Just A Minute

>
> I expect this will probably not make me popular around here, but I
> have to say that I firmly believe that Just a Minute has actually been
> much better in recent years than it was in times of old. For a start,
> I think it is much better to have a constantly varying mix of
> competitors, rather than a constant three with one guest each week.
> Secondly, I think that it is a better game with the more fixed rules
> than with the varying hodgepodge of rules that the game used to have.
> Recently, I admit, I have only heard episodes from 2006 and from
> 1969, but in 1969 I noticed that challenges were sometimes (but not
> always) accepted for repetition of words on the card, and challenges
> were sometimes (but not always) accepted for repitition of words that
> other competitors had used in the same round. These days both these
> situations have been clarified completely, which makes for a much less
> frustrating game for the listener. Thirdly, I think that the game
> these days is a much more energetic game than it used to be, possibly
> because of the influx of younger players, and possibly simply because
> of the greater variety of players involved.
>

I expect this will probably not make me popular around here, but I
have to say that I firmly believe that Just a Minute has actually been
much better in recent years than it was in times of old. For a start,
I think it is much better to have a constantly varying mix of
competitors, rather than a constant three with one guest each week.
Secondly, I think that it is a better game with the more fixed rules
than with the varying hodgepodge of rules that the game used to have.
Recently, I admit, I have only heard episodes from 2006 and from
1969, but in 1969 I noticed that challenges were sometimes (but not
always) accepted for repetition of words on the card, and challenges
were sometimes (but not always) accepted for repitition of words that
other competitors had used in the same round. These days both these
situations have been clarified completely, which makes for a much less
frustrating game for the listener. Thirdly, I think that the game
these days is a much more energetic game than it used to be, possibly
because of the influx of younger players, and possibly simply because
of the greater variety of players involved.

Discuss.

P.S. I have recently decided to start going by my middle name,
Nathan, rather than my first name, Daniel. For some reason, the
"From" field above this message still seems to give "Dan Leonard"
rather than "Nathan Leonard", despite the fact that I've changed both
my Yahoo Profile and my Gmail Profile (as Gmail is the address I use
for this service). Can anybody suggest why this might be so, and how
I might change it? Does this Group have its own profile section, maybe?

---

Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

Speaking personally, I do seem to enjoy the post-Kenneth episodes more
than the older ones. But that's not to say I didn't like them, far
from it. I just prefer the mixing around of guest panellists the
current era. Though I do love Kenneth Williams, really I do, I find
that his histrionics and over-the-top theatrics are a bit hard to take
in large doses.

Emile

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "Dan Leonard"
<dreadedwoekitten@ ...> wrote:
>
> I expect this will probably not make me popular around here, but I
> have to say that I firmly believe that Just a Minute has actually been
> much better in recent years than it was in times of old. For a start,
> I think it is much better to have a constantly varying mix of
> competitors, rather than a constant three with one guest each week.
> Secondly, I think that it is a better game with the more fixed rules
> than with the varying hodgepodge of rules that the game used to have.
> Recently, I admit, I have only heard episodes from 2006 and from
> 1969, but in 1969 I noticed that challenges were sometimes (but not
> always) accepted for repetition of words on the card, and challenges
> were sometimes (but not always) accepted for repitition of words that
> other competitors had used in the same round. These days both these
> situations have been clarified completely, which makes for a much less
> frustrating game for the listener. Thirdly, I think that the game
> these days is a much more energetic game than it used to be, possibly
> because of the influx of younger players, and possibly simply because
> of the greater variety of players involved.
>

---

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

>
> I expect this will probably not make me popular around here, but I
> have to say that I firmly believe that Just a Minute has actually

> much better in recent years than it was in times of old. For a

> I think it is much better to have a constantly varying mix of
> competitors, rather than a constant three with one guest each week.
> Secondly, I think that it is a better game with the more fixed rules
> than with the varying hodgepodge of rules that the game used to

> Recently, I admit, I have only heard episodes from 2006 and from
> 1969, but in 1969 I noticed that challenges were sometimes (but not
> always) accepted for repetition of words on the card, and challenges
> were sometimes (but not always) accepted for repitition of words

> other competitors had used in the same round. These days both these
> situations have been clarified completely, which makes for a much

> frustrating game for the listener. Thirdly, I think that the game
> these days is a much more energetic game than it used to be,

> because of the influx of younger players, and possibly simply

> of the greater variety of players involved.
>
> Discuss.
>
> P.S. I have recently decided to start going by my middle name,
> Nathan, rather than my first name, Daniel. For some reason, the
> "From" field above this message still seems to give "Dan Leonard"
> rather than "Nathan Leonard", despite the fact that I've changed

> my Yahoo Profile and my Gmail Profile (as Gmail is the address I use
> for this service). Can anybody suggest why this might be so, and

> I might change it? Does this Group have its own profile section,

>

OK, you're looking for discussion?

Firstly, I agree with you to a great extent. In my non-existent top
20 episodes most would be later rather than earlier, where later is
defined as post Kenneth Williams. I do love many of the older
episodes a great deal, ESPECIALLY with all the so-called original
foursome together, or where Sheila Hancock fills in for one of the
other four.

