Itisi

Comment policy: No spam, no hate, no flaming, just play nicely. To see this in more detail go here.

88 Comments for “Go Hug a Newbie and The Curse of the Third Column”

1. 

   1Beki

   wrote on 9 May 2006 at 13:57

   As a blogger of just over two weeks I am all for being kind to newbies!

   There are some people that, whatever they do, the only way they feel up is to put someone else down.
2. 

   2Stegbeetle

   wrote on 9 May 2006 at 15:14

   Good idea. Some people are just plain rude and one finds them in the blogosphere as readily as in what is laughingly referred to as “real life”. Be nice to everyone – that’s what I say, unless they’re thoroughly unpleasant themselves in which case either ignore them or send them a resounding cyber-punch up the nose!!
3. 

   3joss

   wrote on 9 May 2006 at 19:40

   Sadly in the blogging world there are people who forget their roots. They had to start somewhere too. Though I feel there are people out there who frown upon Folks that use Blogger.com and the like. I started on Blogger but to be honest soon moved over to Wordpress and my own hosting which gives so much more flexibility in blogging terms.Because I moved over to Wordpress didn’t change anything other than the ascetics and functionality of my blog. I still write the same as I did on blogger. Everyone deserves encouragement, I know I had loads of that and support.
4. 

   4Ally

   wrote on 9 May 2006 at 19:49

   I think that’s a really good idea. I felt really intimidated when I started blogging; and there are still sites (and people) that make me feel excluded, like you say, like a ‘cool kids club’.

   It doesn’t cost anything to be nice. You (probably) wouldn’t be rude to someone standing in your living room. Why should you be rude to someone on your blog. Or theirs?

   Very happy to join in when you reveal your Grand Plan .

   Also, I went to York University, too .
5. 

   5Cherrypie

   wrote on 9 May 2006 at 21:44

   Hear! Hear, Kate. I’m very much a novice and have no technical ability whatsoever. I’ve felt intimidated too but then on the reverse of that, I’ve had some wonderful moments – like just now when I saw me on your sidebar – thanks – I am reciprocating right now.

   And as for that Beki – I had a no idea she was a new blogger – she’s very good. It took me almost 2 years to get regular comments. I didn’t have a clue what to do with them at first x

   ikyshe – female power-blog bitch
6. 

   6Beki

   wrote on 9 May 2006 at 22:29

   Thanks Cheerypie )

   I think it’s years of subjecting my friends and family to email ramblings which have been good practice for blogging!
7. 

   7Diddums

   wrote on 10 May 2006 at 2:42

   This is my favourite post of the week. I’ve had that excluded feeling too, especially as my blog is kind of ditzy. So when is the Newbie Hugging due to start?
8. 

   8Pete

   wrote on 10 May 2006 at 8:48

   I presume the blog world is like the “real” world and full of people who are full of themselves.

   Keep smiling and keep blogging. Although you lot are taking up FAR too much of my time!
9. 

   9Rob

   wrote on 11 May 2006 at 0:54

   I keep wondering at what point I will cease to feel like a newbie. I mean, I’ve been doing this for nearly a year but am quite happy with Blogger (even if it just ate one of my comments elsewhere with a quiet burping noise). I see no excuse for rudeness to newbies unless they’ve actually been unpleasant, plagiarised stuff or whatever.

   And Keef? I’ll be cross if the silly bugger has ended up getting this summer’s Hampden gig cancelled. Mind you, he could play with brain damage: who’d know? He does, though, seem to have missed his chance at playing Johnny Depp’s Dad in “Pirates of the caribbean III”, which is a pity. Falling out of a coconut tree, though? Priceless.

   Rob
10. 

    10Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 11:54

    Beki, you are doing a great job. I agree with Cherrypie, it comes as a real suprise to discover you have only been doing this for a couple of weeks.
11. 

