c4countdown

I bring up this subject now, because one of my pet hates, in fact something I hate with a passion, is now almost upon us; namely Halloween.

Why is it, that on one day of the year, people are allowed to basically demand money with menaces, and get away with it? Perhaps I should try it at my local bank?

This is yet another example of American culture being inflicted upon us. When I was growing up, all we used to do for Halloween was make a lantern out of a pumpkin at school!

Does anyone else agree, that this 'celebration' takes away something from our own history. With people too busy dressing up for Halloween, Guy Fawkes Day seems to be taking more of a back seat. When was the last time you saw someone asking for 'A Penny for the Guy'?

And before anyone makes any comments, yes, I admit it, I am a Grumpy Old Man!

Michael Simmonds wrote:When was the last time you saw someone asking for 'A Penny for the Guy'?

Last Thursday actually . I've only seen 2 so far, but will probably find a few more in the city centre.

I agree with you though, I too hate Halloween and it should go in . We are the only house on the street that gets egged each year.

Obviously, I would put Football, Alcohol and Children/Babies into room 101

Joseph Bolas wrote:Kids

What was that about American culture?

Gavin Chipper wrote:What was that about American culture?

"Kid" is from Old Norse via Middle English, rather pre-dating even the discovery of America (radical theories notwithstanding.)

Anyway the thing I would put into Room 101 is egg sandwiches.

I have more than a few things I would like to put into Room 101- Shopping Centres being very near the top of the list- but right at the top would be Harry Enfield. The man is a talentless gurning twat with possibly the most punchable face in the whole of the UK.

Lets put Room 101 into Room 101 and create a paradox!

Ben Wilson wrote:I have more than a few things I would like to put into Room 101- Shopping Centres being very near the top of the list- but right at the top would be Harry Enfield. The man is a talentless gurning twat with possibly the most punchable face in the whole of the UK.

A few years ago, I would have awarded that honour to Russell Grant, the astrologer, who used to appear regularly on GMTV. Now though it would have to be Alan Carr. Ben Fogle is another I can't stand, although more for his pomposity than his facial features.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:What was that about American culture?

"Kid" is from Old Norse via Middle English, rather pre-dating even the discovery of America (radical theories notwithstanding.)

But I think its common usage nowadays is largely down to those yanks (apart from in the context of goats). Like "gotten" which I think has been around for ages, but if someone uses it now you can blame to Americans.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:Kids

What was that about American culture?

Sorry about that Gavin. I have edited the post above to say Children/Babies instead

After watching today's episode of Countdown, something else I would put into room 101, oddly enough, is the Scouse accent.

Now there's another reason to switch off DOND. This weeks theme is Halloween!

Halloween? Football? Alcohol? Egg sandwiches? These are all excellent things and you people are WRONG IN THE HEAD.

I would put the following quotes into Room 101:

Michael Simmonds wrote:This is yet another example of American culture being inflicted upon us.

You sound like Anne Widdecombe.

Michael Simmonds wrote:Does anyone else agree, that this 'celebration' takes away something from our own history.

Yes! And while we're at preserving our history, why don't we bring back slavery and randomly burn some witches?

Michael Simmonds wrote:With people too busy dressing up for Halloween, Guy Fawkes Day seems to be taking more of a back seat. When was the last time you saw someone asking for 'A Penny for the Guy'?

Yesterday.

Joseph Bolas wrote:We are the only house on the street that gets egged each year.

Not this, I'm only quoting it because it's funny. What do they have against you Joseph? I hope you apologised for it, whatever it is.

Joseph Bolas wrote:Obviously, I would put Football, Alcohol and Children/Babies into room 101

Wrong wrong wrong!

Ben Wilson wrote:I have more than a few things I would like to put into Room 101- Shopping Centres being very near the top of the list

Yeah, I bloody hate convenience. Really gets on my nerves the way I don't have to trek around to all quarters to get my things.

Ben Wilson wrote:but right at the top would be Harry Enfield. The man is a talentless gurning twat with possibly the most punchable face in the whole of the UK.