But .... and this is a big but in my mind, I think recently there has
been too much turnover of guests and that perhaps a peak was reached
in 2003. I think episodes where there are two or (god preserve us)
even more inexperienced guests, the shows flounder badly. I give as
evidence the pair of shows from Dundee in 2004 with Gyles Brandreth,
Maria McErlane, Fred MacAulay and Nick Revell. I don't think even
Gyles had been on very recently at that time and struggled to hold it
together but I do believe these were a true low.

Unless the guest/new player is particularly brilliant (eg Stephen
Fry, Ross Noble, Graham Norton, Linda Smith) then they tend to
struggle terribly, even pathetically and add little comedy except
where helped along by the regulars.

A pet-hate of mine is when a new guest clearly has hardly ever
listened to the show before and doesn't appear to be aware of basics
such as not being able to repeat words used in their first attempt at
a subject. This seems to happen so often I wonder if producers
suggest it for comedic value, if so it doesn't work for me. In fact
I'd make it a pre-requisite that any new guest had a good grounding
in the traditions of the show before being signed on for an
appearance (perhaps Edinburgh fringe episodes excepted but then only
one at a time please!).

I'm even starting to embarrass myself with the pomposity of this next
one - but this is BBC RADIO FOUR and you would hope that those
appearing on the show would have some sort of grounding in just
general knowledge... .. I could give a few examples but I will single
out Sue Perkins. In Portsmouth she had never even heard of HMS
Victory - much to the horror and disbelief of Wendy Richards (for
chrissake!) [how ironic she should also be on the panel for the
subject of admiral Collingwood in Newcastle then]. Also in London,
her home town, she not only had no clue what the Serpentine was but
seized on the idea that it was a nickname for the Thames. Surely it
must have dawned on her that in growing-up in that city she couldn't
recall anyone having ever called the Thames by the name of the most
famous lake in its most famous park?

OK, rant over and please feel free (as I know you all will) to knock
down what I've said where you disagree. I'm out on a limb and no
offence will be taken. I'll just finish by saying thank the gods of
radio for Paul Merton and may Clement Freud go on performing forever.

Dave

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "Dan Leonard"
<dreadedwoekitten@ ...> wrote:
>
> I expect this will probably not make me popular around here, but I
> have to say that I firmly believe that Just a Minute has actually
been
> much better in recent years than it was in times of old. For a
start,
> I think it is much better to have a constantly varying mix of
> competitors, rather than a constant three with one guest each week.
> Secondly, I think that it is a better game with the more fixed rules
> than with the varying hodgepodge of rules that the game used to
have.
> Recently, I admit, I have only heard episodes from 2006 and from
> 1969, but in 1969 I noticed that challenges were sometimes (but not
> always) accepted for repetition of words on the card, and challenges
> were sometimes (but not always) accepted for repitition of words
that
> other competitors had used in the same round. These days both these
> situations have been clarified completely, which makes for a much
less
> frustrating game for the listener. Thirdly, I think that the game
> these days is a much more energetic game than it used to be,
possibly
> because of the influx of younger players, and possibly simply
because
> of the greater variety of players involved.
>
> Discuss.
>
> P.S. I have recently decided to start going by my middle name,
> Nathan, rather than my first name, Daniel. For some reason, the
> "From" field above this message still seems to give "Dan Leonard"
> rather than "Nathan Leonard", despite the fact that I've changed
both
> my Yahoo Profile and my Gmail Profile (as Gmail is the address I use
> for this service). Can anybody suggest why this might be so, and
how
> I might change it? Does this Group have its own profile section,
maybe?
>

---

Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

> I expect this will probably not make me popular around
> here, but I have to say that I firmly believe that Just a
> Minute has actually been much better in recent years than
> it was in times of old.

>
> I have to say that although I have heard of the HMS Victory, I

> you offhand why it's famous. And I thought the Serpentine was a

> a lake. Mind you, I've never lived in London.
>
> On 2/20/07, dbedford@... <dbedford@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I expect this will probably not make me popular around
> > > here, but I have to say that I firmly believe that Just a
> > > Minute has actually been much better in recent years than
> > > it was in times of old.
> >
> > I wouldn't think you would be in the minority actually. On
> > the TV show Arena a few years ago, Nick himself reckoned it
> > was funnier these days. Of course these days most of the
> > cast are professional comedians, which Kenneth, Clement,
> > Peter, Derek and most of their contemporaries were not.
> >
> > I personally like both "versions" if that's the right word
> > in different ways. I do feel the current show shuffles the
> > pack too much and you miss out on the really great banter
> > and interaction that comes when everyone knows exactly how
> > to pull everyone else's string. And I like the drama that
> > Kenneth offered. But Paul and Graham do come out with
> > funnier lines and stories. My Desert Island list included
> > plenty from both eras. :)
> >
> >
>

I have to say that although I have heard of the HMS Victory, I couldn't tell you offhand why it's famous.  And I thought the Serpentine was a river, not a lake.  Mind you, I've never lived in London.

On 2/20/07, dbedford@ihug. co.nz <dbedford@ihug. co.nz> wrote:

> I expect this will probably not make me popular around
> here, but I have to say that I firmly believe that Just a
> Minute has actually been much better in recent years than
> it was in times of old.

I wouldn't think you would be in the minority actually. On
the TV show Arena a few years ago, Nick himself reckoned it
was funnier these days. Of course these days most of the
cast are professional comedians, which Kenneth, Clement,
Peter, Derek and most of their contemporaries were not.