    11Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 11:55

    Stegbeetle, yip there are some people who are just plain rude for no apparent reason. I also try to be pleasant, the world is a nicer place if we at least make the effort to get along. I know that sounds cheesy, but it’s true.
12. 

    12Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 11:58

    Joss, I started on the now defunct, Groksoup, then moved to Blogger, and you are right, there are some who frown on the idea of using a free service.

    A while ago, I bought some proper hosting and now use Wordpress for my graphics blog, the way WP works is ideal for that. However, I kept this blog here, because, it made sense to do so. It’s a personal blog, and it’s nice to know most of the hard work is done for me. I don’t have to worry about upgrades and security patches etc. I can just log in and post.
13. 

    13Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:02

    Wow another York old girl . . . what year did you graduate? I was a millennium graduate, yes a so-called mature student LOL
14. 

    14Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:07

    Cherrypie, I know what you mean. It took me ages to get any regular comments. Mind you, being the Greta Garbo of blogging probably didn’t help. For ages, I had everything set to only allow comments from members of this blog, of there was one, me. Thanks to an email from Kitchen Witch http://kitchenwitch.journalspace.com/, I changed that, and did start getting some feedback.

    Thanks for the link
15. 

    15Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:10

    Diddums, your blog isn’t ditzy, it’s eclectic, which is good. Don’t worry, even if comments are slow now, over time they will build up.

    I’ll post the details for the Newbie Hugging on Saturday.
16. 

    16Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:12

    Pete, I know what you mean. There are so many blogs I enjoy reading, I have to limit myself, to a couple of sessions a week, or I’d never get anything done LOL
17. 

    17Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:19

    Rob, your comment reminded me of a quote from someone I forget. It might have been James Stewart. Anyway, whoever it was, was asked what it felt like to be a film star, and he replied that he didn’t know because he still felt as though he was the new kid who was about to be unmasked as an imposter.

    Oh, I would have loved to see Keef playing Johnny Depps Dad, that would have been wonderful. What a shame it won’t happen. Yes, the tree incident is odd, I honestly can’t think of any reason why he was up one in the first place. LOL I’ll keep my fingers crossed the Hampton Court gig goes ahead. I also have a feeling it will take more than this to stop him.
18. 

    18Ally

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:20

    I graduated from York in 1992, I was just a baby . I hated it with abandon.

    I think much of the nastiness to newbies come from people’s own insecurities. A ‘this is MY group and I will be threatened if anyone else joins’ kind of thing. It’s not very mature and is also downright unkind :/.
19. 

    19Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:22

    Diddums, don’t feel ignored. Your link is the 4th most popular on this blog at the moment. Big cheer!
20. 

    20Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 12:42

    Ally, why didn’t you like it? Sorry, had to ask, I’m very nosey. I enjoyed my time there, but I wasn’t on the main campus, so that might explain the difference.

    Yes, insecurity is definitely their main motivation. Really, they are to be pitied, I suppose. Having said that, I stll like the sound of Stegbeetles cyber punch on the nose.
21. 

    21KW

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 16:38

    What a good idea this post is/was (sorry – been bad on keeping up to date recently!).

    I’m sorry to hear that someone was so unpleasant to you – my response to this is something along the lines of ‘who died and made you god?’. I just don’t tend to read sites like that; don’t get much out of it. And as for the sycophants – bugger ‘em. A few comments from people who’ve got similar interests and who have taken the time to really think about what you’ve said, or to express concern or whatever, is worth more than that.
22. 

    22The Boy

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 17:38

    I am a friend of St Jude and Beki, and I have come to visit. Do not let my stupid name and “Limey flak helmet” put you off: I am quite a regular person. Not normal, mind you, but regular.

    And that is the gist of my comment. If what I read here was of the self-centered, self-important, or self-blowhard type, I wouldn’t be typing this. I would have been long gone.

    I do not read blogs for the bells and whistles–although they are sometimes fun–but rather for what the writer has to say. MY toaster has all of the buttons I need; it is humanness that I crave.

