c4countdown

Nothing personal Jason, or anyone else for that matter.
As from today, nobody, regardless of age or how unlucky they were, will be given a second shot unless we make a mistake in production that deprives them of a possible win, or decide to change the rule, which is most unlikely.

D Eadie wrote:As from today, nobody, regardless of age or how unlucky they were, will be given a second shot unless we make a mistake in production that deprives them of a possible win, or decide to change the rule, which is most unlikely.

Really don't understand this. You would've lost at least Kirk, Junaid, Hamish and Andrew Hulme from the last three series alone, which to me would be a great tragedy.

D Eadie wrote:The general rule / train of thought behind the second-chancers theory is that it should / will only include people who lost first time around and who weren't altogether prepared for what came their way.

D Eadie wrote:As from today, nobody, regardless of age or how unlucky they were, will be given a second shot unless we make a mistake in production that deprives them of a possible win, or decide to change the rule, which is most unlikely.

So the policy has changed as from today? I can see it'll make things a lot simpler, and makes sense.

Matthew Green wrote:Clare, no offence (well actually, maybe a little), but if you ever went back on the show after losing easily despite having apterous and being 40+ then I think i would actually write a formal letter of complaint to Channel 4 and never watch the show again in disgust.

Like I said, I'm not a good player. You'd be right to be annoyed. Shane beat me because he was better than me. Damian's right about that - it's a competition, and I lost because I wasn't good enough. No offence taken.

When I was on, I ate a double portion of carbs at lunch (chips and lasagne) which really fatigued me for my next game which I lost. Surely this qualifies me for another go?

Attractive women should be given a second shot.

Charlie Reams wrote:

D Eadie wrote:As from today, nobody, regardless of age or how unlucky they were, will be given a second shot unless we make a mistake in production that deprives them of a possible win, or decide to change the rule, which is most unlikely.

Really don't understand this. You would've lost at least Kirk, Junaid, Hamish and Andrew Hulme from the last three series alone, which to me would be a great tragedy.

It probably also would have kept this can of worms shut though.

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

D Eadie wrote:As from today, nobody, regardless of age or how unlucky they were, will be given a second shot unless we make a mistake in production that deprives them of a possible win, or decide to change the rule, which is most unlikely.

Really don't understand this. You would've lost at least Kirk, Junaid, Hamish and Andrew Hulme from the last three series alone, which to me would be a great tragedy.

It probably also would have kept this can of worms shut though.

Lucky this isn't University Challenge, or they'd be declaring Charlie Reams and Jimmy Gough the series winners next.

Charlie Reams wrote:

D Eadie wrote:As from today, nobody, regardless of age or how unlucky they were, will be given a second shot unless we make a mistake in production that deprives them of a possible win, or decide to change the rule, which is most unlikely.

Really don't understand this. You would've lost at least Kirk, Junaid, Hamish and Andrew Hulme from the last three series alone, which to me would be a great tragedy.

Au contraire mon frere, you're talking what would've happened had this rule been brought in 2 years ago, but it wasn't, so we didn't. We had an unwritten rule of allowing the nippers another go further down the line. That won't apply anymore as there are no 'nippers turned adults' left, so there's no big deal.

And i didn't start this thread !!!

Jon Corby wrote:It probably also would have kept this can of worms shut though.

I'm not sure it is much of a can of worms. Does anyone really feel that the existing "at the producer's discretion" system was really unfair?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:It probably also would have kept this can of worms shut though.

I'm not sure it is much of a can of worms. Does anyone really feel that the existing "at the producer's discretion" system was really unfair?

Maybe, the fact that these are the most active threads for sometime suggests there's some kind of issue here.

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:It probably also would have kept this can of worms shut though.

I'm not sure it is much of a can of worms. Does anyone really feel that the existing "at the producer's discretion" system was really unfair?

Maybe, the fact that these are the most active threads for sometime suggests there's some kind of issue here.

I think it's a legitimate discussion, but the outcome of that discussion could reasonably be "things are fine as they are".

Things are fine as they are.

Charlie Reams wrote:I think it's a legitimate discussion, but the outcome of that discussion could reasonably be "things are fine as they are".