I personally like both "versions" if that's the right word
in different ways. I do feel the current show shuffles the
pack too much and you miss out on the really great banter
and interaction that comes when everyone knows exactly how
to pull everyone else's string. And I like the drama that
Kenneth offered. But Paul and Graham do come out with
funnier lines and stories. My Desert Island list included
plenty from both eras. :)

---

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dave" <j_a_m_fan@...> wrote:
>
> I've never lived in London either; or Portsmouth. HMS Victory was
> Nelson's flag ship at the battle of Trafalgar and a huge point of
> civic pride that it is preserved there, I'm sure.
>
> My point is that Graham Norton has never lived in Sheffield, but on
> his appearances there he had done what research he could; Sheila
> Hancock in the Hastings recording had done the same, even stating
she
> had anticipated local questions. These performers know the game
> format when its out on the road (ie. not in London), and approach
it
> with a suitable degree of professionalism.
>
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "Nathan Leonard"
> <dreadedwoekitten@> wrote:
> >
> > I have to say that although I have heard of the HMS Victory, I
> couldn't tell
> > you offhand why it's famous. And I thought the Serpentine was a
> river, not
> > a lake. Mind you, I've never lived in London.
> >
> > On 2/20/07, dbedford@ <dbedford@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I expect this will probably not make me popular around
> > > > here, but I have to say that I firmly believe that Just a
> > > > Minute has actually been much better in recent years than
> > > > it was in times of old.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't think you would be in the minority actually. On
> > > the TV show Arena a few years ago, Nick himself reckoned it
> > > was funnier these days. Of course these days most of the
> > > cast are professional comedians, which Kenneth, Clement,
> > > Peter, Derek and most of their contemporaries were not.
> > >
> > > I personally like both "versions" if that's the right word
> > > in different ways. I do feel the current show shuffles the
> > > pack too much and you miss out on the really great banter
> > > and interaction that comes when everyone knows exactly how
> > > to pull everyone else's string. And I like the drama that
> > > Kenneth offered. But Paul and Graham do come out with
> > > funnier lines and stories. My Desert Island list included
> > > plenty from both eras. :)
> > >
> > >
> >
>

> The fact is, Nicholas has often stated time immemorial, that evenif
> you don't know a thing about a subject, you still have to talk

> it irrespective. The reason some of these individuals decided to
> read up on this sort of information, because they usually CHOOSE to
> do so for their own reasons, usually to work their comedy about the
> place they happen to be visiting.
>
> I myself have been accused of being pedantic on things regarding

> show, but I think this is just getting a bit TOO pedantic. The
> subject Sue was talking about was 'Old Father Thames' and when she
> had the subject she did very well with it, discussing him as well

> Old Mother Thames. I think the issue over Sue's alleged ignorance
> regarding the Serpentine and the Thames is totally immaterial.

>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "Dave" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> >
> > I've never lived in London either; or Portsmouth. HMS Victory was
> > Nelson's flag ship at the battle of Trafalgar and a huge point of
> > civic pride that it is preserved there, I'm sure.
> >
> > My point is that Graham Norton has never lived in Sheffield, but

> > his appearances there he had done what research he could; Sheila
> > Hancock in the Hastings recording had done the same, even stating
> she
> > had anticipated local questions. These performers know the game
> > format when its out on the road (ie. not in London), and approach
> it
> > with a suitable degree of professionalism.
> >
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@..., "Nathan Leonard"
> > <dreadedwoekitten@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to say that although I have heard of the HMS Victory, I
> > couldn't tell
> > > you offhand why it's famous. And I thought the Serpentine was

> > river, not
> > > a lake. Mind you, I've never lived in London.
> > >
> > > On 2/20/07, dbedford@ <dbedford@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I expect this will probably not make me popular around
> > > > > here, but I have to say that I firmly believe that Just a
> > > > > Minute has actually been much better in recent years than
> > > > > it was in times of old.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't think you would be in the minority actually. On
> > > > the TV show Arena a few years ago, Nick himself reckoned it
> > > > was funnier these days. Of course these days most of the
> > > > cast are professional comedians, which Kenneth, Clement,
> > > > Peter, Derek and most of their contemporaries were not.
> > > >
> > > > I personally like both "versions" if that's the right word
> > > > in different ways. I do feel the current show shuffles the
> > > > pack too much and you miss out on the really great banter
> > > > and interaction that comes when everyone knows exactly how
> > > > to pull everyone else's string. And I like the drama that
> > > > Kenneth offered. But Paul and Graham do come out with
> > > > funnier lines and stories. My Desert Island list included
> > > > plenty from both eras. :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "bobbyshaddoe3004"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:

Funny, I don't seem to understand just what your point was actually.

This was, in part, my point exactly.

> The fact is, Nicholas has often stated time immemorial, that evenif
> you don't know a thing about a subject, you still have to talk
about
> it irrespective. The reason some of these individuals decided to
> read up on this sort of information, because they usually CHOOSE to
> do so for their own reasons, usually to work their comedy about the
> place they happen to be visiting.
>
> I myself have been accused of being pedantic on things regarding
this
> show, but I think this is just getting a bit TOO pedantic. The
> subject Sue was talking about was 'Old Father Thames' and when she
> had the subject she did very well with it, discussing him as well
as
> Old Mother Thames. I think the issue over Sue's alleged ignorance
> regarding the Serpentine and the Thames is totally immaterial.