    Newbie or not.
23. 

    23Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 19:33

    Hi KW

    Yes, I would rather have that kind of commenter. It’s always nice to have people say something positive, but I don’t feel the need to have a fan club telling me how great I am.
24. 

    24Kate

    wrote on 11 May 2006 at 19:41

    Hi Admiral Pooper I like your limey flak helmet.

    I agree, for me a blog has to have a human feel for it to be of interest. I love reading about the little everyday things, the highs and lows of life. I know some bloggers think all that stuff is boring, but it’s not because it’s about real people who are rarely dull.
25. 

    25Ally

    wrote on 12 May 2006 at 11:14

    I was very young and very shy; found it really difficult to mix. Particularly because in my first year I was in Derwent, which at the time seemed to be very ‘cliquie’ and full of the most sterotypical kind of teenagers from public school. And I had a bad experience with a bloke in my first term which pretty much knocked me off balance for the whole of the rest of the time I was there.

    Nice ducks though. And the city itself is lovely .
26. 

    26Kate

    wrote on 12 May 2006 at 13:20

    Aaw Ally, I’m sorry to hear that. Uni is supposed to be a happy time, it’s a shame you were thrown in with such horrible people.

    I was out in the sticks at Scarborough . . . I think it would have been the teacher training college in your day. Anyway, it’s small and cosy, and stuck up folk tend to find themselves as the outsiders . . . and occasionally in the harbour courtesy of angry fishermen LOL
27. 

    27Ally

    wrote on 12 May 2006 at 13:36

    The fisherman treatment sounds very appealing .

    I had a much nicer time when I did a conversion for a year a few years later at Leicester. I made up for lost time .
28. 

    28Diddums

    wrote on 12 May 2006 at 13:37

    Thanks, ‘eclectic’ sounds better than ‘ditzy’ . I’ll never get more comments unless I move – I love my current blog host as the site is simple but doesn’t restrict me as much as some others I’ve tried. There’s also something friendly about the general atmosphere. But there are a couple of things I would like to do that I can’t, and receiving comments from the outside world is one of them. Thanks for joining just to talk to me, that raised my spirits no end! I don’t always do that myself, though recently I joined Blogger so I could speak to someone who had it set to ‘Blogger members only.’ At the very last moment, having set up my new account, I decided I didn’t want to comment after all! I suppose I’d had extra time to think about it by then. I used my Blogger account last night for someone different, so it wasn’t a waste of time. I might even use it later if I decide to move my blog. Looking forward to Hug a Newbie week!
29. 

    29Kate

    wrote on 12 May 2006 at 21:07

    I thought it was rather amusing too LOL

    Glad to hear you had a better time in Leicester. Mind you, it has always seemed like a friendly place. I grew up nearby in Stratford, and remember Leicester as a good place for a night out.
30. 

    30Kate

    wrote on 12 May 2006 at 21:13

    Hmm, you might be better off at Blogger, they do let you choose what kind of contact you get from visitors. Mind you, it would be a shame, because you have your blog looking so nice. On the other hand Blogger templates are very easy to customise, and if you don’t know how, there are loads of great free ones you can use.

    LOL I know what you mean about changing your mind halfway through signing up for something. I have done that a few times on forums. I get so far, then think, do I really want to.
31. 

    31Jack Yan

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 2:29

    I know I would love to have comments, no matter who they are from. For a newbie to be criticized reflects badly on the blogger—and that behaviour is there for everyone to see. I bet that blog would have lost visitors due to that.
32. 

    32Chuck Williams

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 15:45

    Wow. This blog is quite the anomaly. I’d love to know how you do it.

    So much comment love, for a site with zero PR. Is this all coming from CoComments?

    I really do like the idea of hugging newbies. If any newbies want to check out my site (which is a heavily modified blogger template atm) and get some help, please feel free.

    I am not a master of HTML, CSS, SEO, or Blogging in general, but I have gotten pretty decent at all three, and am always willing to help.

