CB Fry

How does one go about saving message board threads? And secondly, why would anyone ever want to? (Except the Ted Bates statue one, which so funny it made me cry. I wish I had that)

which, of course, leads to our immediate relegation.

Cortese will be picking the team and/or playing in goal by the end of October.

Like you say no one remembers the actors from Shakespeare's day but this is due to media than people respecting creators. There is very little of Max Miller available now, so he has pretty much gone from cultural consciousness. Where Chaplin, with his films, and an unmistakable image, has survived. We live in visual age of icons. So what will survive are the icons of the age - you've already dismissed Elvis and Sinatra but they are significant figures in the history of the planet and will live on like Shakespeare, Elvis especially. They are creators, they created and it will survive. This won't be true of, say, Hanif Kureishi, Ian McEwen or other contemporary authors - but Dickens, from the golden age of the novel, will. For the same reasons the Mona Lisa will be packing them in in 2075, Damien Hirst more of a curio. Films have and will enter the canon - Life of Brian, for reasons on top of it being the funniest film ever made - this is some of the essential art of our age, more than any novel. TV fits here too and there is a canon forming. M&W will be in there, as will Python and lots of other stuff - it's the dominant media post war. It's The Globe Theatre with electricity. Ant and Dec, being unlikely to be rerun 30 years hence, won't be. Like Noel Edmunds, Des O'Connor and other light entertainers that aren't Morecambe and Wise. No one is going to produce not one but two West End productions (proper plays by "creators" no less) in tribute to Ant and Dec. So no, these days it isn't about creators, or it is if you accept that the creation of an icon is creation in itself. How this all fits in with Jack Whitehall using writers I'm not sure.

Nice to have one of the cool kids on the forum.

What, is Morecambe and Wise going to survive beyond the next hundred years? Probably not. Won't have the unstoppable staying power to be relevant in 2075 like what Veep will. For the ages that one. I mean, M&W were decimated in the ratings with a pathetic 2m viewers for thirty-forty year old content. Not like the smash hit "I writ it all myself, me" stuff like The Thick of It and Stew's Comedy Vehicle which generally achieved audiences of, er, half that. For brand new episodes.

Can you tell me who the Milli Vanilli is here then? Milli Vanilli, one of the most famous examples of complete artistic fakery in popular music history. Pretty much fraud top to bottom. Give me some idea of a current British comedian who you think is achieving Milli Vanilli levels of fraud. Essentially their entire career from start to present day is fake. Who are you thinking of exactly?

Just a rent-a-Pap retread then. In Papworld M&W has gone from being "vaguely remembered" to "look they have influenced so and so" in the space of a few posts. I accept your apology. I mention conspiracy because you are portraying this stuff as a conspiracy, and your comparison to adultery (again, what?) is just an extension of this. Let's remember it is Stewart Lee complaining, not the put-upon program associates/writers complaining. Stewart Lee who has written for other people in his time, and script edited programs for Harry Hill, and one of the first two series of Little Britain. Can't remember which one. Not the third (weak) series, that was Herring. Herring has also helped out with Russell Howard doing exactly what you object to. Oh, the humanity! So, who is the victim of this "adultery" then? The audience, who don't care? The writers, who don't seem to be complaining and continue to do it? If it's all so morally wrong, how come no one gives a fig?

So we have moved on from your dismissing M&W as being nothing more than "vaguely remembered" and now you are pulling up articles showing they have played a role in British cultural life and have influenced others. Well, it's progress. Well done you. The adultery thing...what? As I have said these writers get paid, they do get credited where possible. Some enjoy the work and the anomnity. You're seeing a conspiracy where there is none. Listen to Adam Bloom on it but of course you won't as it doesn't confirm your existing prejudices. Stay in Papworld, son. Everyone's in on it. Everyone, I tells ya.

Can you do me next, please? Get me on the Burnley forum ahead of the cup game. Make out I think Saints are bigger than Man City or something.

The fact you are sneeringly suggesting M&W are no more than the Ant n Dec of their day backs up my decision to not bother explaining anything to you. What's the point? And nice dropping in a "my beloved" even though I have already said I am not a particular fan of them. Got me in the corner have you? As someone has already said, most people are too busy laughing to care who has written what. And most big comedians are there because they can deliver the lines. Hack writers can't and therefore don't. And all of these programme associates/writers get paid for their work. There is no crime going on. It's all very sweet that you have you have turned your little "IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY" worldview to Live At The Apollo but maybe you want to get on with your life?

MM has a better top flight record than Nige, and there is a job vacancy that would fit nicely. So possible.

Actually he didn't. He started as a gag writer for newspapers (from a really young age) and then for other comics. (The kind of thing Pap hates) There is a brilliant two part documentary about the great man (Woody not Pap) that is well worth seeing.

Err, I have a strong opinion that "program associates" writing gags for Russell Howard is not a massive conspiracy like you seem to. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it not a strong opinion. And its a more informed opinion than yours which seems to be based on a newspaper article as old as the ark that you seem to have just discovered.Well done you. And your sixth form common room opinions on "oh-Elvis-is-so-manufactured" is too pathetic to walk by. So uninformed it is almost soul-destroying. Let me know where I've insulted you on here by the way.

