BA
Tumble Tower, the use of absurdity and incongruence with reality is a source of humour. Childish and unexpected behaviour is another source of humour. However, such things appear to annoy you. Therefore, I would say you do not understand the humour expected of Comic Relief.
TT
Okay folks, I'm sorry I mentioned Victorian Dragon's Den on RND 2009 (four years ago) again on this thread. I was just answering what was said in Jon's post - his recollection of me criticising Victorian Dragon's Den in RND 2009.
That's precisely why I wanted to move away from past RNDs and return to last Friday's one, and voice my opinion on one of the sketches from RND 2013. So far I've chosen just one of them, Simon Cowell's Wedding which failed to amuse me.
On now to another RND 2013 sketch.
I'm not surprised. To me the Archbishop of Canterbury sketch was another dull and boring sketch really. I've found out from Wikipedia that the current Archbishop of Canterbury is Justin Welby as of 4 Feb 2013. I didn't think they would have the real Archbishop of Canterbury on a charity telethon. The thing is, I think it was wrong to have someone mocking the Archbishop of Canterbury on a charity telethon like that. To be honest I was disgusted they put that in. The Archbishop of Canterbury sketch should have been dropped altogether.
Tumble Tower, the use of absurdity and incongruence with reality is a source of humour. Childish and unexpected behaviour is another source of humour. However, such things appear to annoy you. Therefore, I would say you do not understand the humour expected of Comic Relief.
Okay folks, I'm sorry I mentioned Victorian Dragon's Den on RND 2009 (four years ago) again on this thread. I was just answering what was said in Jon's post - his recollection of me criticising Victorian Dragon's Den in RND 2009.
That's precisely why I wanted to move away from past RNDs and return to last Friday's one, and voice my opinion on one of the sketches from RND 2013. So far I've chosen just one of them, Simon Cowell's Wedding which failed to amuse me.
On now to another RND 2013 sketch.
I'm not surprised. To me the Archbishop of Canterbury sketch was another dull and boring sketch really. I've found out from Wikipedia that the current Archbishop of Canterbury is Justin Welby as of 4 Feb 2013. I didn't think they would have the real Archbishop of Canterbury on a charity telethon. The thing is, I think it was wrong to have someone mocking the Archbishop of Canterbury on a charity telethon like that. To be honest I was disgusted they put that in. The Archbishop of Canterbury sketch should have been dropped altogether.
DA
I've never understood why Jimmy Cricket wears boots with 'L' and 'R' on them. Firstly he is a 67 year old man, he should be able to identify which boot goes on which foot by now. Secondly, he still wears them on the wrong feet anyway. It doesn't make any sense. Complete tommy rot.
As for the Archbishop of Canterbury sketch, the only thing wrong with it was that it wasn't funny.
As for the Archbishop of Canterbury sketch, the only thing wrong with it was that it wasn't funny.
JO
In fairness to Tumble Tower, if I saw a thread with the name Tumble Tower credited as the latest poster and one with the name rob credited as the latest poster, Tumble Tower's would be the one I'd click on first.
Tumble Tower, please stop.
In fairness to Tumble Tower, if I saw a thread with the name Tumble Tower credited as the latest poster and one with the name rob credited as the latest poster, Tumble Tower's would be the one I'd click on first.
DJ
Tumble Dryer - might I remind you that Simon Cowell's Wedding ... was NOT a real wedding! It was a comedy sketch!
So you didn't find it funny. I didn't find it hilarious, but I appreciated it for what it was - a comedy sketch that wasn't
meant to be taken seriously. That's seems to be your problem here. You are taking comedy sketches too seriously!
Any further over-analysis in this thread of the sketches featured on this year's RND event, or indeed past RND events
should be considered as trolling in an effort to take the thread off-topic, and be subject to action by the moderators.
Tumble Dryer, please stop it. You're making a complete prat of yourself, which clearly isn't difficult for you.
So you didn't find it funny. I didn't find it hilarious, but I appreciated it for what it was - a comedy sketch that wasn't
meant to be taken seriously. That's seems to be your problem here. You are taking comedy sketches too seriously!
Any further over-analysis in this thread of the sketches featured on this year's RND event, or indeed past RND events
should be considered as trolling in an effort to take the thread off-topic, and be subject to action by the moderators.
Tumble Dryer, please stop it. You're making a complete prat of yourself, which clearly isn't difficult for you.
BA
Okay folks, I'm sorry I mentioned Victorian Dragon's Den on RND 2009 (four years ago) again on this thread. I was just answering what was said in Jon's post - his recollection of me criticising Victorian Dragon's Den in RND 2009.
That's precisely why I wanted to move away from past RNDs and return to last Friday's one, and voice my opinion on one of the sketches from RND 2013. So far I've chosen just one of them, Simon Cowell's Wedding which failed to amuse me.
I fail to see the connection between my post and that reply. I was explaining why you clearly do not comprehend humour properly, and find it, instead, annoying. The analysis you provided shows you misunderstanding of the way humour is created, and is why I can be so sure.
How do you know how the moderators will react? Is it fair for you to warn a user?
Tumble Tower, the use of absurdity and incongruence with reality is a source of humour. Childish and unexpected behaviour is another source of humour. However, such things appear to annoy you. Therefore, I would say you do not understand the humour expected of Comic Relief.
Okay folks, I'm sorry I mentioned Victorian Dragon's Den on RND 2009 (four years ago) again on this thread. I was just answering what was said in Jon's post - his recollection of me criticising Victorian Dragon's Den in RND 2009.