Maybe, but he's still funnier than you.

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Lets put Room 101 into Room 101 and create a paradox!

Bindun. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KTdFYclpu54

Gavin Chipper wrote:But I think it's common usage nowadays is largely down to those yanks (apart from in the context of goats). Like "gotten" which I think has been around for ages, but if someone uses it now you can blame to Americans.

So what you're essentially saying is that you're an idiot.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:We are the only house on the street that gets egged each year.

Not this, I'm only quoting it because it's funny. What do they have against you Joseph? I hope you apologised for it, whatever it is.

It's not just me, it's the whole family they hate. There have been a few arguments on our street before, involving the neighbours and my mother and sister (my sister used to live over the road from us before moving) and now everyone hates us. I normally keep myself to myself though, so I try not to get involved.

Jon O'Neill wrote:So what you're essentially saying is that you're an idiot.

No, but I was nearly surprised not to find a quote from me. Got to the last one - and there it was.

Glad I didn't disappoint you.

Only slightly on-topic, but my children and I had many a laugh about the fact that their father, when I finally threw him out a few years back, stayed temporarily, but very aptly, in Room 101 of the YMCA!

Re: Halloween trick or treating. I can't find a link, but remember reading at the weekend that Victorian children used to beg for cakes on Halloween. The Americans did take the idea and run with it, though. My own children don't trick or treat anymore, as there aren't many children in the area we live in now, and they certainly didn't play tricks when they did. I think whether it's a good idea or not depends on how many others in the area trick or treat, how safe you feel they are, and if the neighbours welcome it.

Michael Simmonds wrote:Now though it would have to be Alan Carr.

Alan Carr is funny and his Ding Dong show is very funny too.

Michael Simmonds wrote:Now there's another reason to switch off DOND. This weeks theme is Halloween!

How about then, we put Deal Or No Deal into Room 101

Gays.

Michael Wallace wrote:Gays.

. . . and, of course, homophobes

That could be interesting, depending on how small Room 101 is.

Charlie Reams wrote:That could be interesting, depending on how small Room 101 is.

Surely it expands or contracts depending on the contents?

Just to be annoying, most (alleged) witches were hanged not burnt.

I haven't read the book for a while, but didn't Room 101 contain what you most feared rather than most hated? Hence Winston and the rats, a very popular band in their day....

Get rid of Halloween certainly

Kevin

John Bosley wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Gays.

. . . and, of course, homophobes

Also homophones. The bastards.

Michael Wallace wrote:

John Bosley wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Gays.

. . . and, of course, homophobes

Also homophones. The bastards.

My eldest son's mobile is pink. Is that a homophone??

Julie T wrote:
My eldest son's mobile is pink. Is that a homophone??

You could ask him - tactfully.

Julie T wrote:My eldest son's mobile is pink. Is that a homophone??

Well my fiance's mobile is pink, so perhaps you're onto something...

Well my fiance's mobile is pink, so perhaps you're onto something...[/quote]

Now we're onto moble phones - I think they should most certainly go into Room 101. It makes me chuckle to watch people staring vacantly at their cellphones waiting for them to do something! And as for text speak!!! that should follow close behind cellphones. Or is it me??

Allan

Jon O'Neill wrote:I would put the following quotes into Room 101:

Michael Simmonds wrote:This is yet another example of American culture being inflicted upon us.

You sound like Anne Widdecombe.

How do you know what I sound like? I've never spoken to you.

Michael Simmonds wrote:Does anyone else agree, that this 'celebration' takes away something from our own history.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Yes! And while we're at preserving our history, why don't we bring back slavery and randomly burn some witches?

Oooh! Yes Please! Can we also burn/hang those 'fake' witches who come round on Halloween? As for slavery, its never been abolished at my house. In fact I have my own personal slave, shes called The Wife.

Put Ann Widdecombe into Room 101 please guys. Thanks

Julian Fell wrote:Put Ann Widdecombe into Room 101 please guys. Thanks

On the subject of DC guests, it has to be Richard Digance and Dr Phil Hammond who go into Room 101.