I'm quite happy to be accused of 'pedantry on an industrial scale' to
quote Stephen Fry, but if you check this wasn't the only instance
with this particular player. To continue the Fry quotes 'I'll hold up
my end for the Radio 4 listener'.

I don't seem to recall any other instance of Sue being ignorant on some subject, but its as I said before, I take it that because Sue knows in certain instances that if she were to just make something up, there is the possibility that someone might or might not challenge her, because surely something like that has been done by plenty of other panelists on the show, why single Sue Perkins out because of it?  I mean, it just seems unfair to single her out, for what, going on flights of fantasy?  the very thing people like Paul Merton do frequently, or someone like Ross Noble who takes a subject and creates surrealistic word pictures out of them, or even someone like Clement Freud, who was once given the subject of 'Fatboy Slim' and took it as 'Fat Boy's Limb', or I think on one subject kept insisting that the word or term, whatever it was, was allegedly 'a snooker term', but would never elaborate on it. 

>
> --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "Dave" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> >
> > I've never lived in London either; or Portsmouth. HMS Victory was
> > Nelson's flag ship at the battle of Trafalgar and a huge point of
> > civic pride that it is preserved there, I'm sure.
> >
> > My point is that Graham Norton has never lived in Sheffield, but
on
> > his appearances there he had done what research he could; Sheila
> > Hancock in the Hastings recording had done the same, even stating
> she
> > had anticipated local questions. These performers know the game
> > format when its out on the road (ie. not in London), and approach
> it
> > with a suitable degree of professionalism.
> >
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "Nathan Leonard"
> > <dreadedwoekitten@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to say that although I have heard of the HMS Victory, I
> > couldn't tell
> > > you offhand why it's famous. And I thought the Serpentine was
a
> > river, not
> > > a lake. Mind you, I've never lived in London.
> > >
> > > On 2/20/07, dbedford@ <dbedford@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I expect this will probably not make me popular around
> > > > > here, but I have to say that I firmly believe that Just a
> > > > > Minute has actually been much better in recent years than
> > > > > it was in times of old.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't think you would be in the minority actually. On
> > > > the TV show Arena a few years ago, Nick himself reckoned it
> > > > was funnier these days. Of course these days most of the
> > > > cast are professional comedians, which Kenneth, Clement,
> > > > Peter, Derek and most of their contemporaries were not.
> > > >
> > > > I personally like both "versions" if that's the right word
> > > > in different ways. I do feel the current show shuffles the
> > > > pack too much and you miss out on the really great banter
> > > > and interaction that comes when everyone knows exactly how
> > > > to pull everyone else's string. And I like the drama that
> > > > Kenneth offered. But Paul and Graham do come out with
> > > > funnier lines and stories. My Desert Island list included
> > > > plenty from both eras. :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---

Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

>
> To be fair on Sue Perkins, London is a big place. I doubt that

> trying to do research on the city could be expected to dredge up

> possible detail, especially when they don't know what they're going

> asked. The nature of the Serpentine is, let's face it, quite an
> insignificant fact that they are unlikely to be asked about. If I

> to do an episode of JAM somewhere I'd probably do much more

> local history than on local geography, especially when "local

> covers an area as wide as London.
>
> To return to another tangent - is the Serpentine at least long,

> bit wavy? If not, does anybody know why it's called that?
>
> On 2/23/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > *Dave <j_a_m_fan@...>* wrote:
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@... <just-a-minute%

> > "bobbyshaddoe3004"
> > <bobbyshaddoe3004@> wrote:
> > Funny, I don't seem to understand just what your point was

> >
> > This was, in part, my point exactly.
> >
> > > The fact is, Nicholas has often stated time immemorial, that

> > > you don't know a thing about a subject, you still have to talk
> > about
> > > it irrespective. The reason some of these individuals decided to
> > > read up on this sort of information, because they usually

> > > do so for their own reasons, usually to work their comedy about

> > > place they happen to be visiting.
> > >
> > > I myself have been accused of being pedantic on things regarding
> > this
> > > show, but I think this is just getting a bit TOO pedantic. The
> > > subject Sue was talking about was 'Old Father Thames' and when

> > > had the subject she did very well with it, discussing him as

> > as
> > > Old Mother Thames. I think the issue over Sue's alleged

> > > regarding the Serpentine and the Thames is totally immaterial.
> >
> > I'm quite happy to be accused of 'pedantry on an industrial

> > quote Stephen Fry, but if you check this wasn't the only instance
> > with this particular player. To continue the Fry quotes 'I'll

> > my end for the Radio 4 listener'.
> > I don't seem to recall any other instance of Sue being ignorant

> > subject, but its as I said before, I take it that because Sue

> > certain instances that if she were to just make something up,

> > possibility that someone might or might not challenge her,

> > something like that has been done by plenty of other panelists on

> > why single Sue Perkins out because of it? I mean, it just seems

> > single her out, for what, going on flights of fantasy? the very

> > people like Paul Merton do frequently, or someone like Ross Noble

> > a subject and creates surrealistic word pictures out of them, or

> > someone like Clement Freud, who was once given the subject

> > and took it as 'Fat Boy's Limb', or I think on one subject kept

> > that the word or term, whatever it was, was allegedly 'a snooker

> > would never elaborate on it.
> >
> > >
> > > --- In just-a-minute@... <just-a-minute%

> > "Dave" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've never lived in London either; or Portsmouth. HMS Victory