    Just so you dont think I am a link whore spammer, I wont post my link. You’ll have to figure out how to find me!

    Good luck!
33. 

    33Jack Yan

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 16:43

    Chuck, I know I found this via coCo, so you may be right. However, I do think some bloggers are naturally nice personalities who encourage conversation (unlike me!), and get huge traffic and link love without trying (and without coComment). It could be the case here.
34. 

    34Chuck Williams

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 16:58

    It is pathetic that I get 3500 uniques a week and the most comments I have ever received on a post is 10.
35. 

    35Jack Yan

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 17:02

    On some threads I do OK but I only get 100 uniques a day if I’m lucky! Maybe two or three comments a day but I have been lucky to break the 20-comment barrier a month or two ago. I think it depends on the topic: I notice the more trivial, personal ones tend to get more commenters.
36. 

    36Chuck Williams

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 17:21

    I’m fairly handy with the linkbait and tagging.

    Not to mention… its an online men’s magazine (its PG-13, and mostly cubicle safe!)

    Gratuitous link ahead!

    Fat Boy Magazine
37. 

    37Kate

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 18:00

    Hi Jack and Chuck, thanks for dropping by

    Jack, I think you right about a blogger like that losing readers. I know that kind of behaviour makes me stay away.

    Chuck, so far I have had three visitors from co-comment, but that may change as I use it more. Most people seem to find me either through technorati, or my britblog listing . . . most commenters here are from the UK . . . or because other bloggers have been kind enough to blogroll me. I’m not sure why I get comments, to be honest it always amazes me that anyone reads this blog at all LOL

    I think Jack is right about personal posts being popular though. Speaking for myself, they are sort I would be most likely to comment on, especially on a blog I haven’t visited before.
38. 

    38Chuck Williams

    wrote on 14 May 2006 at 18:02

    That makes sense. Most of what I post are “Page 3″ girls. That doesnt get a lot of comments.

    OK I am kidding.. I dont only post Page 3 girls… I post a lot more than that… product reviews, etc.. but it isn’t a “personal” blog.
39. 

    39Jack Yan

    wrote on 15 May 2006 at 0:30

    Chuck, it may be a case of people thinking, ‘Nice a**!’ but not really wanting to post that. Unless, I suppose, we have had some personal contact with the girls (or, for that matter, the products you review).
       Kate, I came by thanks to coComment, but like you I usually get visitors from Technorati. Britblog doesn’t get me too many, sadly (yes, I am British by nationality). I think you get many visitors because you write from the heart and people want to share with you. People can relate to your experiences and add their twopence.
40. 

    40Kate

    wrote on 16 May 2006 at 13:50

    Page 3 Girls . . . no wonder you don’t get many comments, your visitors have their hands occupied in other ways LOL

    Seriously though, I have two other blogs, both are of a more informative nature, and neither gets many comments. I think people visit, find what they are looking for and move on. I know it’s seems unfair when you have spent a lot of time on your content, but that just seems to be the way things work.

    Good luck with your blog
41. 

    41Kate

    wrote on 16 May 2006 at 13:57

    Thanks Jack

    I didn’t know you were ‘one of us’ That explains the jumping up and down on the tv sofa . . . British eccentricity LOL
42. 

    42Jack Yan

    wrote on 16 May 2006 at 17:28

    It probably also explains my sense of humour as it can get fairly random in a Little Britain sort of way! Earlier today I almost introduced myself on the phone, to someone not that well known to me, as ‘Chris Tarrant, from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.’
43. 

    43Kate

    wrote on 16 May 2006 at 19:34

    I wonder what they would have thought if you had

    Do you get Little Britain in New Zealand, or have you seen it here? I do like it, well mostly, some sketches are a bit toe curling . . . that horrible man who keeps leering at old ladies for example. Other characters are brilliant though, really well observed.

