Just A Minute

>
> This is something that I feel is close to my heart, being a fan of
> the series, and listening to it grow and evolve over the years, and
> going through episodes from the late 60's to today, and the one

> that has both amused me and also irritated me are those occasions
> when Nicholas awards people bonus points.
>
> This would be something he rarely did during the early years of the
> show, and even then it would be very rare occasions indeed. but
> those occasions usually entailed a clever interpretation of the
> challenges on the violation of the rules or for making a very

> comment. But during those early days, there would be plent y of
> people that would make those sorts of clever challenges or humorous
> interruptions, and wouldn't receive a thing, except a lot of stick
> from Schoolmaster Nick, who couldn't see past the rules to

> the contribution. During those occasions, no points would be

> at all, which very often got on my nerves, especially since he

> later say that its the contribution that matters, the points are
> secondary, and yet would make this entire display about how someone
> can speak for 58 seconds, not get any points, and someone

> them and they are the ones who get the bloody points.
>
> as the series progressed, it seemed like he would dole out bonus
> points to those who deserved them, sometimes they'd be given to
> people who never deserved them.
>
> Then there came a point where he would give bonus points for

> joke challenges or for just the overall sense of amusing the

> as a whole.
>
> but, nowadays, the whole notion of awarding bonus points has

> a level of complete and utter ludicrousness. this can be traced

> to an episode from 2004 or 2005, I think the panelists were Linda
> Smith, Tim Rice, Tony Hawks and Chris Neil. Chris began to develop

> niche for himself, by which he was able to garner loads of bonus
> points for his joke challenges, since he pretty much admitted that
> he'd never be able to get any points for actually talking on the
> subject.
>
> then something happens at one point to which Tim challenges

> I forget who, he makes a humorous comment, then asks

> point?' and he gets one. But here's the bit that really irks me,

> Nicholas' own admission, he gave Tim the bonus point NOT for his
> challenge, but for the fact that he said 'bonus point'.
>
> In another episode he gave Graham Norton a point for 'having a

> in another show he gave a bonus point to Pauline McLynn because
> he 'felt sorry for her'.
>
> and this is just something that really gets up my nose, because it
> seems like you don't even need to be clever or amusing to get bonus
> points anymore. It seems like nowadays all you have to do is

> and you get a bonus point. meanwhile the panelists on the show

> their asses actually being funny, clever and amusing don't get any
> bonus points, because Nicholas is 'resisting the temptation' or

> he 'can't afford to give anymore bonus points', like he's on some
> sort of budget.
>
> And the way he even says it, that he 'can't' give someone anymore
> bonus points, I mean come on. Is someone holding a gun to his head
> saying, 'if you give out any more bonus points I'll blow your

> out?'
>
> its part of the reason why I think there should be another regular
> pisstaker on the show to point these things out. Peter Jones was a
> master of this, because it pointed out all of Nicholas'
> inconsistencies and even the way he would say things. Linda Smith
> was fantastic at this as well, even Rob Brydon during his brief
> stint.
>
> I know if I were on the show I'd interrupt during each round by
> making up something incongrous like 'I've got cancer, gimme a bonus
> point' 'My mother passed away, gimme a bonus point' 'I had Chinese
> takeaway last night, gimme a bonus point', and so on.
>
> even people who try to be clever on the program nowadays aren't
> recognized for their cleverness, why? Because Nicholas has to
> be 'fair within the rules of the game'.
>
> THe man would rather be fair to a set of abstract concepts than to
> actual flesh and blood human beings. that's the sort of chairman
> this show has.
>

While I agree with much of what you say, Robert, I think that JAM
needs a chairman like NP. I couldn't imagine it chaired by Humphrey
Lyttleton for example, as the secret of his success on Clue is
largely down to playing the "old curmudgeon"- card and simulating
naivity over the double-entendres. He would be competing too much
against the panellists on JAM for the audience laughs, whereas
Parsons is not in himself amusing enough to outshine the players.
He's a sufficient straight-man. Anyway, who would be the altrnative?
Nigel effing Rees?