> > > > Nelson's flag ship at the battle of Trafalgar and a huge

> > > > civic pride that it is preserved there, I'm sure.
> > > >
> > > > My point is that Graham Norton has never lived in Sheffield,

> > on
> > > > his appearances there he had done what research he could;

> > > > Hancock in the Hastings recording had done the same, even

> > > she
> > > > had anticipated local questions. These performers know the

> > > > format when its out on the road (ie. not in London), and

> > > it
> > > > with a suitable degree of professionalism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In just-a-minute@... <just-a-minute%

> > "Nathan Leonard"
> > > > <dreadedwoekitten@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say that although I have heard of the HMS

> > > > couldn't tell
> > > > > you offhand why it's famous. And I thought the Serpentine

> > a
> > > > river, not
> > > > > a lake. Mind you, I've never lived in London.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/20/07, dbedford@ <dbedford@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I expect this will probably not make me popular around
> > > > > > > here, but I have to say that I firmly believe that Just

> > > > > > > Minute has actually been much better in recent years

> > > > > > > it was in times of old.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't think you would be in the minority actually. On
> > > > > > the TV show Arena a few years ago, Nick himself reckoned

> > > > > > was funnier these days. Of course these days most of the
> > > > > > cast are professional comedians, which Kenneth, Clement,
> > > > > > Peter, Derek and most of their contemporaries were not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I personally like both "versions" if that's the right word
> > > > > > in different ways. I do feel the current show shuffles the
> > > > > > pack too much and you miss out on the really great banter
> > > > > > and interaction that comes when everyone knows exactly how
> > > > > > to pull everyone else's string. And I like the drama that
> > > > > > Kenneth offered. But Paul and Graham do come out with
> > > > > > funnier lines and stories. My Desert Island list included
> > > > > > plenty from both eras. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Never miss an email again!
> > Yahoo!

> >
> >
> >
>

>
> Funny, I don't seem to understand just what your point was actually.
>
> This was, in part, my point exactly.
>
> > The fact is, Nicholas has often stated time immemorial, that evenif
> > you don't know a thing about a subject, you still have to talk
> about
> > it irrespective. The reason some of these individuals decided to
> > read up on this sort of information, because they usually CHOOSE to
> > do so for their own reasons, usually to work their comedy about the
> > place they happen to be visiting.

I will take the opportunity to point out further that in
the New Vs Old debate, I can't imagine someone appearing so many
times in the Old as Sue has done in the New having displayed
such ignorance. The fact that no one ever did (examples anyone?)
I think speaks volumes alone.

I know a couple of people have suggested she's doing it for laughs
but If so she's about as funny as Robert not understanding my point.
In fact about as insulting to some of the people of Portsmouth
I would say. Typical Londoner really, come to think of it.

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> Funny, I don't seem to understand just what your point was actually.
>
> This was, in part, my point exactly.
>
> > The fact is, Nicholas has often stated time immemorial, that evenif
> > you don't know a thing about a subject, you still have to talk
> about
> > it irrespective. The reason some of these individuals decided to
> > read up on this sort of information, because they usually CHOOSE to
> > do so for their own reasons, usually to work their comedy about the
> > place they happen to be visiting.

---

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

On 2/23/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

I again restate that even people in the past have often appeared on the show whether they knew anything about a subject or not, and more often than not that individual is allowed to keep going even if they don't know anything about a certain subject. The whole idea is that you are asked to talk about something whether you know anything about it or not, many times someone has been challenged on deviation for the very point you're making, and its never been upheld. 

 

I mean if you're going to single out Sue for something like this, then there have been several occasions when Clement Freud has padded out his talk on a subject, never actually talking about the actual subject, but spinning off lists and lists of things that have nothing to do whatsoever with the subject, just place names and so on, but there have also been subjects where he has spoken quite well on things he actually knew.  The same can be applied to anyone, including Sue Perkins. 

Dave <j_a_m_fan@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

I will take the opportunity to point out further that in
the New Vs Old debate, I can't imagine someone appearing so many
times in the Old as Sue has done in the New having displayed
such ignorance. The fact that no one ever did (examples anyone?)
I think speaks volumes alone.

I know a couple of people have suggested she's doing it for laughs
but If so she's about as funny as Robert not understanding my point.
In fact about as insulting to some of the people of Portsmouth
I would say. Typical Londoner really, come to think of it.

--- In just-a-minute@..., Robert Torres
<bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
>
> Funny, I don't seem to understand just what your point was actually.
>
> This was, in part, my point exactly.
>
> > The fact is, Nicholas has often stated time immemorial, that evenif
> > you don't know a thing about a subject, you still have to talk
> about
> > it irrespective. The reason some of these individuals decided to
> > read up on this sort of information, because they usually CHOOSE to
> > do so for their own reasons, usually to work their comedy about the
> > place they happen to be visiting.