True. A more obvious answer might be "the people who are reapplying but failing at the producer's discretion think it's unfair", although they probably wouldn't say as much on a site frequented by said producer, as that's unlikely to help their cause. These threads may also just be very active because I'm insulting people in them

D Eadie wrote:That won't apply anymore as there are no 'nippers turned adults' left, so there's no big deal.

Aww, poor little Philpot - he's as invisible as Mrs. Pepperpot!

D Eadie wrote:And i didn't start this thread !!!

No wonder I kept getting confused about which thread I was posting in

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I think it's a legitimate discussion, but the outcome of that discussion could reasonably be "things are fine as they are".

True. A more obvious answer might be "the people who are reapplying but failing at the producer's discretion think it's unfair", although they probably wouldn't say as much on a site frequented by said producer, as that's unlikely to help their cause. These threads may also just be very active because I'm insulting people in them

Tosser.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I think it's a legitimate discussion, but the outcome of that discussion could reasonably be "things are fine as they are".

True. A more obvious answer might be "the people who are reapplying but failing at the producer's discretion think it's unfair", although they probably wouldn't say as much on a site frequented by said producer, as that's unlikely to help their cause. These threads may also just be very active because I'm insulting people in them

Tosser.

Wow. That was uncalled for, dude

maybe it is time for a poll to see how many agree with the new ruling

Derek Hazell wrote:

D Eadie wrote:That won't apply anymore as there are no 'nippers turned adults' left, so there's no big deal.

Aww, poor little Philpot - he's as invisible as Mrs. Pepperpot!

LEWIS F'ING MACKAY AND AUSTIN F'ING SHIN. Though to be fair they're too busy tearing the Scrabble world at large to pieces.

There's only an issue because I want to go on again and can't

D Eadie wrote:We had an unwritten rule of allowing the nippers another go further down the line. That won't apply anymore as there are no 'nippers turned adults' left, so there's no big deal.

Maybe not at the moment, but I'm sure there will be. And rules are made to be broken, aren't they?

Mike Brown wrote:Maybe not at the moment, but I'm sure there will be. And rules are made to be broken, aren't they?

Are they?

Michael Wallace wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:Maybe not at the moment, but I'm sure there will be. And rules are made to be broken, aren't they?

Are they?

Abolutely, IMO - in the right circumstances, of course. I'm not advocating that everyone goes around murdering each other. As Douglas Bader once said: "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."

Thought I'd change my avatar and add a signature - several reasons:

1. Achieved Acolyte status
2. Received letter dated 2 July confirming my audition in Manchester on 17 July.
3. Noted thread dated 3 July re contestants who deserve a 2nd chance - didn't feel the need to respond and ignored it thereafter.
4. Joined Apterous to try get in some practice.
5. Received email dated 8 July advising that I won't actually be allowed back on Countdown.
6. Now feeling pretty sick.
7. Might as well reminisce about my appearance in Feb 2002.

I know I'm not, and never will be, up to the standards of the great Countdown Octochamps who have graced the screen over the years (many of whom are on this forum). On the other hand, I have been known to put in the odd reasonable performance when watching from the comfort of my armchair. When I did appear on the programme, I am one of those unfortunates who happened to be drawn against a very good player. In my case, this was Kevin Thurlow. Kevin posted the 2nd highest score (at the time) in Countdown history on his debut [123]; went on to become an Octochamp and got to the semi finals. Of the 9 people Kevin beat, I lost by the least number of points.

Unlike some people on this forum (who already have a couple of wins under their belt), I had no real aspirations of getting to quarter finals etc. All I wanted was an opportunity to have another shot at trying to win the teapot. Alas, the posts made on this forum over the past week appear to have been the catalyst that has taken away that opportunity.

I'm quite sure that some of you will be having a right good laugh at that. Well - go ahead ... but then think about what that says about your character.

p.s. and No ..... I'm not going to write a poem about my feelings.

Philip Jarvis wrote: Unlike some people on this forum (who already have a couple of wins under their belt), I had no real aspirations of getting to quarter finals etc. All I wanted was an opportunity to have another shot at trying to win the teapot. Alas, the posts made on this forum over the past week appear to have been the catalyst that has taken away that opportunity.