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "Robert L. Torres"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> This is something that I feel is close to my heart, being a fan of
> the series, and listening to it grow and evolve over the years, and
> going through episodes from the late 60's to today, and the one
thing
> that has both amused me and also irritated me are those occasions
> when Nicholas awards people bonus points.
>
> This would be something he rarely did during the early years of the
> show, and even then it would be very rare occasions indeed. but
> those occasions usually entailed a clever interpretation of the
> challenges on the violation of the rules or for making a very
amusing
> comment. But during those early days, there would be plent y of
> people that would make those sorts of clever challenges or humorous
> interruptions, and wouldn't receive a thing, except a lot of stick
> from Schoolmaster Nick, who couldn't see past the rules to
appreciate
> the contribution. During those occasions, no points would be
awarded
> at all, which very often got on my nerves, especially since he
would
> later say that its the contribution that matters, the points are
> secondary, and yet would make this entire display about how someone
> can speak for 58 seconds, not get any points, and someone
interrupts
> them and they are the ones who get the bloody points.
>
> as the series progressed, it seemed like he would dole out bonus
> points to those who deserved them, sometimes they'd be given to
> people who never deserved them.
>
> Then there came a point where he would give bonus points for
amusing
> joke challenges or for just the overall sense of amusing the
audience
> as a whole.
>
> but, nowadays, the whole notion of awarding bonus points has
reached
> a level of complete and utter ludicrousness. this can be traced
back
> to an episode from 2004 or 2005, I think the panelists were Linda
> Smith, Tim Rice, Tony Hawks and Chris Neil. Chris began to develop
a
> niche for himself, by which he was able to garner loads of bonus
> points for his joke challenges, since he pretty much admitted that
> he'd never be able to get any points for actually talking on the
> subject.
>
> then something happens at one point to which Tim challenges
someone,
> I forget who, he makes a humorous comment, then asks
Nicholas: 'Bonus
> point?' and he gets one. But here's the bit that really irks me,
by
> Nicholas' own admission, he gave Tim the bonus point NOT for his
> challenge, but for the fact that he said 'bonus point'.
>
> In another episode he gave Graham Norton a point for 'having a
face',
> in another show he gave a bonus point to Pauline McLynn because
> he 'felt sorry for her'.
>
> and this is just something that really gets up my nose, because it
> seems like you don't even need to be clever or amusing to get bonus
> points anymore. It seems like nowadays all you have to do is
sneeze
> and you get a bonus point. meanwhile the panelists on the show
bust
> their asses actually being funny, clever and amusing don't get any
> bonus points, because Nicholas is 'resisting the temptation' or
that
> he 'can't afford to give anymore bonus points', like he's on some
> sort of budget.
>
> And the way he even says it, that he 'can't' give someone anymore
> bonus points, I mean come on. Is someone holding a gun to his head
> saying, 'if you give out any more bonus points I'll blow your
brains
> out?'
>
> its part of the reason why I think there should be another regular
> pisstaker on the show to point these things out. Peter Jones was a
> master of this, because it pointed out all of Nicholas'
> inconsistencies and even the way he would say things. Linda Smith
> was fantastic at this as well, even Rob Brydon during his brief
> stint.
>
> I know if I were on the show I'd interrupt during each round by
> making up something incongrous like 'I've got cancer, gimme a bonus
> point' 'My mother passed away, gimme a bonus point' 'I had Chinese
> takeaway last night, gimme a bonus point', and so on.
>
> even people who try to be clever on the program nowadays aren't
> recognized for their cleverness, why? Because Nicholas has to
> be 'fair within the rules of the game'.
>
> THe man would rather be fair to a set of abstract concepts than to
> actual flesh and blood human beings. that's the sort of chairman
> this show has.
>

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

>
> that is true. of course I wish I knew who Nigel Rees was though.