---

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

>
> I again restate that even people in the past have often appeared on

>
> I mean if you're going to single out Sue for something like this,

>
> Dave <j_a_m_fan@...> wrote:
> I will take the opportunity to point out further that in
> the New Vs Old debate, I can't imagine someone appearing so many
> times in the Old as Sue has done in the New having displayed
> such ignorance. The fact that no one ever did (examples anyone?)
> I think speaks volumes alone.
>
> I know a couple of people have suggested she's doing it for laughs
> but If so she's about as funny as Robert not understanding my point.
> In fact about as insulting to some of the people of Portsmouth
> I would say. Typical Londoner really, come to think of it.
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., Robert Torres
> <bobbyshaddoe3004@> wrote:
> >
> > Funny, I don't seem to understand just what your point was

> >
> > This was, in part, my point exactly.
> >
> > > The fact is, Nicholas has often stated time immemorial, that

> > > you don't know a thing about a subject, you still have to talk
> > about
> > > it irrespective. The reason some of these individuals decided

> > > read up on this sort of information, because they usually

> > > do so for their own reasons, usually to work their comedy about

> > > place they happen to be visiting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
> Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>

> I will take the opportunity to point out further that in
> the New Vs Old debate, I can't imagine someone appearing so many
> times in the Old as Sue has done in the New having displayed
> such ignorance.

--- In just-a-minute@..., Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 24, 2007, at 05:22 AM, Dave wrote:
>
> > I will take the opportunity to point out further that in
> > the New Vs Old debate, I can't imagine someone appearing so many
> > times in the Old as Sue has done in the New having displayed
> > such ignorance.
>
> I don't comment on the "ignorance" bit - but it is interesting (to me
> anyway) that the average performers get more of a chance these days
than
> they used to, despite fewer shows these days. Of course there are
fewer
> regulars these days!
>

> It is a shame that there aren't more regulars, because I do
> believe that a central kernel of regulars around which 'guests'
> revolve enhances the quality of the show. Hence my earlier comment
> in this thread expressing the hope that Paul Merton and Clement
> Freud keep on going.
>
> Excellent other regulars would be Stephen Fry, Ross Noble, Graham
> Norton, Tony Hawks (How sad that I can no longer include Linda
> Smith in this list). Perhaps one or two others.
>
> Then around these regulars the introduction of ONE guest like
> Jenny Eclair, Dara O'Brien, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, Wendy Richard
> (especially with Clement), Sheila Hancock, Marcus Brigstocke
> (a possible new regular in the making), Gyles Brandreth, and,
> yes, Sue Perkins.

On 2/26/07, Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 06:00 AM, Dave wrote:
>
> > It is a shame that there aren't more regulars, because I do
> > believe that a central kernel of regulars around which 'guests'
> > revolve enhances the quality of the show. Hence my earlier comment
> > in this thread expressing the hope that Paul Merton and Clement
> > Freud keep on going.
> >
> > Excellent other regulars would be Stephen Fry, Ross Noble, Graham
> > Norton, Tony Hawks (How sad that I can no longer include Linda
> > Smith in this list). Perhaps one or two others.
> >
> > Then around these regulars the introduction of ONE guest like
> > Jenny Eclair, Dara O'Brien, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, Wendy Richard
> > (especially with Clement), Sheila Hancock, Marcus Brigstocke
> > (a possible new regular in the making), Gyles Brandreth, and,
> > yes, Sue Perkins.
>
> I totally agree with the thrust of this - we might differ on specific
> names - but i do think having four, max five regulars, with three of
> them on every week on average as they used to would be the best way to
> do the show. The regulars would get to really know how to tease the
> others and it would be very funny.
>
> I wonder what will happen when Clement goes. Will say Tony Hawks for
> example appear a lot more often - or might it become "Paul Merton And
> Friends"... Oh well we don't have to contemplate this for a while yet...
>
> My four of five regulars - taking into account the unlikeliness of
> Stephen and Ross agreeing - would be Paul, Clement, Graham, Kit and
> Jenny - five people each with a different style. I would then include
> the others you mention in rotation, maybe not Dara - I think his style
> might be too hesitational to really be successful...
>

On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 06:00 AM, Dave wrote:

> It is a shame that there aren't more regulars, because I do
> believe that a central kernel of regulars around which 'guests'
> revolve enhances the quality of the show. Hence my earlier comment
> in this thread expressing the hope that Paul Merton and Clement
> Freud keep on going.
>
> Excellent other regulars would be Stephen Fry, Ross Noble, Graham
> Norton, Tony Hawks (How sad that I can no longer include Linda
> Smith in this list). Perhaps one or two others.
>
> Then around these regulars the introduction of ONE guest like
> Jenny Eclair, Dara O'Brien, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, Wendy Richard
> (especially with Clement), Sheila Hancock, Marcus Brigstocke
> (a possible new regular in the making), Gyles Brandreth, and,
> yes, Sue Perkins.

I totally agree with the thrust of this - we might differ on specific
names - but i do think having four, max five regulars, with three of
them on every week on average as they used to would be the best way to
do the show. The regulars would get to really know how to tease the
others and it would be very funny.

I wonder what will happen when Clement goes. Will say Tony Hawks for
example appear a lot more often - or might it become "Paul Merton And
Friends"... Oh well we don't have to contemplate this for a while yet...

My four of five regulars - taking into account the unlikeliness of
Stephen and Ross agreeing - would be Paul, Clement, Graham, Kit and
Jenny - five people each with a different style. I would then include
the others you mention in rotation, maybe not Dara - I think his style
might be too hesitational to really be successful...

---

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

On 2/26/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

I think the fact that there are so many people to choose from regarding the semi-regulars is quite a feat actually, because it really opens things up for all sorts of combinations, with the inclusion of guests and so on.  I think for the most part that's what they've been trying to do, with a great deal of success actually. 

