Just A Minute

JAM Series | JAM Stats | JAM Today | JAM Group

<<<< 4100 >>>>

Re: Rule Changes for JAM?

Messages in this topic: 19 View All
Steve KenrickMar 29, 2010

Well you can think that you’re right about Perkins and so can I. That’s done with then.

However, you seem to be in a minority of one re Freud’s listing. The reactions of the audiences and the other panellists to Clement’s individual way of playing indicate to me that they did find it both funny and clever. There was only one panelist who continuously bleated about the listing being unfair or whatever, and that was Wendy Richard.

The views of the majority aren’t always right but with their appreciation of Freud, the majority was spot on.

From: just-a-minute@... [mailto: just-a-minute@... ] On Behalf Of Robert Torres
Sent: 29 March 2010 15:35
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: RE: [just-a-minute] Re: Rule Changes for JAM?

I disagree. Sue Perkins isn't the worst offender in making pointless challenges and interruptions. Clement Freud was the only person I could think of at the moment, largely because during the latter years of his life, he did seem to make a lot of pointless challenges namely because he hadn't 'said anything yet'.

And I don't think Sue is trying to be 'one of the lads', she is trying to be 'part of the game'.

I rather like Sue's contributions, because they are entertaining and clever. perhaps she's a bit trigger happy, but she's just keen to get in a say something, as are a lot of people. At least Sue doesn't use a cheap tactic like stringing out endless lists of things that have no connection to the subject whatsoever the way Sir Clement used to do. I mean honestly, 'Hartfordshire, Herodfordshire, Lancanshire, Manchester .. .' that's not funny or clever.

--- On Sat, 3/27/10, Steve Kenrick <steve.kenrick@ virgin.net> wrote:

From: Steve Kenrick <steve.kenrick@ virgin.net>
Subject: RE: [just-a-minute] Re: Rule Changes for JAM?
To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, March 27, 2010, 10:21 AM

> why single Sue Perkins out for that,

Steven is right to single her out, because she is among the worst, if not THE worst offender.

Robert, you lose all credibility if you try and compare the antics of La Perkins with those of Clement Freud’s. The added value provided by Sir Clement’s other contributions made his “pointless” interruptions pale into insignificance. Unfortunately for La Perkins, she doesn’t have much added value, so her “pointless” interruptions are more obvious. To sum up, she isn’t in the same league as Freud.

The other thing about La Perkins that I find deeply irritating is that she is always trying to be “one of the lads”. Lower her voice by an octave or so and you could believe she was a man. As she calls herself an actress amongst other things, you would think that occasionally she could get in touch with her feminine side.

From: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Robert Torres
Sent: 27 March 2010 02:48
To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: Rule Changes for JAM?

why single Sue Perkins out for that, the same could be said about practically anyone on the show, including the late Sir Clement Freud. During his later years leading up to his death, he seemed to make pointless interruptions all the time, many of which weren't all that clever and seemed always to be for a cheap point.

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Steven <stevenwickham@ hotmail.co. uk > wrote:

From: Steven <stevenwickham@ hotmail.co. uk >
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Rule Changes for JAM?
To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 5:41 PM

There are some players whose constant stupid interruptions for a cheap point when nothing has happened do spoil some shows... stand forward Miss Perkins.

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> I should think that they should reinstate the position that no challenges should be allowed for small words like 'we' 'he' she' 'in' 'on', etc. but even back then it was something of a slippery slope where sometimes they would allow it, sometimes they wouldn't. One thing I think they should definitely do is bar the challenge on repetition of 'I'.
>
> regarding the notion of having points taken away for incorrect challenges, that i'm not so keen on.
>
>
> --- On Wed, 3/24/10, Mark <nylon@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Mark <nylon@...>
> Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Rule Changes for JAM?
> To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 8:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All they have to do is give a bonus point if someone finishes 60 seconds without a valid challenge.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:37 AM, delmelza <delmelza@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> found this via the British comedy Twitters
>
> http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/culture/ tvandradio/ 7505101/Rule- change-proposed- for-competitive- Radio-4s- Just-a-Minute. html
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2771 - Release Date: 03/26/10 07:33:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2777 - Release Date: 03/29/10 07:32:00

<<<< 4100 >>>>

Back to the Top

Message History

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	10	23	12	1	13	5	1	19	12	31	4	14
2018	4	7	21	8	9	37	9	5	19	25	5	14
2017	4	34	22	12	17	20	4	19	23	44	23	16
2016	13	49	39	57	60	87	10	32	24	12	9	23
2015	51	97	32	49	41	54	20	28	0	14	31	16
2014	9	75	68	33	28	33	52	82	51	32	38	79
2013	463	251	98	87	81	192	88	98	86	38	54	27
2012	92	121	180	199	125	88	71	155	118	166	125	144
2011	112	78	71	73	134	225	252	152	62	183	165	63
2010	142	117	153	94	69	49	69	183	82	71	68	75
2009	67	45	42	97	90	149	110	70	63	42	35	39
2008	200	120	175	120	70	109	87	115	71	45	58	38
2007	165	447	132	99	95	57	140	118	74	88	125	99