>
>
>
> lapsedcat <lapsedcat@...> wrote:
> While I agree with much of what you say, Robert, I think

> needs a chairman like NP. I couldn't imagine it chaired by Humphrey
> Lyttleton for example, as the secret of his success on Clue is
> largely down to playing the "old curmudgeon"-card and simulating
> naivity over the double-entendres. He would be competing too much
> against the panellists on JAM for the audience laughs, whereas
> Parsons is not in himself amusing enough to outshine the players.
> He's a sufficient straight-man. Anyway, who would be the

> Nigel effing Rees?
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "Robert L. Torres"
> <bobbyshaddoe3004@> wrote:
> >
> > This is something that I feel is close to my heart, being a fan

> > the series, and listening to it grow and evolve over the years,

> > going through episodes from the late 60's to today, and the one
> thing
> > that has both amused me and also irritated me are those occasions
> > when Nicholas awards people bonus points.
> >
> > This would be something he rarely did during the early years of

> > show, and even then it would be very rare occasions indeed. but
> > those occasions usually entailed a clever interpretation of the
> > challenges on the violation of the rules or for making a very
> amusing
> > comment. But during those early days, there would be plent y of
> > people that would make those sorts of clever challenges or

> > interruptions, and wouldn't receive a thing, except a lot of

> > from Schoolmaster Nick, who couldn't see past the rules to
> appreciate
> > the contribution. During those occasions, no points would be
> awarded
> > at all, which very often got on my nerves, especially since he
> would
> > later say that its the contribution that matters, the points are
> > secondary, and yet would make this entire display about how

> > can speak for 58 seconds, not get any points, and someone
> interrupts
> > them and they are the ones who get the bloody points.
> >
> > as the series progressed, it seemed like he would dole out bonus
> > points to those who deserved them, sometimes they'd be given to
> > people who never deserved them.
> >
> > Then there came a point where he would give bonus points for
> amusing
> > joke challenges or for just the overall sense of amusing the
> audience
> > as a whole.
> >
> > but, nowadays, the whole notion of awarding bonus points has
> reached
> > a level of complete and utter ludicrousness. this can be traced
> back
> > to an episode from 2004 or 2005, I think the panelists were Linda
> > Smith, Tim Rice, Tony Hawks and Chris Neil. Chris began to

> a
> > niche for himself, by which he was able to garner loads of bonus
> > points for his joke challenges, since he pretty much admitted

> > he'd never be able to get any points for actually talking on the
> > subject.
> >
> > then something happens at one point to which Tim challenges
> someone,
> > I forget who, he makes a humorous comment, then asks
> Nicholas: 'Bonus
> > point?' and he gets one. But here's the bit that really irks me,
> by
> > Nicholas' own admission, he gave Tim the bonus point NOT for his
> > challenge, but for the fact that he said 'bonus point'.
> >
> > In another episode he gave Graham Norton a point for 'having a
> face',
> > in another show he gave a bonus point to Pauline McLynn because
> > he 'felt sorry for her'.
> >
> > and this is just something that really gets up my nose, because

> > seems like you don't even need to be clever or amusing to get

> > points anymore. It seems like nowadays all you have to do is
> sneeze
> > and you get a bonus point. meanwhile the panelists on the show
> bust
> > their asses actually being funny, clever and amusing don't get

> > bonus points, because Nicholas is 'resisting the temptation' or
> that
> > he 'can't afford to give anymore bonus points', like he's on some
> > sort of budget.
> >
> > And the way he even says it, that he 'can't' give someone anymore
> > bonus points, I mean come on. Is someone holding a gun to his

> > saying, 'if you give out any more bonus points I'll blow your
> brains
> > out?'
> >
> > its part of the reason why I think there should be another