I'm quite sure that some of you will be having a right good laugh at that. Well - go ahead ... but then think about what that says about your character.

If you were to actually read the thread you ignored, you'd discover that almost everyone in that thread was pro-letting people have another go. Which sort of undermines everything else that you were complaining about.

Unlucky Philip.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote: Unlike some people on this forum (who already have a couple of wins under their belt), I had no real aspirations of getting to quarter finals etc. All I wanted was an opportunity to have another shot at trying to win the teapot. Alas, the posts made on this forum over the past week appear to have been the catalyst that has taken away that opportunity.

I'm quite sure that some of you will be having a right good laugh at that. Well - go ahead ... but then think about what that says about your character.

If you were to actually read the thread you ignored, you'd discover that almost everyone in that thread was pro-letting people have another go. Which sort of undermines everything else that you were complaining about.

Well, there was some skepticism expressed by a "D Eadie", whoever he is. (And granted, most people were not taking themselves very seriously either, I don't think, or at least recognized who was the man who had the vote.)

Although I do wonder if D Eadie read that thread and realized maybe he needed to hire an intern to check applications.... (Perhaps Kirk et al. would speak to this, but I'm guessing that most of the "authorized" reappearers did not go through the normal audition process, or at least first sent a letter that said "I was on the show back when, should I bother applying again?")

Purely out of interest, did you make this decision, Damian?

Andrew Hulme wrote:Purely out of interest, did you make this decision, Damian?

No, I did.

Andrew Feist wrote: Well, there was some skepticism expressed by a "D Eadie", whoever he is. (And granted, most people were not taking themselves very seriously either, I don't think, or at least recognized who was the man who had the vote.)

Good point, this D Eadie seems to be a bit full of himself. Luckily we have a resident poet to put him in his place.

Say what you want guys, i don't really give a hoot. Have a poll, write to Channel 4, complain to your MP, it won't make a difference.

The people who run the show are those who are paid to, not those who think they know it all.

Yeah it was my decision, and yeah it's not changing. Have said enough about it now.

Full of myself....not really, perhaps just full of too much shit that gets written on this forum.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote: Unlike some people on this forum (who already have a couple of wins under their belt), I had no real aspirations of getting to quarter finals etc. All I wanted was an opportunity to have another shot at trying to win the teapot. Alas, the posts made on this forum over the past week appear to have been the catalyst that has taken away that opportunity.

I'm quite sure that some of you will be having a right good laugh at that. Well - go ahead ... but then think about what that says about your character.

If you were to actually read the thread you ignored, you'd discover that almost everyone in that thread was pro-letting people have another go. Which sort of undermines everything else that you were complaining about.

Despite the pro nature of the posts, it still seems that the thread has been the catalyst for taking the opportunity away. Regardless of whether a contestant should get another go, I think if you go as far as giving someone an audition date before you change your mind about how it shold work, you should honour that and make the rule for future applicants.

Gavin Chipper wrote: Regardless of whether a contestant should get another go, I think if you go as far as giving someone an audition date before you change your mind about how it shold work, you should honour that and make the rule for future applicants.

Agreed.

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Is it the right place to ask for another go??

I have a feeling some twat's going to ask for another go in a minute.

BTW how does this backward thread work?

(Prize to whoever can place this little fella by the way)

Jon Corby wrote:



(Prize to whoever can place this little fella by the way)

Is it a member of Kid Creoles backing band

Marc Meakin wrote:Is it a member of Kid Creoles backing band

It's not, but you're on the right lines with music.

D Eadie wrote:Say what you want guys, i don't really give a hoot. Have a poll, write to Channel 4, complain to your MP, it won't make a difference.

The people who run the show are those who are paid to, not those who think they know it all.

Yeah it was my decision, and yeah it's not changing. Have said enough about it now.

Full of myself....not really, perhaps just full of too much shit that gets written on this forum.

I believe this is a word for word copy of Michael Grade's response to the Save Our Studios on-line petition we were entreated to sign on this forum.