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Julian Fell wrote:Put Ann Widdecombe into Room 101 please guys. Thanks

On the subject of DC guests, it has to be Richard Digance and Dr Phil Hammond who go into Room 101.

Noooo...Digance is my hero. Leave him alone Bolas or room 101 gets you.

I feel a bit silly replying to the original question, rather than arguing about Americans and Ann Widdecombe, but here goes.

DIY stores, especially B&Q and Wickes.

First of all, they're ugly, with row upon row of grey metal shelving, grey floors and awful lighting. Somehow, B&Q even achieve the feat of making the colour orange seem dull. You'd think they could make the place a bit nicer, with all the paint and decorating materials they sell.

I occasionally get dragged to these places because of some notion in my family that I'm good at picking colours, fashioned by years of saying "Get that one. Can we go home now?" I never actually get to go home at this point because we have to spend a further half an hour looking at other colours, before deciding we don't have to buy paint at all and go look at the wallpaper.

However, there's something else about DIY stores I hate more than all of this. That is the connotations of manual labour.

Jon Corby.

It occurred to me that some people may not have realised I wasn't being serious with my earlier suggestion, so I'd just like to make it clear that I think homophones are awesome (think of all the good humour we'd miss out on without them).

Michael Wallace wrote:It occurred to me that some people may not have realised I wasn't being serious with my earlier suggestion, so I'd just like to make it clear that I think homophones are awesome (think of all the good humour we'd miss out on without them).

Michael Simmonds wrote: Oooh! Yes Please! Can we also burn/hang those 'fake' witches who come round on Halloween? As for slavery, its never been abolished at my house. In fact I have my own personal slave, shes called The Wife.

I don't find that funny, just offensive.

Attila The Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin.....Sarah Palin.

I was searching most evil people to ever live - I thought this woman was pretty fucked up -



2. Katherine Knight Born: 1956



The first Australian woman to be sentenced to a natural life term without parole, Katherine Knight had a history of violence in relationships. She mashed the dentures of one of her ex-husbands and slashed the throat of another husband’s eight-week-old puppy before his eyes. A heated relationship with John Charles Thomas Price became public knowledge with an Apprehended Violence Order that Price had filed against Knight and ended with Knight stabbing Price to death with a butcher’s knife. He had been stabbed at least 37 times, both front and back, with many of the wounds penetrating vital organs. She then skinned him and hung his “suit” from the door frame in the living room, cut off his head and put it in the soup pot, baked his buttocks, and prepared gravy and vegetables to accompany the ‘roast’. The meal and a vindictive note were set out for the children, luckily discovered by police before they arrived home.

I would like to put in viewer competitions, especially the ones on The Gadget Show.

Now don't get me wrong, it would be nice to win one of those competitions, but because there is so many items involved and the prize total is very high, you would probably have a better chance of winning the lottery, with all 6 numbers. I honestly think that no-one genuinely wins them.

Hand-drying machines

Chris Martin

Mayonnaise (this especially is a tool of oppression - try getting a healthy tasty snack without it)

David Milliband (although 90% of politicians would be just as good)

Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood's boxing film with unrealistic action scenes and a heartless plot.

Martin Smith wrote:Mayonnaise (this especially is a tool of oppression - try getting a healthy tasty snack without it)

Mayonnaise is lovely. Salad Cream should go in instead

Martin Smith wrote:Hand-drying machines

Chris Martin

Mayonnaise (this especially is a tool of oppression - try getting a healthy tasty snack without it)

David Milliband (although 90% of politicians would be just as good)

Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood's boxing film with unrealistic action scenes and a heartless plot.

Good answer, I think you could convince me on most of those although I like Clint Eastwood as a director and suspect I'd probably like Million Dollar Baby if I saw it.

Danny Dyer.

N-Power Salesman.

Paul O'Grady and his 'show'. Its 2008, being camp isnt funny or intriguing.