That's precisely why I wanted to move away from past RNDs and return to last Friday's one, and voice my opinion on one of the sketches from RND 2013. So far I've chosen just one of them, Simon Cowell's Wedding which failed to amuse me.
I fail to see the connection between my post and that reply. I was explaining why you clearly do not comprehend humour properly, and find it, instead, annoying. The analysis you provided shows you misunderstanding of the way humour is created, and is why I can be so sure.
Tumble Dryer - might I remind you that Simon Cowell's Wedding ... was NOT a real wedding! It was a comedy sketch!
So you didn't find it funny. I didn't find it hilarious, but I appreciated it for what it was - a comedy sketch that wasn't
meant to be taken seriously. That's seems to be your problem here. You are taking comedy sketches too seriously!
Any further over-analysis in this thread of the sketches featured on this year's RND event, or indeed past RND events
should be considered as trolling in an effort to take the thread off-topic, and be subject to action by the moderators.
Tumble Dryer, please stop it. You're making a complete prat of yourself, which clearly isn't difficult for you.
So you didn't find it funny. I didn't find it hilarious, but I appreciated it for what it was - a comedy sketch that wasn't
meant to be taken seriously. That's seems to be your problem here. You are taking comedy sketches too seriously!
Any further over-analysis in this thread of the sketches featured on this year's RND event, or indeed past RND events
should be considered as trolling in an effort to take the thread off-topic, and be subject to action by the moderators.
Tumble Dryer, please stop it. You're making a complete prat of yourself, which clearly isn't difficult for you.
How do you know how the moderators will react? Is it fair for you to warn a user?
RO
In fairness to Tumble Tower, if I saw a thread with the name Tumble Tower credited as the latest poster and one with the name rob credited as the latest poster, Tumble Tower's would be the one I'd click on first.
Which is why I've chosen to ignore anything you've posted for a while.
Grow up.
rob
Founding member
Tumble Tower, please stop.
In fairness to Tumble Tower, if I saw a thread with the name Tumble Tower credited as the latest poster and one with the name rob credited as the latest poster, Tumble Tower's would be the one I'd click on first.
Which is why I've chosen to ignore anything you've posted for a while.
Grow up.
MW
In fairness to Tumble Tower, if I saw a thread with the name Tumble Tower credited as the latest poster and one with the name rob credited as the latest poster, Tumble Tower's would be the one I'd click on first.
Which is why I've chosen to ignore anything you've posted for a while.
Grow up.
Hear hear.
Tumble Tower, please stop.
In fairness to Tumble Tower, if I saw a thread with the name Tumble Tower credited as the latest poster and one with the name rob credited as the latest poster, Tumble Tower's would be the one I'd click on first.
Which is why I've chosen to ignore anything you've posted for a while.
Grow up.
Hear hear.
TT
I don't need that reminder, it DID occur to me last Friday evening that it was a comedy sketch for RND, not a real wedding. It's just that i felt shocked that's the rubbish they call comedy these days.
Perhaps I did over-analyse the wedding sketch. So how should it have been interpreted? Where was the humour in that sketch? I didn't see anything funny about it, any humour within it must have been really hidden, indeed too hidden for me to spot. For someone who actually interpreted it the way it was meant to be interpreted, and spotted the funny side so as to actually laugh, where was the hidden funny side of it. Please explain.
Tumble Dryer - might I remind you that Simon Cowell's Wedding ... was NOT a real wedding! It was a comedy sketch!
I don't need that reminder, it DID occur to me last Friday evening that it was a comedy sketch for RND, not a real wedding. It's just that i felt shocked that's the rubbish they call comedy these days.
That's seems to be your problem here. You are taking comedy sketches too seriously!
The analysis you provided shows you misunderstanding of the way humour is created, and is why I can be so sure.
Perhaps I did over-analyse the wedding sketch. So how should it have been interpreted? Where was the humour in that sketch? I didn't see anything funny about it, any humour within it must have been really hidden, indeed too hidden for me to spot. For someone who actually interpreted it the way it was meant to be interpreted, and spotted the funny side so as to actually laugh, where was the hidden funny side of it. Please explain.
MW
I don't need that reminder, it DID occur to me last Friday evening that it was a comedy sketch for RND, not a real wedding. It's just that i felt shocked that's the rubbish they call comedy these days.
Perhaps I did over-analyse the wedding sketch. So how should it have been interpreted? Where was the humour in that sketch? I didn't see anything funny about it, any humour within it must have been really hidden, indeed too hidden for me to spot. For someone who actually interpreted it the way it was meant to be interpreted, and spotted the funny side so as to actually laugh, where was the hidden funny side of it. Please explain.
I found it funny.
Tumble Dryer - might I remind you that Simon Cowell's Wedding ... was NOT a real wedding! It was a comedy sketch!
I don't need that reminder, it DID occur to me last Friday evening that it was a comedy sketch for RND, not a real wedding. It's just that i felt shocked that's the rubbish they call comedy these days.
That's seems to be your problem here. You are taking comedy sketches too seriously!
The analysis you provided shows you misunderstanding of the way humour is created, and is why I can be so sure.
Perhaps I did over-analyse the wedding sketch. So how should it have been interpreted? Where was the humour in that sketch? I didn't see anything funny about it, any humour within it must have been really hidden, indeed too hidden for me to spot. For someone who actually interpreted it the way it was meant to be interpreted, and spotted the funny side so as to actually laugh, where was the hidden funny side of it. Please explain.
I found it funny.