Obviously I can't change matters and don't intend to but I did like it before where the ruling was "at the producer's discretion". If he thinks someone will make good TV by being awesome or being a great character or whatever and thinks someone warrants another go, then fine. Otherwise a blanket "no appearing twice" ruling would suffice.

Following a brief enquiry to Damian a few weeks ago regarding a potential reappearance in x years, which garnered the reply "I don't see why not", I can't pretend I'm not deflated by this news. However, in some ways, I'm glad that an absolute decision has been made as it clarifies the situation totally.

This isn't to say that I agree with it, but there's not much point in moaning. Kirk, Junaid etc took their second chance magnificently and did so when the rules specified they could. No doubt Andrew will do so starting this afternoon. I will content myself with having faced a worthy CoC attendee and Octochamp in the form of James Hurrell and getting a sound beating. Plus, the overall YTV experience was excellent; it just went much too quickly for my liking and I'd've loved to have taken advantage of it again.

Frontier Psychiatrist!

Awesome tune and video. I like the one they did with the miner dancing with the sexy ladies too.

Paul Howe wrote:Frontier Psychiatrist!

Awesome tune and video.

Yes, and yes!

Um, I need to think of a prize now...

Thanks for the sympathy votes.

There is some discussion on the "2nd chance" thread about inadequate checks and "slipping through the net". Just to clarify, I feel I need to state that I have been up front right from the start. When I emailed my application in March, I clearly stated on the form that I had appeared on Countdown on 1 Feb 2002. I referred to this in my covering email and set out the reasons why I was asking for a 2nd chance. After the filming of the finals in April, I spoke to Damian and he said there was no real reason why I couldn't appear again, particularly with the passage of time. In the email I received on 2 July from the Countdown Team inviting me to audition on 17 July, it stated "We've spoken to Damian and he's going to let you have another crack of the whip in teapot terms!"

Had I been told at the outset that only defeated juniors can have a 2nd chance, I would have had no problem whatsoever with this. What pisses me off, is having the rug pulled from under me at the last minute. Looking at the posts on 8 July on the earlier thread, there is less than a 2 hour gap between Jason Witcher announcing he had received his audition letter and him receiving the phone call saying he had been invited "erroneously". Shortly after this, I got my "Dear John" email. It seems to me that Damian had simply had enough of the ongoing discussions on this subject and decided to put a stop to it. I suspect that if the thread had not been started or developed in the way that it did, both Jason and I would quietly have had our auditions and may well have been appearing on the programme at a later date. Other worthy causes such as Joseph Bolas might also have had the chance.

What has happened has happened and that is not going to change. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I had already started preparations for the show by logging unusual words from ODE on a spreadsheet. I'd only got to "B" and so the good news from my point of view is that I don't have to tackle "C" to "Z"!

Finally ..... I'm surprised nobody has commented about the most important bit of my earlier post -

What do you think of my new avatar?

Feel free to post insults if you wish.

Paul Howe wrote:Frontier Psychiatrist!

Awesome tune and video. I like the one they did with the miner dancing with the sexy ladies too.

I LOVE that tune and video too! I feel ashamed I didn't recognise it now.

My dad wasn't impressed when I played him the "mash-up" version between that and one of his favourite songs, Gnarls Barkley's Crazy though.

Damian,

Hypothetically speaking, if freaky antiques-dealer James Harrie had appeared on the show in the 80s and won a few games would you allow his new transsexual persona Lauren Harrie to reappear if she passed her audition?

If not, you are quite clearly a racist.

Philip Jarvis wrote:Finally ..... I'm surprised nobody has commented about the most important bit of my earlier post -

What do you think of my new avatar?

Feel free to post insults if you wish.

Having not been on the show, I don't feel qualified to comment on the main part of your post, but the avatar is cute. Are they the same squirrels that you fished out of that woman's cleavage earlier?

Hard luck Philip - it's certainly unfortunate to have an audition scheduled and then have it snatched away. Nice avatar.

I did have my doubts about people getting a second go - there might be ill-feeling from the large number of people (every octochamp is responsible for at least 7 people losing their only game) losing the first game and not getting a second go. Maybe that's the reason for the latest change of mind.

However, Countdown's longevity suggests that the people making it know what they are doing!