 

To be honest, I'm actually still holding out hope that they'll actually experiment with an all female panel, because its usually either four men, or three men and a lady, rarely do you ever have more than one woman on the show nowadays.  the JAMs on TV during '99 nearly achieved it with people like Linda Smith, Wendy Richard and Maria McErlane, and also Pam Ayers to great effect actually. 

Dean Bedford <dbedford@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 06:00 AM, Dave wrote:

> It is a shame that there aren't more regulars, because I do
> believe that a central kernel of regulars around which 'guests'
> revolve enhances the quality of the show. Hence my earlier comment
> in this thread expressing the hope that Paul Merton and Clement
> Freud keep on going.
>
> Excellent other regulars would be Stephen Fry, Ross Noble, Graham
> Norton, Tony Hawks (How sad that I can no longer include Linda
> Smith in this list). Perhaps one or two others.
>
> Then around these regulars the introduction of ONE guest like
> Jenny Eclair, Dara O'Brien, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, Wendy Richard
> (especially with Clement), Sheila Hancock, Marcus Brigstocke
> (a possible new regular in the making), Gyles Brandreth, and,
> yes, Sue Perkins.

I totally agree with the thrust of this - we might differ on specific
names - but i do think having four, max five regulars, with three of
them on every week on average as they used to would be the best way to
do the show. The regulars would get to really know how to tease the
others and it would be very funny.

I wonder what will happen when Clement goes. Will say Tony Hawks for
example appear a lot more often - or might it become "Paul Merton And
Friends"... Oh well we don't have to contemplate this for a while yet...

My four of five regulars - taking into account the unlikeliness of
Stephen and Ross agreeing - would be Paul, Clement, Graham, Kit and
Jenny - five people each with a different style. I would then include
the others you mention in rotation, maybe not Dara - I think his style
might be too hesitational to really be successful...

---

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

I'm trying to think if there are four women who have been on it recently.  Jenny Eclair and Sheila Hancock are still going strong.  Sue Perkins and Liza Tarbuck have been on a few in the last couple of years.  There.  That's four for you, producers.  Now get it sorted!

On 2/26/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com> wrote:

I think the fact that there are so many people to choose from regarding the semi-regulars is quite a feat actually, because it really opens things up for all sorts of combinations, with the inclusion of guests and so on.  I think for the most part that's what they've been trying to do, with a great deal of success actually. 

 

To be honest, I'm actually still holding out hope that they'll actually experiment with an all female panel, because its usually either four men, or three men and a lady, rarely do you ever have more than one woman on the show nowadays.  the JAMs on TV during '99 nearly achieved it with people like Linda Smith, Wendy Richard and Maria McErlane, and also Pam Ayers to great effect actually. 

Dean Bedford <dbedford@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 06:00 AM, Dave wrote:

> It is a shame that there aren't more regulars, because I do
> believe that a central kernel of regulars around which 'guests'
> revolve enhances the quality of the show. Hence my earlier comment
> in this thread expressing the hope that Paul Merton and Clement
> Freud keep on going.
>
> Excellent other regulars would be Stephen Fry, Ross Noble, Graham
> Norton, Tony Hawks (How sad that I can no longer include Linda
> Smith in this list). Perhaps one or two others.
>
> Then around these regulars the introduction of ONE guest like
> Jenny Eclair, Dara O'Brien, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, Wendy Richard
> (especially with Clement), Sheila Hancock, Marcus Brigstocke
> (a possible new regular in the making), Gyles Brandreth, and,
> yes, Sue Perkins.

I totally agree with the thrust of this - we might differ on specific
names - but i do think having four, max five regulars, with three of
them on every week on average as they used to would be the best way to
do the show. The regulars would get to really know how to tease the
others and it would be very funny.

I wonder what will happen when Clement goes. Will say Tony Hawks for
example appear a lot more often - or might it become "Paul Merton And
Friends"... Oh well we don't have to contemplate this for a while yet...

My four of five regulars - taking into account the unlikeliness of
Stephen and Ross agreeing - would be Paul, Clement, Graham, Kit and
Jenny - five people each with a different style. I would then include
the others you mention in rotation, maybe not Dara - I think his style
might be too hesitational to really be successful.. .

---

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

---

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

On 2/26/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

Here's a foursome for ya:

Sue Perkins, Jenny Eclair, Sheila Hancock and Pauline McLynn

Nathan Leonard <dreadedwoekitten@ gmail.com> wrote:

I'm trying to think if there are four women who have been on it recently.  Jenny Eclair and Sheila Hancock are still going strong.  Sue Perkins and Liza Tarbuck have been on a few in the last couple of years.  There.  That's four for you, producers.  Now get it sorted!

On 2/26/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@... > wrote:

I think the fact that there are so many people to choose from regarding the semi-regulars is quite a feat actually, because it really opens things up for all sorts of combinations, with the inclusion of guests and so on.  I think for the most part that's what they've been trying to do, with a great deal of success actually. 

 

To be honest, I'm actually still holding out hope that they'll actually experiment with an all female panel, because its usually either four men, or three men and a lady, rarely do you ever have more than one woman on the show nowadays.  the JAMs on TV during '99 nearly achieved it with people like Linda Smith, Wendy Richard and Maria McErlane, and also Pam Ayers to great effect actually. 

