Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:33:12 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Oh, a crumb of that old chestnut

Started by thepuffpastryhangman, July 05, 2009, 01:20:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thepuffpastryhangman

So, ages ago, you briefly tickled yourself with the odd odd thought. Well done. Then, weeks, months, years, later there's a fraction of the same tittery notion on the radio, TV or in an article. If it's by someone you like, pat yourself on the back, if it's not, tell yourself you had the idea in passing and it's their professional bloody 'work', so ner.

Obviously there's a connection between Ricky Dawkins and Santa Claus, but need it end there? A while back (18 months?) Arthur Smith on some Radio 4 show said something about Dawkins telling kids Santa doesn't exist, laughter ensued. Then today, in t'paper, someone wrote this:

Quote from: "David "who else" Mitchell"Richard Dawkins's Christmas Wonderland - "Join Richard in the spectacular setting of Lapland for a Christmas your children will never forget! An idyllic week spent building snowmen, collecting holly, baking mince pies and stirring the Christmas pudding, culminates on Christmas morning when Richard reveals that there's no such thing as Father Christmas and there are no presents for anyone! The children will then thank him for delivering them from ignorance."

The same basic notion, requiring no knowledge of Dawkins beyond the most basic and letting the learned Ricky D off the hook regarding his own commercial motives, shame.

Now, rotten fruit and veg at the ready, this, in necessary sub 3 minute form, is from years ago:

GRAMS:   CAPTAIN BEEFHEART 'FLASH GORDON'S APE'

PRESENTER:   Tonight on No Change I'm speaking to revered Evolutionary Biologist Professor Dr. Mr. Richard R. Diddums about his latest book The Impassable Chimney. (PAUSE) Professor, you're no stranger to controversy, but The Impassable Chimney has provoked more indignation than any book since The Satanic Verses. Do you regret writing it?

R. DIDDUMS:   No, not at all. I'm a scientist and I refuse to censor my findings in accordance with the unfounded bleating of a few extremists.

PRESENTER:   Dr., reports state tens of millions of people across Europe and North America are deeply hostile to the book, claiming it attempts to fundamentally undermine their entire belief system. These are hardly 'a few extremists'.

R. DIDDUMS:   I think you'll find they're mostly children. The role of science is to quest for understanding. We cannot let ignorance triumph over truth.

PRESENTER:   Mr., for the benefit of those who haven't read the book, in The Impassable Chimney you dismiss faith in Santa Claus as irrational, emotive and essentially damaging to both individuals and wider society. You cite dogmatic belief in Santa Claus as the biggest single cause of armed conflicts worldwide. Can you offer an example of such a conflict?

R. DIDDUMS:   Certainly. If we, for instance, examine the schism between the FCAS

PRESENTER:   That's the Father Christmas Amalgamated Separatists

R. DIDDUMS:   Yes, and their splinter group the Real S.N.A.

PRESENTER:   The Real Saint Nicholas Army

R. DIDDUMS:   Yes, that conflict alone led to the loss of hundreds of lives during the thirty nine shopping days prior to December 25th last year.

PRESENTER:   Richard, critics of your work suggest you focus entirely on potentially negative affects of believing in Santa Claus and ignore the sense of joy and anticipation it undoubtedly brings to the lives of many people, especially children. How do you respond to allegations that your work is one sided?

R. DIDDUMS:   Scientifically, there is only side. By embracing the false hope of faith people avoid taking responsibility for their own lives. Every moment they spend pinning hopes on a fairy tale is one in which they're failing to focus on tenable solutions to their problems and those of the wider world.

PRESENTER:   R., opponents of your work have accused you of theorizing while offering no substantial evidence to validate your claims, again for the benefit of those who haven't read the book, what empirical data exists to support your conclusions in The Impassable Chimney?

R. DIDDUMS:   We set up cameras in the car parks of dozens of branches of Toys 'r' Us, and in meticulous detail we charted the expenditure of adults on children's toys in the three months leading up to December 25th 2005. We documented sales of all toys, and on December 26th 2005 we circulated 'what presents did you get?' questionnaires to children in the vicinity of the monitored stores. In every instance we were able to prove a positive correlation between the types of toys purchased by adults and the types of toys received by children.

PRESENTER:   Diddums, less literal interpreters of Santa Claus doctrine have suggested the T.R.U. data doesn't contravene their faith and is merely an example of 'Intelligent Purchase'; the process whereby Santa Claus influences the behaviour of adults, who in turn implement the will of Santa Claus through buying the gifts Santa Claus intended to be given. How would you counter that argument?

R. DIDDUMS:   That's a topic I address in my next book 'Intelligent Purchase – Now You're Just Taking The Piss'. In it I make the same argument I have in all my previous books, but this one contains a free CD of me repeating argument highlights from all my previous books. It's out in October, published by One Track, and at £14:99 it makes a great stocking filler.