> > pisstaker on the show to point these things out. Peter Jones was

> > master of this, because it pointed out all of Nicholas'
> > inconsistencies and even the way he would say things. Linda Smith
> > was fantastic at this as well, even Rob Brydon during his brief
> > stint.
> >
> > I know if I were on the show I'd interrupt during each round by
> > making up something incongrous like 'I've got cancer, gimme a

> > point' 'My mother passed away, gimme a bonus point' 'I had

> > takeaway last night, gimme a bonus point', and so on.
> >
> > even people who try to be clever on the program nowadays aren't
> > recognized for their cleverness, why? Because Nicholas has to
> > be 'fair within the rules of the game'.
> >
> > THe man would rather be fair to a set of abstract concepts than

> > actual flesh and blood human beings. that's the sort of chairman
> > this show has.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.

>

Nigel Rees is the person who hosts the much-maligned "Quote...
Unquote", many a time a target for Just A Minute or the Clue
panellists. :o)

Ant

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> that is true. of course I wish I knew who Nigel Rees was though.
you're certainly correct in labeling him a 'sufficient' straight man,
but only just. because something else that gets up my nose are the
moments when someone has a real go at him because of some verbal slip
that he made or when he's talking and someone uses his own words
against him in a marvelous put down, he'll try and deflect the insult
by pretty much stating that he set himself up for it deliberately,
saying things like 'oh I do give them marvelous cues, don't I.'
>
>
>
> lapsedcat <lapsedcat@. ..> wrote:
> While I agree with much of what you say, Robert, I think
that JAM
> needs a chairman like NP. I couldn't imagine it chaired by Humphrey
> Lyttleton for example, as the secret of his success on Clue is
> largely down to playing the "old curmudgeon"- card and simulating
> naivity over the double-entendres. He would be competing too much
> against the panellists on JAM for the audience laughs, whereas
> Parsons is not in himself amusing enough to outshine the players.
> He's a sufficient straight-man. Anyway, who would be the
altrnative?
> Nigel effing Rees?
>
> --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "Robert L. Torres"
> <bobbyshaddoe3004@ > wrote:
> >
> > This is something that I feel is close to my heart, being a fan
of
> > the series, and listening to it grow and evolve over the years,
and
> > going through episodes from the late 60's to today, and the one
> thing
> > that has both amused me and also irritated me are those occasions
> > when Nicholas awards people bonus points.
> >
> > This would be something he rarely did during the early years of
the
> > show, and even then it would be very rare occasions indeed. but
> > those occasions usually entailed a clever interpretation of the
> > challenges on the violation of the rules or for making a very
> amusing
> > comment. But during those early days, there would be plent y of
> > people that would make those sorts of clever challenges or
humorous
> > interruptions, and wouldn't receive a thing, except a lot of
stick
> > from Schoolmaster Nick, who couldn't see past the rules to
> appreciate
> > the contribution. During those occasions, no points would be
> awarded
> > at all, which very often got on my nerves, especially since he
> would
> > later say that its the contribution that matters, the points are
> > secondary, and yet would make this entire display about how
someone
> > can speak for 58 seconds, not get any points, and someone
> interrupts
> > them and they are the ones who get the bloody points.
> >
> > as the series progressed, it seemed like he would dole out bonus
> > points to those who deserved them, sometimes they'd be given to
> > people who never deserved them.
> >
> > Then there came a point where he would give bonus points for
> amusing
> > joke challenges or for just the overall sense of amusing the
> audience
> > as a whole.
> >
> > but, nowadays, the whole notion of awarding bonus points has
> reached
> > a level of complete and utter ludicrousness. this can be traced
> back
> > to an episode from 2004 or 2005, I think the panelists were Linda
> > Smith, Tim Rice, Tony Hawks and Chris Neil. Chris began to
develop
> a
> > niche for himself, by which he was able to garner loads of bonus
> > points for his joke challenges, since he pretty much admitted
that
> > he'd never be able to get any points for actually talking on the
> > subject.
> >
> > then something happens at one point to which Tim challenges
> someone,
> > I forget who, he makes a humorous comment, then asks
> Nicholas: 'Bonus
> > point?' and he gets one. But here's the bit that really irks me,
> by
> > Nicholas' own admission, he gave Tim the bonus point NOT for his
> > challenge, but for the fact that he said 'bonus point'.
> >
> > In another episode he gave Graham Norton a point for 'having a
> face',
> > in another show he gave a bonus point to Pauline McLynn because
> > he 'felt sorry for her'.
> >
> > and this is just something that really gets up my nose, because
it
> > seems like you don't even need to be clever or amusing to get
bonus
> > points anymore. It seems like nowadays all you have to do is
> sneeze
> > and you get a bonus point. meanwhile the panelists on the show
> bust
> > their asses actually being funny, clever and amusing don't get
any
> > bonus points, because Nicholas is 'resisting the temptation' or
> that
> > he 'can't afford to give anymore bonus points', like he's on some
> > sort of budget.
> >
> > And the way he even says it, that he 'can't' give someone anymore
> > bonus points, I mean come on. Is someone holding a gun to his
head
> > saying, 'if you give out any more bonus points I'll blow your
> brains
> > out?'
> >
> > its part of the reason why I think there should be another
regular
> > pisstaker on the show to point these things out. Peter Jones was
a
> > master of this, because it pointed out all of Nicholas'
> > inconsistencies and even the way he would say things. Linda Smith
> > was fantastic at this as well, even Rob Brydon during his brief
> > stint.
> >
> > I know if I were on the show I'd interrupt during each round by
> > making up something incongrous like 'I've got cancer, gimme a
bonus
> > point' 'My mother passed away, gimme a bonus point' 'I had
Chinese
> > takeaway last night, gimme a bonus point', and so on.
> >
> > even people who try to be clever on the program nowadays aren't
> > recognized for their cleverness, why? Because Nicholas has to
> > be 'fair within the rules of the game'.
> >
> > THe man would rather be fair to a set of abstract concepts than
to
> > actual flesh and blood human beings. that's the sort of chairman
> > this show has.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try it now.
>

