some kind of fraud. Why? I mean, if you disagree with stuff we say or think we're talking bollocks, then fine...but do so because you (like us) want comedy to be great again, not just as some academic debating exercise. You're one of those posters who only seems to comment when you spot a delicious loophole you can yell 'Ha!' at. You enjoy discrediting boat-rockers.

SOTCAA is all about questioning received wisdom, so questioning the idea that 'SOTCAA is always right' is naturally fair game. But if you just end up arguing along 'No, shut up, everything's fine, it's always been this way' lines, then you just end up looking like someone who wants to squash debate rather than give it a kick. You end up sounding like you find the debate itself threatening.

rudi

  • I'm not interested
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2007, 01:21:24 PM »
Quote
I mean, if you disagree with stuff we say or think we're talking bollocks, then fine...but do so because you (like us) want comedy to be great again, not just as some academic debating exercise.


Why though?

Why should what he(?) wants from comedy have anything to do with questioning your posts?

This is a common defence of yours: you just want to squash debate (when what you mean is someone's questioning your assumed received wisdom posts). That results in a weird stance of "only disagree with me is you fundamenbtally agree with me" which, naturally, is a bit daft.

Heh, just noticed this:

Quote
SOTCAA is all about questioning received wisdom


While creating your own and ignoring any evidence given that deflates it.



I agree in the main with the rest of the post though.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

  • Rose-tinted glasses? No, they're x-ray specs
    • http://www.myspace.com/irkthepurists
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2007, 07:47:19 PM »
Quote from: "rudi"


Why though?

Why should what he(?) wants from comedy have anything to do with questioning your posts?

This is a common defence of yours: you just want to squash debate (when what you mean is someone's questioning your assumed received wisdom posts). That results in a weird stance of "only disagree with me is you fundamenbtally agree with me" which, naturally, is a bit daft.


I just question someone's motivation for saying 'That's bollocks' in a comedy forum if they'e not hugely bothered about comedy. Do they actually think the SOTCAA arguments are damaging, or that we go after the wrong targets while letting others walk free? Or are they just arguing for its own sake?

Some posters seek to expose certain stances as being flawed, but it's never clear what they want to put in their place. They usually hold the default view on a subject anyway (Gervais is good, advertising isn't evil, comedy is in a pretty decent state), so why are they so keen to dismantle any kind of dissent? Do they view Comedy Chat as a grouse shoot, where they pop up for the weekend, shoot down the odd argument for a bit of a laugh, and then promptly disappear?

Quote from: "rudi"

While creating your own [received wisdom] and ignoring any evidence given that deflates it.


Such as?

rudi

  • I'm not interested
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2007, 07:33:18 PM »
Quote
Some posters seek to expose certain stances as being flawed, but it's never clear what they want to put in their place.


1. That's no reason not to question what's written.

2. You are often guilty of this, asking far more questions than supplying answers. After all, your base point is: "why isn't comedy as good as it used to be?".

Quote
rudi wrote:

While creating your own [received wisdom] and ignoring any evidence given that deflates it.


Such as?


Oh my, there's so much I could bore the arse off readers here, so I'll limit myself to your twice (at least to my knowledge) stated claim that there has been no good British comedy in the last 10 years which has been effortlessly shot down. The first time you made weak defences such as "well, it was commisioned before then" or "yeah, but the first series was earlier" and the second time it was just totally ignored.

As has been said elsewhere: your posts are mostly great reading but you tend to torpedo your own credability with lazy lapses into hypocrisy.

Whereas strang just resorts to name-calling...

Dusty Gozongas

  • This page no longer exists
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2007, 08:27:42 PM »
Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"

In contrast to your technique, which is to abuse me on the forums and then send me a cheery PM a day or two later. Or vice versa. And you're surprised when I don't reply?


Can't speak for mayer but it doesn't come as any surprise to me. You can't even be arsed to reply to sincere apologies for past indiscretions in my experience.

Just sayin'...  *sigh*

As you were.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

  • Rose-tinted glasses? No, they're x-ray specs
    • http://www.myspace.com/irkthepurists
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2007, 01:52:26 PM »
Quote from: "rudi"

Oh my, there's so much I could bore the arse off readers here, so I'll limit myself to your twice (at least to my knowledge) stated claim that there has been no good British comedy in the last 10 years which has been effortlessly shot down. The first time you made weak defences such as "well, it was commisioned before then" or "yeah, but the first series was earlier" and the second time it was just totally ignored.


That's the kind of thing I'm getting at, though. When I said 'there hasn't been any decent comedy since Brass Eye', it was fairly clear that I was at home to Mr Hyperbole. 'Decent' might have been a crap word to use, but I doubt anyone was genuinely confused about what wider point I was making. Pouncing on 'no decent comedy' seemed like point-scoring for the sake of it. That's why I made the comment about us all fundamentally being on the same side - we all agree there's something rotten in the state of comedy, we just disagree on the minutiae (eg, whether Big Train can be considered excellent, mediocre or dreadful).

'Effortlessly shot down' is a key point too. Who's doing the shooting, and why? Why do I get the impression such shooters care more about abstract oneupmanship than about the state of comedy?

I do think the 'Well it was commissioned before then' objection is valid, though. If you're pondering on whether comedy has slid downhill after a certain landmark show, then it makes sense to disregard shows which would have gone ahead regardless. Father Ted would have got a third series whether Brass Eye had existed or not. I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue will carry on until Humphrey Lyttelton pegs it, no matter what else happens on the comedy scene. I was interested in the idea that the existence of Brass Eye had actually changed the way comdians think about their work. Father Ted had one final (decent, some might call it) series in 1998, but would the show have been made in the same way (and been half as decent) if it had been commisioned post-Brass Eye?

rudi

  • I'm not interested
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2007, 10:36:12 PM »
Quote
When I said 'there hasn't been any decent comedy since Brass Eye', it was fairly clear that I was at home to Mr Hyperbole. 'Decent' might have been a crap word to use, but I doubt anyone was genuinely confused about what wider point I was making.


I think you'll find a number of people were 'confused' which is why it was refuted, then you repeated the asserrtion on another thread and it was refuted again.

Quote
'Effortlessly shot down' is a key point too. Who's doing the shooting, and why?


People who think that's horseshit?

Quote
Why do I get the impression such shooters care more about abstract oneupmanship than about the state of comedy?


Because whenever someone disagrees with you you decide to question their right to do so?

Quote
I do think the 'Well it was commissioned before then' objection is valid, though.


That was just one of the feeble excuses for such a claim though.

I see nothing to be gained byu going through it all again - I'm simply asserting that people are well within their rights to question people's statements without having to display some kind of qualification for doing so. If you make unsupportable statements on a public forum you have to expect some kind of opposite reaction.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Cake!! This is quite scary
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2007, 11:07:12 PM »
google cheese drug.  It's quite scary

dasd

  • Guest
The Second Annual Tumbleweed Awards - Results
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2007, 12:17:55 AM »
dsadsa