    If you like LB, you might like the Mighty Boosh It’s not as controversial, but it has that quirkiness. I think it is the funniest thing I have seen for ages.
44. 

    44Chuck Williams

    wrote on 16 May 2006 at 21:53

    Dont you mean Regis Philbin, you git?
45. 

    45Jack Yan

    wrote on 17 May 2006 at 13:46

    Regis is a copycat. I remember when he had a sex change and turned into Meredith.
       Kate, we get Little Britain down here, but on Channel 4 (which is primarily a music network). I prefer the Ricky Gervais sort of humour but the funniest sitcoms I encountered over the last decade or so were Black Books and the first series of Chalk. Just random enough for me. Mighty Boosh isn’t here but it looks very good—thank you for the link!
46. 

    46Nenad

    wrote on 18 May 2006 at 12:28

    I also fully support being kind to newbies (probably because I am one myself).

    I have to admit, I ahve never run into rude/snarky comments from other bloggers myself.
47. 

    47Kate

    wrote on 18 May 2006 at 14:19

    I don’t have a clue who this Regis bloke is. He sounds odd, but hey, it takes all sorts I suppose LOL

    Black Books is hilarious, and slightly surreal. I didn’t see Chalk, was it the one about teachers? Think I was working when that was on, I missed a lot of stuff because of that.
48. 

    48Kate

    wrote on 18 May 2006 at 14:27

    Hi Nenad, thanks for dropping by I noticed from my cluster map that I’d had a visitor from South Africa, congratulations, you are the first from the whole continent.

    I had a peep at your blog, liked the Clive Barker quote. Imajica is one of my favourite books of all time, Great and Secret Show is is a good one too.

    Don’t worry about your page rank, it can take a while because Google sandboxes new domains, give it a few months and it will improve. Using tags will probably bring you as many visitors anyway.
49. 

    49Jack Yan

    wrote on 18 May 2006 at 14:56

    Hi Kate: Yank back-story needed here. Regis Philbin was the equivalent of Chris Tarrant when the Americans redid Millionaire (just as they redid Pop Idol, Distraction, Fawlty Towers, Man about the House, George & Mildred, Who’s Line Is It Anyway?, Robin’s Nest, The Saint, Steptoe & Son, The Avengers, Keep It in the Family, Mixed Blessings, Tripper’s Day, Love Thy Neighbour, Thunderbirds and some more I am sure I missed). I believe when the show left the networks, Mr Philbin was replaced by Meredith Vieira. Maybe American visitors can clarify this.
       Chalk was the one about the teachers. Only the first year was good, though there was one good episode the second year. I understand it was disliked in the UK.
50. 

    50Chuck Williams

    wrote on 18 May 2006 at 22:51

    Dont forget The Office
51. 

    51iiq374

    wrote on 19 May 2006 at 0:03

    The whole clique thing in blogging is definately the scary part! You wonder how to ever spend enough time generating content to be able to attract the same people with enough passion to stick around.

    And then you realise that you really just need to generate enough content for the visitors to start talking to each other rather than you.
    Unfortunatly I haven’t got to that point yet
52. 

    52Chuck Williams

    wrote on 19 May 2006 at 0:47

    ive been doing a lot of talking on other blogs… nobody talks on mine… i guess its got too much arse
53. 

    53Kate

    wrote on 20 May 2006 at 12:30

    Hi Jack,

    Thanks for the back story, now it makes sense LOL

    There were also US remakes of Coupling and Red Dwarf, and I believe Dad’s Army. I don’t think the Coupling remake went down very well, but I suppose it would have been too similar to Friends.
54. 

    54Kate

    wrote on 20 May 2006 at 13:11

    Chuck – I forgot the Office. What is the US version like? It’s over here, but I haven’t seen it yet.
55. 

    55Candy

    wrote on 20 May 2006 at 14:02

    I’m an newbie…and I’m loving blogging. You get to meet sooooooooooooo many different peeps. One guy stole one of my posts wholesale and put it on his own blog with know credit

    Thanks for the welcome!
56. 