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

>
> ah yes, I tried listening to 'Quote Unquote' once because Brian

>
> antster1983 <antster@...> wrote: Nigel Rees is the person

> Unquote", many a time a target for Just A Minute or the Clue
> panellists. :o)
>
> Ant
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., Robert Torres
> <bobbyshaddoe3004@> wrote:
> >
> > that is true. of course I wish I knew who Nigel Rees was though.
> you're certainly correct in labeling him a 'sufficient' straight

> but only just. because something else that gets up my nose are the
> moments when someone has a real go at him because of some verbal

> that he made or when he's talking and someone uses his own words
> against him in a marvelous put down, he'll try and deflect the

> by pretty much stating that he set himself up for it deliberately,
> saying things like 'oh I do give them marvelous cues, don't I.'
> >
> >
> >
> > lapsedcat <lapsedcat@> wrote:
> > While I agree with much of what you say, Robert, I think
> that JAM
> > needs a chairman like NP. I couldn't imagine it chaired by

> > Lyttleton for example, as the secret of his success on Clue is
> > largely down to playing the "old curmudgeon"-card and simulating
> > naivity over the double-entendres. He would be competing too much
> > against the panellists on JAM for the audience laughs, whereas
> > Parsons is not in himself amusing enough to outshine the players.
> > He's a sufficient straight-man. Anyway, who would be the
> altrnative?
> > Nigel effing Rees?
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@..., "Robert L. Torres"
> > <bobbyshaddoe3004@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is something that I feel is close to my heart, being a fan
> of
> > > the series, and listening to it grow and evolve over the years,
> and
> > > going through episodes from the late 60's to today, and the one
> > thing
> > > that has both amused me and also irritated me are those