Dean Bedford <dbedford@ihug. co.nz> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 06:00 AM, Dave wrote:

> It is a shame that there aren't more regulars, because I do
> believe that a central kernel of regulars around which 'guests'
> revolve enhances the quality of the show. Hence my earlier comment
> in this thread expressing the hope that Paul Merton and Clement
> Freud keep on going.
>
> Excellent other regulars would be Stephen Fry, Ross Noble, Graham
> Norton, Tony Hawks (How sad that I can no longer include Linda
> Smith in this list). Perhaps one or two others.
>
> Then around these regulars the introduction of ONE guest like
> Jenny Eclair, Dara O'Brien, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, Wendy Richard
> (especially with Clement), Sheila Hancock, Marcus Brigstocke
> (a possible new regular in the making), Gyles Brandreth, and,
> yes, Sue Perkins.

I totally agree with the thrust of this - we might differ on specific
names - but i do think having four, max five regulars, with three of
them on every week on average as they used to would be the best way to
do the show. The regulars would get to really know how to tease the
others and it would be very funny.

I wonder what will happen when Clement goes. Will say Tony Hawks for
example appear a lot more often - or might it become "Paul Merton And
Friends"... Oh well we don't have to contemplate this for a while yet...

My four of five regulars - taking into account the unlikeliness of
Stephen and Ross agreeing - would be Paul, Clement, Graham, Kit and
Jenny - five people each with a different style. I would then include
the others you mention in rotation, maybe not Dara - I think his style
might be too hesitational to really be successful...

---

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

---

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

> I'm trying to think if there are four women who have been on it
> recently.  Jenny Eclair and Sheila Hancock are still going strong.  Sue
> Perkins and Liza Tarbuck have been on a few in the last couple of
> years.  There.  That's four for you, producers.  Now get it sorted!

On 2/26/07, Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Nathan Leonard wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to think if there are four women who have been on it
> > recently. Jenny Eclair and Sheila Hancock are still going strong. Sue
> > Perkins and Liza Tarbuck have been on a few in the last couple of
> > years. There. That's four for you, producers. Now get it sorted!
>
> The last few going backwards from today -
>
> Pauline McLynn
> Maria McErlane
> Sue Perkins
> Pam Ayres
> Janey Godley
> Liza Tarbuck
> Jenny Eclair
> Kate Robbins
> Sheila Hancock
>

I'd actually just come back here to mention Pauline McLynn, as she's on this week's, which I'm listening to now.  I have to say, although I like Pauline McLynn a lot on Father Ted and in her own stand-up, I'm not a fan of her on Just a Minute.  She makes too many of the weakly-humoured attempts to get out of challenges that just grate on me, and I think she gets away with too much - she's now been on the show too many times to get points just effectively for being there.  Most of all, though, I just don't think she's very funny on the show.  I think maybe she's one of those comedians who is very funny, but not very skilled at open improvisation.

On 2/26/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Here's a foursome for ya:

Sue Perkins, Jenny Eclair, Sheila Hancock and Pauline McLynn

Nathan Leonard <dreadedwoekitten@ gmail.com> wrote:

I'm trying to think if there are four women who have been on it recently.  Jenny Eclair and Sheila Hancock are still going strong.  Sue Perkins and Liza Tarbuck have been on a few in the last couple of years.  There.  That's four for you, producers.  Now get it sorted!

On 2/26/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com > wrote:

I think the fact that there are so many people to choose from regarding the semi-regulars is quite a feat actually, because it really opens things up for all sorts of combinations, with the inclusion of guests and so on.  I think for the most part that's what they've been trying to do, with a great deal of success actually. 

 

To be honest, I'm actually still holding out hope that they'll actually experiment with an all female panel, because its usually either four men, or three men and a lady, rarely do you ever have more than one woman on the show nowadays.  the JAMs on TV during '99 nearly achieved it with people like Linda Smith, Wendy Richard and Maria McErlane, and also Pam Ayers to great effect actually. 

Dean Bedford <dbedford@ihug. co.nz> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 06:00 AM, Dave wrote:

> It is a shame that there aren't more regulars, because I do
> believe that a central kernel of regulars around which 'guests'
> revolve enhances the quality of the show. Hence my earlier comment
> in this thread expressing the hope that Paul Merton and Clement
> Freud keep on going.
>
> Excellent other regulars would be Stephen Fry, Ross Noble, Graham
> Norton, Tony Hawks (How sad that I can no longer include Linda
> Smith in this list). Perhaps one or two others.
>
> Then around these regulars the introduction of ONE guest like
> Jenny Eclair, Dara O'Brien, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, Wendy Richard
> (especially with Clement), Sheila Hancock, Marcus Brigstocke
> (a possible new regular in the making), Gyles Brandreth, and,
> yes, Sue Perkins.

I totally agree with the thrust of this - we might differ on specific
names - but i do think having four, max five regulars, with three of
them on every week on average as they used to would be the best way to
do the show. The regulars would get to really know how to tease the
others and it would be very funny.

I wonder what will happen when Clement goes. Will say Tony Hawks for
example appear a lot more often - or might it become "Paul Merton And
Friends"... Oh well we don't have to contemplate this for a while yet...

My four of five regulars - taking into account the unlikeliness of
Stephen and Ross agreeing - would be Paul, Clement, Graham, Kit and
Jenny - five people each with a different style. I would then include
the others you mention in rotation, maybe not Dara - I think his style
might be too hesitational to really be successful.. .

---

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

---

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

---

Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.

>
> Here's a foursome for ya:
> Sue Perkins, Jenny Eclair, Sheila Hancock and Pauline McLynn
>