    56Kate

    wrote on 20 May 2006 at 15:22

    Hi Candy Wow, the Isle of Man, unlimited access to the TT. I envy you, it must be great to have that on your doorstep.

    Sorry to hear you have had content stolen. It happened to me a couple of months ago, some spammy type using scraping software had a few of my posts on his/her blog. There is a really useful post about it on the Performancing site, it explains what you can do, and gives a few tips on prevention.
57. 

    57Jack Yan

    wrote on 20 May 2006 at 22:42

    I haven’t seen the American versions of The Office (sounds scary), Coupling (I can visualize this, and yes, it would be Friends-like), and Dad’s Army (what the heck is ‘Mr Mainwaring’ in American?).
       Candy, with someone pinching your post, can you comment at that person’s blog and say something like, ‘It would have been courteous for you to have acknowledged your source’?
58. 

    58Chuck Williams

    wrote on 21 May 2006 at 5:39

    The American version of The Office is a critically acclaimed success. I think that the writing is mediocre, but the cast is extremely talented. Probably the best cast of unknowns they could hope to find.
59. 

    59Kate

    wrote on 22 May 2006 at 15:38

    Jack – I can’t imagine an American Cpt Mainwaring either, he is too stereotypically English. The programme never got past it’s pilot episode so apparently viewers weren’t impressed with the idea.

    Chuck – The cast of the British version of the Office were largely unknown too, maybe to give a sense of realism. Or maybe because they weren’t certain it would work and unknowns were cheaper. Who knows
60. 

    60Jack Yan

    wrote on 24 May 2006 at 7:31

    I’d like to see this American Office now. The Yanks have made a good go of many a programme, and in some cases, I think the American versions are superior for entertainment value—Three’s Company was better than Man about the House for me, particularly with John Ritter’s ability to make a goof of himself. Richard O’Sullivan was a bit more British-restrained.
       Usually the originals are better. Chuck, you won’t have seen them but the Brits redid Married with Children and Who’s the Boss?, and Al Bundy and Tony Micelli do not “translate into English”. Transplants go both ways, but seldom work out …
61. 

    61iiq374

    wrote on 24 May 2006 at 8:15

    Jack – I’m not sure that “Married with Children” translated particularly well into American :-p
62. 

    62Jack Yan

    wrote on 24 May 2006 at 8:56

    Kate, I’ve just found this American Dad’s Army at the IMDB, called The Rear Guard, and the main comment is from a New Zealander who sought out the show over a two-year period (which shows that Kiwis can be more British than the British). The cast is not that known to me, but I still cannot imagine it with American accents. Was it the home guard in the US under threat from Germans? Don’t think Jerry made it that far across the Pond for it to be under threat.
63. 

    63Chuck Williams

    wrote on 26 May 2006 at 1:47

    Married With Children translated perfectly into American, IIQ. It was a top rated show for years, and makes millions in syndication. Sure it is a lowbrow show, but it was funny, and the characters were believable.

    You had to have liked Married With Children, unless you are one of those “Masterpiece Theatre” types, or I believe you Brits call them “Southern Fairies”
64. 

    64Chuck Williams

    wrote on 27 May 2006 at 22:21

    weird… that last comment doesnt show on Coco…

    Did I offend the coco? I didn’t mean to. I’m not a Brit… I used the expression because I thought it was funny when the goofy guy in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels said it.pd
65. 

    65Jack Yan

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 15:14

    Actually, IIQ, Married with Children was American. I said it did not translate well into English—Married for Life (the UK version) was awful.
66. 

    66Kate

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 18:13

    “Transplants go both ways, but seldom work out … “

    Very true! Another example is the UK version of the Golden Girls which was awful. Funny for all the wrong reasons.
67. 