Matthew Green wrote:Paul O'Grady and his 'show'. Its 2008, being camp isnt funny or intriguing.

Seconded. I find it pretty amazing that we still have celebrities who basically made their sexuality into a career. Graham Norton could also be accused of this to some extent, but at least he has some decent material to go with the endless innuendo.

Agreed on O'Grady, Norton and especially Alan Carr. There aer plenty of witty, clever and interesting people who happen to be homosexuals - Stephen Fry and Stephen K. Amos come to mind. Neither of them overdo it to that extent.

Martin Smith wrote:Agreed on O'Grady, Norton and especially Alan Carr. There aer plenty of witty, clever and interesting people who happen to be homosexuals - Stephen Fry and Stephen K. Amos come to mind. Neither of them overdo it to that extent.

And I'm quite sure that there are plenty more who we don't even know are homosexual. Much better to be witty, clever and interesting without even bringing their sexuality into the picture in any way.

If there's a market for overtly gay comedians then I say let people like Alan Carr and co fill the niche. Lots of observational stand up comedy assumes some experience in a straight relationship, so it's only fair that a proportional amount of comedians base their material on gay subculture. Alan Carr admittedly gets by a lot of the time by simply shocking his straight audience, but every comedian has their own shtick and that's his.

From the stuff of his I've seen I wouldn't say it's all about sexuality anyway. In the one Alan Carr stand up performance I've seen, he did a really funny bit about having an artsy degree and being on the dole that I'm sure lots of people could laugh at and relate to.

I'm just not sure that market is as big as TV schedulers appear to believe. Even primetime seems to include a disproportionate amount of Norton and O'Grady (and Barrymore before his fall from grace). How different are gay and straight relationships anyway, other than the former not producing children and the latter being easier to find?

Howard Somerset wrote:Much better to be witty, clever and interesting without even bringing their sexuality into the picture in any way.

And yet the majority of blokes on this forum seem to think it's perfectly OK to constantly refer to their heterosexuality (e.g. by endless references to Rachel's attractiveness). Funny that.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Howard Somerset wrote:Much better to be witty, clever and interesting without even bringing their sexuality into the picture in any way.

And yet the majority of blokes on this forum seem to think it's perfectly OK to constantly refer to their heterosexuality (e.g. by endless references to Rachel's attractiveness). Funny that.

Good point but to be fair that's probably more about Rachel than it is about their heterosexuality (heterosexualities?). Sex, and sexuality, doesn't seem to get discussed very much at all in other threads.

Martin Smith wrote:Norton and O'Grady (and Barrymore before his fall from grace)

Being young-ish, I haven't been exposed to as much Barrymore as I have Norton and O'Grady, but from what I do remember, Barrymore wasn't especially camp was he? He was certainly over dramatic, expressive, and all those other definitions of 'camp', but I don't remember him ever making it obvious that he was gay with the kind of "ooh matron" comments you'd expect from Norton or Carr. Or was he?

Martin Smith wrote:How different are gay and straight relationships anyway, other than the former not producing children and the latter being easier to find?

Depends if you mean the relationships themselves or their place in society. If the former, probably not that different. If the latter, very sadly, very different indeed.
Also, I'd assume it depends where you're looking whether you think one or the other is easier to find!

Phil Reynolds wrote:And yet the majority of blokes on this forum seem to think it's perfectly OK to constantly refer to their heterosexuality (e.g. by endless references to Rachel's attractiveness). Funny that.

We're not professional comedians. Otherwise, great point.

So I can't be all "phwoar, check out the, er, norks on that, er, raccoon babe"?

As there was nothing else on at the time, I watched last night's Live at the Apollo, featuring Sean Locke and Jason Manford, two mildly funny comedians who each performed a substantial amount of material predicated on the assumption of their (hetero)sexuality. They are by no means in a minority, yet I don't see any comments decrying the number of straight comedians who use the minutiae of their own lives as the basis for comedy.