> > > when Nicholas awards people bonus points.
> > >
> > > This would be something he rarely did during the early years of
> the
> > > show, and even then it would be very rare occasions indeed. but
> > > those occasions usually entailed a clever interpretation of the
> > > challenges on the violation of the rules or for making a very
> > amusing
> > > comment. But during those early days, there would be plent y of
> > > people that would make those sorts of clever challenges or
> humorous
> > > interruptions, and wouldn't receive a thing, except a lot of
> stick
> > > from Schoolmaster Nick, who couldn't see past the rules to
> > appreciate
> > > the contribution. During those occasions, no points would be
> > awarded
> > > at all, which very often got on my nerves, especially since he
> > would
> > > later say that its the contribution that matters, the points

> > > secondary, and yet would make this entire display about how
> someone
> > > can speak for 58 seconds, not get any points, and someone
> > interrupts
> > > them and they are the ones who get the bloody points.
> > >
> > > as the series progressed, it seemed like he would dole out

> > > points to those who deserved them, sometimes they'd be given to
> > > people who never deserved them.
> > >
> > > Then there came a point where he would give bonus points for
> > amusing
> > > joke challenges or for just the overall sense of amusing the
> > audience
> > > as a whole.
> > >
> > > but, nowadays, the whole notion of awarding bonus points has
> > reached
> > > a level of complete and utter ludicrousness. this can be traced
> > back
> > > to an episode from 2004 or 2005, I think the panelists were

> > > Smith, Tim Rice, Tony Hawks and Chris Neil. Chris began to
> develop
> > a
> > > niche for himself, by which he was able to garner loads of

> > > points for his joke challenges, since he pretty much admitted
> that
> > > he'd never be able to get any points for actually talking on

> > > subject.
> > >
> > > then something happens at one point to which Tim challenges
> > someone,
> > > I forget who, he makes a humorous comment, then asks
> > Nicholas: 'Bonus
> > > point?' and he gets one. But here's the bit that really irks

> > by
> > > Nicholas' own admission, he gave Tim the bonus point NOT for

> > > challenge, but for the fact that he said 'bonus point'.
> > >
> > > In another episode he gave Graham Norton a point for 'having a
> > face',
> > > in another show he gave a bonus point to Pauline McLynn because
> > > he 'felt sorry for her'.
> > >
> > > and this is just something that really gets up my nose, because
> it
> > > seems like you don't even need to be clever or amusing to get
> bonus
> > > points anymore. It seems like nowadays all you have to do is
> > sneeze
> > > and you get a bonus point. meanwhile the panelists on the show
> > bust
> > > their asses actually being funny, clever and amusing don't get
> any
> > > bonus points, because Nicholas is 'resisting the temptation' or
> > that
> > > he 'can't afford to give anymore bonus points', like he's on

> > > sort of budget.
> > >
> > > And the way he even says it, that he 'can't' give someone

> > > bonus points, I mean come on. Is someone holding a gun to his
> head
> > > saying, 'if you give out any more bonus points I'll blow your
> > brains
> > > out?'
> > >
> > > its part of the reason why I think there should be another
> regular
> > > pisstaker on the show to point these things out. Peter Jones

> a
> > > master of this, because it pointed out all of Nicholas'
> > > inconsistencies and even the way he would say things. Linda

> > > was fantastic at this as well, even Rob Brydon during his brief
> > > stint.
> > >
> > > I know if I were on the show I'd interrupt during each round by
> > > making up something incongrous like 'I've got cancer, gimme a
> bonus
> > > point' 'My mother passed away, gimme a bonus point' 'I had
> Chinese
> > > takeaway last night, gimme a bonus point', and so on.
> > >
> > > even people who try to be clever on the program nowadays aren't
> > > recognized for their cleverness, why? Because Nicholas has to
> > > be 'fair within the rules of the game'.
> > >
> > > THe man would rather be fair to a set of abstract concepts than
> to
> > > actual flesh and blood human beings. that's the sort of

> > > this show has.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!

> Try it now.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.

>