    67Kate

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 18:26

    “Kate, I’ve just found this American Dad’s Army at the IMDB, called The Rear Guard,…”

    I just had a look, talk about tenacity . . . you’d have to really like a programme to spend two years looking for a lost episode. Big pat on the back to that chap.

    No, the US wasn’t under direct threat from the Nazis . . . although there were u-boats along the western coast. These weren’t a problem for a home guard though, the coast guard bombed them using bi-planes. Seriously!

    I think the lack of a direct threat is to the detriment of a US version, part of the appeal of the original is the sense of poignancy. The characters were a bit daft, but in reality those old men were prepared to defend the country. Take that away and it just seems silly.
68. 

    68Kate

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 18:34

    “You had to have liked Married With Children, unless you are one of those “Masterpiece Theatre” types, or I believe you Brits call them “Southern Fairies” ”

    Around here they’re Southern Softies LOL but fairies would do just as well

    My apologies to readers from the south, I love you really
69. 

    69Kate

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 18:38

    “Did I offend the coco? I didn’t mean to. I’m not a Brit… I used the expression because I thought it was funny when the goofy guy in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels said it.pd”

    Aha, maybe you have uncovered co-comments deep dark secret, it is in fact a southern softy, tee hee

    That remindes me of my favourite tv commercial. It starts with a man sitting in front of the tv watching the football results, then you hear the announcers voice say ‘Liverpool 1 Southern Softies 0′ Liverpool are a northen team BTW.
70. 

    70iiq374

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 22:00

    Jack – perhaps you missed the cynical humour? I was meaning it wasn’t particularly good in the first place :-p

    Only redeeming feature was Christina Appleby
71. 

    71Chuck Williams

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 22:16

    Its Applegate. Are you one of those kids that wears a hockey helmet, but doesn’t play hockey?
72. 

    72Jack Yan

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 0:36

    You can’t sing ‘Who Do You Think You Are Kidding, Mr Hitler?’ in an American accent (equally, ‘Love and Marriage’ sounds naff with an English one).
       Oh my, an English Golden Girls? That sounds worse.
       Chuck, I saw the American Office on the plane, and I thought it was pretty good. Still slightly better as a Pommy show, but you don’t feel that it’s trying to be the original. I believe that is where these shows can be successful: Married for Life and The Upper Hand (UK Who’s the Boss?) never had much soul.
       IIQ, the cynicism didn’t come through on the comment, so I apologize. I actually liked the original Married with Children, or more specifically the later seasons where things got more and more surreal. The first seasons were a little too overt for me.
       Try watching it in a hotel room in Switzerland in German!
73. 

    73iiq374

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 1:09

    Sorry Chuck – I don’t tend to spend my days memorising the names of those actresses I thought were hot when I was 8. Remembering my wifes name tends to be far more productive.
74. 

    74iiq374

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 1:11

    Jack – its possible that I never made it to the surreal bit…

    Tone is frequently difficult to read in blogging or emailing. Hence the danger of the medium.

    Even emoticons do little to really convey implied tone. Besides its more fun just to let people guess and misinterpret
75. 

    75Kate

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 16:13

    “The Upper Hand (UK Who’s the Boss?) “

    The Upper Hand was a truly terrible show. It had a good cast, but really, no one could have made it watchable. Bizarrely, it ran for several series, but I’m sure that was only because they got Joe McGann to take his shirt of at least per episode.
76. 

    76Jack Yan

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 16:19

    I remember Pussy Galore was in it, and George Cowley’s chauffeur from The Professionals.
       You mentioned an American Red Dwarf, Kate. Positively scary as well.
77. 

    77Kate

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 16:36

    Yes, good old Honor Blackman – you know a programme is bad when she can’t liven it up LOL

    There is an article about the American Red Dwarf here. Apparently, Jane Leeves from ‘Frasier’ played Holly.
78. 

    78Jack Yan

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 1:43

    The American Red Dwarf doesn’t sound as awful as I thought. I half expected a train wreck.
       I remember Jane Leeves from some of the later Benny Hill Shows.
79. 