When did I say I have never seen M&W? I said they had never made a programme in my living memory - ie they stopped in the early eighties. Yet they are still significant and remembered and still on BBC 2 on prime time on Christmas Day 2013. Or Eve. The other day. I watched it. And explaining the impact of Morecambe and Wise on the history of British Comedy to you would be like explaining electricity to a wasp. Trust me, Armando will agree with me and not you. And on the topic of writers/associates for stand ups, I don't believe I have defended it. But, it ain't a big deal. It's a tradition as old as time. Armando, Lee, Herring and Marber have all done it. But yeah. I know nowt about it.

Anyone interested in the original topic might want to listen to this podcast - lots of them are fascinating (if you are a comedy anorak). Specifically the one with Adam Bloom addresses the topic of additional writers for stand up. Some of you might remember Bloom - he was briefly famous in the 90s - and he now spends much of his time "helping" other comedians including some very big stars (unnamed in this podcast). Anyway, link to the podcast here. As well as the Bloom one, the Jason Manford and Milton Jones ones are great too. http://www.comedianscomedian.com/

None so empty as you, squire. No interest in the subject? My book shelf will disagree with you as it significantly over indexes in books about the history of British Comedy. Including a few on the Pythons, individually and collectively. Also fully aware of Lee's thoughts on all this - it's been done to death and it is far from news as you seem to think. Lee and Herring have a natter about it, in one of Rich's many podcasts. You see, I am interested and knowledgable in this topic Not sure you can make the same claim. Your dismissing M&W as being "vaguely remembered" is not demonstrating any interest in (or knowledge of) British Comedy history or popular culture in this country. Just on more line on your awfully sweet black and white worldview: why can't Python and M&W both have longevity? Because, in the human world where I live, they do. Keep frothing Pap. You've really got me in the corner.

"People value creators" you said, with the implication that writer/performers endure and appeal more than just performers. I've given you four examples two globally in the world of music and two very British comedy acts that disprove this, pretty easily. Their "creations" do and will endure, and you rambling about Comedy-Store-Alexei-Sayle-just-like-punk-old-racist-comedians-etc-etc" doesn't ever change that. My personal opinion on the acts themselves are neither here nor there, can't say I'm a particular fan of any of them excluding The Two Ronnies, especially RB who I like a lot. I am a huge fan of Lee and Herring, Chris Morris, Partidge and co for twenty odd years though. I don't expect my daughter in a decades time when she is fifteen to be culturally aware of the Friday Night Armistice. But I bet she will have seen some M&W and heard a few Elvis songs by then. "People value creators". Too right they do. Like Elvis and Eric Morecombe. Stick to back issues of U n cut Magazine, Pap.

The Ronnies weren't, but M&W had more of a stand up act than any of the Pythons ever had. You started talking about Composers, and manufactured pop stars, and the Pythons and Armando and Chris Morris so i think the conversations broadened out from stand ups, did it not? But yeah, you've really got me in the corner now.

You haven't got me in a corner. Rolling out a one line distillation of a Radio Times article on "alternative comedy" doesn't dilute the fact that both of those double acts have a cultural legacy that has endured. You can sneer at them all you like, but M&W never made a program in my living memory, so they have lasted. Just because you don't value them doesn't mean they don't have value. "People value creators" you said earlier in this thread. What both thoses acts "created" is on the screen and will (and has) endured. There are literally thousands of people watching Veep in this country. Okay, tens of thousands. If it was on BBC I would have seen it, but I haven't. Sure I will someday. I have no doubt it is jolly good but it unlikely to be "timeless" (your words) is it? And you do realise that Armando and all the rest grew up watching The Two Ronnies, yes?

Christmas Day 2023 BBC1 8pm This Morning With Richard Not Judy Remembered Timeless cultural icons Rich and Stu are joined by Paul Puttner and the actor Kevin Eldon for an hours' reminiscence about how like they are enduring comic icons who have "lasted the distance" and, like, no-one remembered The Two Ronnies twenty years after their last series. With music by someone, like, real and who has "lasted the distance". Elastica or someone.

All the sixth form ramblings in the world won't stop Elvis being Elvis and Sinatra being Sinatra. You specifically mentioned people "remembering" classical composers. Well people will remember those two. And Q magazine/Paul Morleyisms about "birth cry" of Helter Skelter? Purlease. Even ten Beetles fans in a room won't agree about that. Personally, I'd say it started with Please Please Me. And I specifically put those comedians in British cultural history. They are a massive part of British cultural history, the existance of Python makes no difference to this irrefutable fact. Remember it's only you saying people only value own-written material. It's simply not true. Python are important, as are the Beatles, but just because you over-estimate the value of "stuff wot I wrote" doesn't mean the world agrees with you. They are too busy listening to Dusty Springfield and The Supremes. And Elvis and Sinatra "won't last the distance" but Stewart effing Lee will? Jesus Christ you are mental.

This is precisely why Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra will never leave a lasting cultural legacy like what Mumford and Sons will do like. And why Britain will always cherish Lee and Herring and Newman and Baddiel over Morecombe and Wise and The Two Ronnies.

What point are you making here? Despite this relative "smallness" that you are trying to prove, Lampard still went. Your yeah-but-no-but stuff only helps your argument if Lampard decided to stay at West Ham and "develop his career" there. He didn't. Because Chelsea were bigger than WHU. Much like Man U are bigger than we are.

Err, no. Players that leave mid ranking clubs to join big clubs always fail.