GRAMS:   WIZARD 'I WISH IT COULD BE CHRISTMAS EVERYDAY'

PRESENTER:   (V.O.) I'm afraid that's all we've got time for. I'd like to thank Professor Dr. Mr. Richard R. Diddums.

R. DIDDUMS:   (V.O.) Thank you.

PRESENTER:   (V.O.) This has been No Change, I've been the presenter. Good night.

END

So what've you done, and disgarded/dismissed, only for it to turn, or worse still, a fraction of it, to turn in among the work of a "revered" professional? I'm sure it happens a lot, it does to me and I'm well outa touch.

I'm not for a moment suggest anyone's stealing anything, just saddened when reminded just how straightforward stuff must(?) be to be considered palatable for general consumption.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

I don't recall Santa ever advocating the stoning of homosexuals.

But otherwise-BRILLIANT!

jaydee81

I saw Simon Munnery the other week and he spoke about Richard Dawkins writing 'The Santa Delusion.' I thought of this thread.

eluc55

Did Mitchell really write that thing you quoted? What a fucking idiot.

rudi

Quote from: eluc55 on December 21, 2009, 06:25:05 PM
Did Mitchell really write that thing you quoted? What a fucking idiot.

While I klnow neither you nor pphm like to let nuances get in the way of delivering a kicking to DM he's rather underhandedly selected as a "quote" what is, in the actual article, a parody of an advert for future potential summer camps to ruin kids' summers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/05/atheists-camp-dawkins-somerset

What next? Shall we quote Morris, let's take BES, then beat him with it as if it's his actual opinion? Or Swift, maybe? What a cunt, eh? Advocating eating the poor. You couldn't make it up, hell in a handcart etc.

Quoting satire's a cunt's trick, pphm, but then, well............

Shoulders?-Stomach!

It is a crap and unoriginal idea though, the whole 'God I wonder what Xmas is like at that killjoy Dawkins' house?' What next- should we laughing at Jehovah's Witnesses for the same thing? Haha! Their stupid fucking beliefs!

It's worse considering that- as far as I can tell, Mitchell is an atheist.

Unfortunately it's just dull and uninspiring hackery, but then he is writing a newspaper article so he only needs to do just enough to make himself look the best thing in the paper (which is not very much at all).

eluc55

#6
Quote from: rudi on December 21, 2009, 08:17:08 PM
While I know neither you nor pphm like to let nuances get in the way of delivering a kicking to DM

Um, I'd like to hear you justify that, especially considering I nominated David Mitchell as a potential "Best Newcomer" in the Cab Comedy Chat Review of the Decade. As far as I can remember, the worst I've said about him is that he's usually fairly mediocre (apart from a couple things like Would I Lie to You?). 

I think its clear from the wording of my quote ("Did Mitchell really say that?) that my criticism only applies if indeed he, er, really said it.

And your explanation hasn't convinced me otherwise. He's playing up to the idea that Dawkins is a killjoy, correct? That's a hackneyed and incredibly infuriating stance for him to take, whatever its parodying (unless its parodying people who make similarly lazy observations).

Caroline

I always wonder what Christmas family get-togethers at Ma and Pa Hitchens' house must be like.

Still Not George

Quote from: Caroline on December 22, 2009, 03:39:22 AM
I always wonder what Christmas family get-togethers at Ma and Pa Hitchens' house must be like.
Drunken?

rudi

Quote from: eluc55 on December 21, 2009, 10:18:12 PM
I think its clear from the wording of my quote ("Did Mitchell really say that?) that my criticism only applies if indeed he, er, really said it.

Well yes, he did "say" it, what he didn't, though, was "mean" it. There are even the quotation marks still intact in pphm's mendacious quote.

QuoteI'd like to hear you justify that

Well this thread's a good place to start, no?

rudi

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 21, 2009, 08:28:52 PMIt is a crap and unoriginal idea though

Oh I wouldn't argue with that, I just didn't think writing it made him a fucking idiot.

eluc55

#11
Quote from: rudi on December 22, 2009, 05:07:02 PM
Well yes, he did "say" it, what he didn't, though, was "mean" it. There are even the quotation marks still intact in pphm's mendacious quote.

All I'm arguing is that it's a lazy and stupid thing to write ("fucking idiot" is hyperbole). He's pandering to people who think like that, not attacking them.

QuoteWell this thread's a good place to start, no?

No, because you implied in your first comment that I'm always taking cheap shots at Mitchell, which its fairly clear I haven't - not ever. Hence me nominating him as a potential best newcomer in comedy chat, and probably never saying anything more controversial about him than "He's a bit over-rated".