Graham Norton and Paul O'Grady are perceived as camp, but if you actually listen, neither of them bases much of their material on their sexuality (O'Grady is on at 5pm, for crying out loud); and Alan Carr covers a whole variety of subjects of which his sexuality is just one. I thought the Daily Mail type attitude to openly gay people on TV ("why do they have to go on about it all the time"?) had died out in intelligent discourse, so given the demographics of this board, I find the current spate of posts expressing similar knee-jerk views a bit depressing.

Phil Reynolds wrote:As there was nothing else on at the time, I watched last night's Live at the Apollo, featuring Sean Locke and Jason Manford, two mildly funny comedians who each performed a substantial amount of material predicated on the assumption of their (hetero)sexuality. They are by no means in a minority, yet I don't see any comments decrying the number of straight comedians who use the minutiae of their own lives as the basis for comedy.

Graham Norton and Paul O'Grady are perceived as camp, but if you actually listen, neither of them bases much of their material on their sexuality (O'Grady is on at 5pm, for crying out loud); and Alan Carr covers a whole variety of subjects of which his sexuality is just one. I thought the Daily Mail type attitude to openly gay people on TV ("why do they have to go on about it all the time"?) had died out in intelligent discourse, so given the demographics of this board, I find the current spate of posts expressing similar knee-jerk views a bit depressing.

Talking of the Daily Mail, you seem to be looking for a scandal where there isn't one. Paul O'Grady is desperately unfunny and his career would never have lasted so long if it were not for the (presumably mostly straight) audience who watch him in that rather patronising way that equates being camp with being funny. Graham Norton and Alan Carr are (as I said already) not particularly bad offenders, because they do have good material apart from all the "hoho yes I'm gay" stuff. And, for the record, comedians who do endless routines of heterosexual innuendo (Jimmy Carr) get equally tedious after a while.

Charlie, I'm not looking for a "scandal" at all. I'm just fed up of hearing people like Howard Somerset and Martin Smith say "Why can't gay comedians just be funny without mentioning their sexuality?", when they wouldn't dream of using the same argument against straight comedians. The only criterion that should matter when judging a comedian is "are they funny?" For the record, in my opinion, Paul O'Grady is a naturally very funny man (I've seen him live and he left me aching with laughter). Unfortunately, he's stuck in a terrible show which doesn't allow him to make the best use of his performing strengths, but I still find him personally very funny, and clearly so do many others.

Phil Reynolds wrote:As there was nothing else on at the time, I watched last night's Live at the Apollo, featuring Sean Locke and Jason Manford, two mildly funny comedians who each performed a substantial amount of material predicated on the assumption of their (hetero)sexuality. They are by no means in a minority, yet I don't see any comments decrying the number of straight comedians who use the minutiae of their own lives as the basis for comedy.

I sort of did .

Ben Hunter wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:I don't see any comments decrying the number of straight comedians who use the minutiae of their own lives as the basis for comedy.

I sort of did .

Ben, I meant to mention your post for being a small island of common sense, but forgot. Sorry.

Phil Reynolds wrote:when they wouldn't dream of using the same argument against straight comedians.

Wouldn't they? Seems you're making some pretty strong assumptions about people you don't know, which is ironic considering the criticism you're making.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:when they wouldn't dream of using the same argument against straight comedians.

Wouldn't they? Seems you're making some pretty strong assumptions about people you don't know, which is ironic considering the criticism you're making.

An assumption based on pretty strong evidence. If what someone finds offensive or tiresome is comedians using sexually based material, then why choose to level their criticism solely at those who happen to be gay? Experience has taught me that such statements are usually the expression of underlying prejudice, which often is not even consciously acknowledged by the person making them. Sometimes such people are intelligent enough to examine these feelings more objectively once challenged. In the current case, it's hard to tell because they're not responding - the only person defending them is you.

Can we just cut to the chase and ban all gays from the forum?

Michael Wallace wrote:Can we just cut to the chase and ban all gays from the forum?

But then what would we have to talk about?

I personally only read this forum to groom homosexuals and children.