Just A Minute

 
<<<<   4103   >>>>

Re: Rule Changes for JAM?

Messages in this topic: 19 View All
lapsedcatMar 30, 2010
 

 
Steve,

You're fully entitled to your opinion of Susan Perkins (indeed, I'm sure I'm not wrong in recalling an earlier critique of her style which managed to shoehorn in a veiled reference to her sexuality), and some of what you say may be valid, but why all the vitriol? Did you go to school with her in Croydon or something?

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Steve Kenrick" <steve.kenrick@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your opinion Espen.
>
> I had to smile at the irony of you mailing to the list rather than me
> directly.
>
> I suppose we all want our words of wisdom to be read by the masses.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Espen K [mailto:beamboom@...] On Behalf Of Espen Krømke
> Sent: 29 March 2010 16:50
> Cc: Steve Kenrick
> Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: Rule Changes for JAM?
>
> And this is the point in the discussion where you should have
> self-credibility enough to take this bickering OFF the list and mail the
> victim directly.
>
>
>
> Den 28. mars 2010 11:50, skrev Steve Kenrick:
> >
> >
> > Of course it's my opinion that anyone who thinks that Perkins deserves
> > to have her performance compared with that of Freud loses credibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's always going to be a poster's opinion unless the point of the post
> > involves a fact that can be proven or otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> > Surely that goes without saying.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok?
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* just-a-minute@...
> > [mailto:just-a-minute@...] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> > *Sent:* 28 March 2010 10:43
> > *To:* just-a-minute@...
> > *Subject:* [just-a-minute] Re: Rule Changes for JAM?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think we should go into whether someone loses creditability or
> > not, it suggests that some of us had it in the first place... It's much
> > better to say: I disagree, or on the contrary, just to show that it's an
> > opinion thing.
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@...
> > <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>, "Steve Kenrick"
> > <steve.kenrick@> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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@...
> > <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:just-a-minute@...
> > <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>]
> >> On Behalf Of Robert Torres
> >> Sent: 27 March 2010 02:48
> >> To: just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.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@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Steven <stevenwickham@>
> >> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Rule Changes for JAM?
> >> To: just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.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@
> >>
> <http://us.mc540.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.co
> <http://us.mc540.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.co
> >
> >> m> 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@
> >>
> <http://us.mc540.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.co
> <http://us.mc540.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.co
> >
> >> m> 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 <http://www.telegrap/ <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: 271.1.1/2773 - Release Date: 03/27/10
> > 20:32:00
> >
> >
>
> 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
>

 
<<<<   4103   >>>>

Back to the Top