So your argument is setting up straw men from the start; trying to make my comment look "typical" for me, when it's absolutely not. And saying "lets start with this thread" shows how flawed your argument is, as one (supposed) example does not a case against me make.

Plus, I still think that this one Mitchell quote (even in context) is lazy and irritating; as do you, apparently. So your one example isn't even a very good one.

I don't mind if you disagree with me, or dislike my use of hyperbole; but don't try to paint me like a recurring offender, when you've only got one (very dubious) example to support your case.   

rudi

Perhaps I've muddled up your Brooker-sniping for Mitchell. The lack of a search function makes any follow up to calls of evidence nigh on impossible, sadly.

QuoteI nominated David Mitchell as a potential "Best Newcomer" in the Cab Comedy Chat

Well you didn't, you went for Amstell after originally being "unfortunately" forced to mention Mitchell (for one show and only that show, as you were keen to emphasise). Just saying, like...

QuotePlus, I still think that this one Mitchell quote (even in context) is lazy and irritating; as do you, apparently. So your one example isn't even a very good one.

Well, firstly, that's not what you meant and, secondly, that hardly qualifies calling him a "fucking idiot". After all, he's the second-best comedy newcomer of the decade, right?

eluc55

Quote from: rudi on December 22, 2009, 06:03:21 PM
Perhaps I've muddled up your Brooker-sniping for Mitchell. The lack of a search function makes any follow up to calls of evidence nigh on impossible, sadly.

Ah, well, now Brooker I have more vocally critisised.. .but I'm entitled to say that here on a comedy forum aren't I? I don't target him unfairly, just find him massively over-rated, both generally, and on here. I don't see why I should feel guilty for a) critisising him b) having a stronger opinion on him than you do.

Quote
Well you didn't, you went for Amstell after originally being "unfortunately" forced to mention Mitchell (for one show and only that show, as you were keen to emphasise). Just saying, like...

So, er, I did exactly what I said. I nominated him as a potential best newcomer. And think he's usually fairly average. Hardly a ruthless tirade of unwarranted abuse against Mitchell. 

QuoteWell, firstly, that's not what you meant and, secondly, that hardly qualifies calling him a "fucking idiot". After all, he's the second-best comedy newcomer of the decade, right?

Don't tell me what I did or didn't mean. To be precise, my exact problem with the quote is that, to quote myself above:

QuoteHe's pandering to people who think like that, not attacking them.

That opinion (or joke) is lazy and frustrating. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

And no, one comment doesn't make him an idiot, but it does make that quoted section idiotic - or at least very frustrating. I was using hyperbole, as I've already stated - I don't hate the man because of what he said. It doesn't tarnish his work. And I don't really think he's a dictionary definition of an idiot. If someone ran into a glass door, you might jokingly say "idiot" under your breath. The act was idiotic, the person, more generally speaking, may not be. Reading that quote my reaction was "fucking idiot" because it a stupid sentiment for him to encourage. 

As I say, I don't mind if you disagree. But I don't like it being implied that I'm always looking for excuses to lay into Mitchell, when I quite clearly don't.

rudi

QuoteDon't tell me what I did or didn't mean.

I'm right though, aren't I? You hadn't read the quote in context before typing and posting, had you?

eluc55

I hadn't read the full article (hence "did he really say that?"). There didn't seem much leeway for interpretation, though. It's a crap, lazy observation for anyone to make.

And your specific criticism, and the one which I took issue with, was the suggestion I'm always looking to attack Mitchell, when it's clear from my posting history that I don't. 

Ultimately, it seems we both were a little rash with our judgments, Rudi. Shall we make peace over mutual ignorance?

rudi

Fuck you you fucking wanker.

Yeah, I was only being antagonistic to fill up pphm's thread with crap I guess. I really need to grow up soon.

Pucker up, baby.
xx

eluc55

I love it when you're naughty.

Mwah.

thepuffpastryhangman

Bloomin' eck, replies.

rudi - How on earth is "quoting satire a cunt's trick" within the context of a thread about replication? Yup, maybe I shoulda linked to the original Guardian piece, but it wasn't soo hard to find was it.

Anyway, Davey Mitchell's got much better over the past few years. He's much more confident and takes greater risks. He also appears far more political, in a good way, too. Still not very original, but seeing as he's trodden the same path and indeed the same boards as so many others he can hardly be expected to produce a singularly unique perspective on owt.

I came here as...

Quote from: Lee Mack hosting HIGNFY April 2010Lord Ashcroft has donated £4 million of his earnings to the Tory party. After tax that's £4 million.

is a crumb of the ol' chestnut that was:

Quote from: thepuffpastryhangman on July 15, 2009, 08:55:30 PM
...so maybe around £6 million this year? Still, after tax that drops to around £6 millon.