    79Kate

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 11:13

    Yes, it did sound surprisingly good. They certainly worked hard to get it right, rather then just trying to copy it on the cheap, which is often what happens with remakes.

    I don’t remember Benny Hill very well, my parents watched something on the other side (possibly Mash) but I did see Jane Leeves on the Johnathon Ross chat show,talking about her time on the programme. She said BH was not as pervy as he seemed, but was a bit eccentric.
80. 

    80Jack Yan

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 11:24

    I read a Benny Hill biography once, and have watched a documentary on the man. Both suggested that—he was not pervy, but a genuine nice guy with many eccentricities. When Jackie Wright (the bald Irishman) passed away, Hill decided to limit the amount of Wright footage used. That way, Wright’s widow could collect more in fees from the episodes.
       I contrast this to Martin Shaw’s behaviour when he prevented The Professionals from being repeated for his own reasons, to the point where co-star Gordon Jackson’s widow was left with huge debts when her husband passed. It was only then that Shaw changed his mind.
       Yet in modern Britain, Benny Hill is someone to be ashamed of, and Martin Shaw is admired.
81. 

    81Kate

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 11:47

    For some reason Martin Shaw thinks of himself as a serious ac-tor nowadays. I have no idea why, because everything I have seen him in has been tediously dull, mainly because he is the leading man, despite having the charisma of a piece of cod. He certainly wouldn’t want the Professionals to be repeated because Gordon Jackson would seriously upstage him.

    I’ve only ever read one biography – David Nivens – I gather lot of it exaggerated , but it was really entertaining.
82. 

    82Jack Yan

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 12:10

    I also dislike Shaw’s “serious actor” voice that he puts on when he narrates. Comes across like a complete tosser. Dad dislikes watching The Professionals these days because he plainly dislikes Shaw; I will keep watching it because the stories were entertaining.
       I am a sucker for bios, I have to say. I’ve even read John Major’s autobiography, and a couple of biographies on Rupert Murdoch.
83. 

    83Kate

    wrote on 1 June 2006 at 14:00

    I don’t blame your Dad, if I dislike a certain actor it really puts me off wanting to watch anything with them in. it took me ages to get around to watching Goodnight Sweetheart because I once saw Nicholas Lyndhurst being a complete lovey in a pub.

    I would imagine John Major’s biography would be quite interesting, from what I have read, he has had a varied life.
84. 

    84Kate

    wrote on 1 June 2006 at 16:46

    A temporary lapse of taste – oh that is a really cutting put down LOL It says so much, but sounds so innocent.

    I don’t know any celebs, but I grew up in Stratford on Avon, so often came into contact with them. It is surprising how much some of them differ from their public persona.

    Yes, I have heard of actors being mistaken for the characters they play. The cast of Casualty are often asked to diagnose illnesses at parties.
85. 

    85Jack Yan

    wrote on 2 June 2006 at 6:12

    There was one business leader—I can’t name him because the person who told me this story made me swear—whom I really admired because of his public persona and even his business record, and then I found out he was a dirty old man! Around 10 years ago he tried to put his hands up my friend’s dress—totally changed my mind about him. I don’t care about his business record any more! I can’t respect this fellow again because every time I see his name, I think, ‘Pervert.’
86. 

    86Kate

    wrote on 4 June 2006 at 12:34

    I can relate to that. During the mid-late 90s there was a band from my home town became very big over here. I knew the singer by reputation and everytime I saw him on tv the word ‘letch’ popped into my head.
87. 

    87Chuck Williams

    wrote on 4 June 2006 at 15:57

    You say “letch” like its a bad thing.
88. 

    88Kate

    wrote on 6 June 2006 at 11:05

    Well, it all depends who is doing the letching

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (private) (required)

Website

CommentLuv Enabled

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

You can add a link to follow you on twitter if you put your username in this box.
Only needs to be added once (unless you change your username). No http or @
Twitter