Philip Jarvis wrote:It seems to me that Damian had simply had enough of the ongoing discussions on this subject and decided to put a stop to it.

I'm sure that's exactly what happened, and I'm sure you're feeling frustrated and you want to blame someone, but you can hardly get annoyed with people for discussing something. FWIW I have some sympathy with your plight, but if you enjoy the game then you can always play on apterous, even if there's no teapot at the end.

Does anyone know just how many players have had a second bite of the countdown cherry so far

Derek Hazell wrote: .. the avatar is cute. Are they the same squirrels that you fished out of that woman's cleavage earlier?

Nice one - No they're Agoutis. The clue is in my signature.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:It seems to me that Damian had simply had enough of the ongoing discussions on this subject and decided to put a stop to it.

I'm sure that's exactly what happened, and I'm sure you're feeling frustrated and you want to blame someone, but you can hardly get annoyed with people for discussing something. FWIW I have some sympathy with your plight, but if you enjoy the game then you can always play on apterous, even if there's no teapot at the end.

True I was feeling a bit annoyed and deflated yesterday, but I'm not blaming Damian or anyone else on the forum. It was just a sequence of events that (unfortunately from my point of view) culminated in the way that it did.

Before I made my post, I PM'd Damian to say that, although disappointed, I understood the position he had found himself in. I also told Damian that I'll just have to enjoy myself playing Apterous as an alternative.

I'll no doubt have a game with you at some point. Any chance of a soggy teabag if I win?

Philip Jarvis wrote:Any chance of a soggy teabag if I win?

I have to say, that request came as quite a surprise to me. Your balls are in your court, Charlie, whaddya say?

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Countdown's longevity suggests that the people making it know what they are doing!

Agreed.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:It seems to me that Damian had simply had enough of the ongoing discussions on this subject and decided to put a stop to it.

I'm sure that's exactly what happened

Pretty much so. Just dawned of me yesterday that a couple of us on the production team pay far too much attention to what is written on this forum. Having read things just about every day for 6 months or so, it's easy to get sucked in to thinking that this place represents the voice of the viewers, when in actual fact it doesn't.

Had my opinions on Dinos et al having another shot at the game, then read what was written subsequently, became swayed, purely out of 'giving them what they want', (even though James Robinson's post is inaccurate because anyone claiming Dinos to be unlucky when he appeared is clearly deluding themselves, 14 word maxes from 44 rds?), then thought, hang on, we've already had the discussion about apterous players on the show, their perceived tediousness by some, the word stemming, roboticism of play etc, so......do we really want to encourage more of this by allowing the "I've improved considerably since my first time" people to come back. Answer was an emphatic no and that's that, then for someone to suggest there is a poll about it.......well, final straw stuff as far as i am concerned.

For what it's worth, i think the Rob Thomas leaving thread says a lot about how unfriendly and unsavoury this forum can be and Charlie, i think your final riposte at the end of that thread just lets you down in so many different ways. Rob was great on the show, one of the decent guys, extremely outgoing, pleasant and the manners of a gentleman. I think it's time enough to leave you all to it also. Over-familiarites may be to blame, i dunno, but i think some of you guys need to reel it in a little.

D Eadie wrote:

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Countdown's longevity suggests that the people making it know what they are doing!

Agreed.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:It seems to me that Damian had simply had enough of the ongoing discussions on this subject and decided to put a stop to it.

I'm sure that's exactly what happened

Pretty much so. Just dawned of me yesterday that a couple of us on the production team pay far too much attention to what is written on this forum. Having read things just about every day for 6 months or so, it's easy to get sucked in to thinking that this place represents the voice of the viewers, when in actual fact it doesn't.

Had my opinions on Dinos et al having another shot at the game, then read what was written subsequently, became swayed, purely out of 'giving them what they want', (even though James Robinson's post is inaccurate because anyone claiming Dinos to be unlucky when he appeared is clearly deluding themselves, 14 word maxes from 44 rds?), then thought, hang on, we've already had the discussion about apterous players on the show, their perceived tediousness by some, the word stemming, roboticism of play etc, so......do we really want to encourage more of this by allowing the "I've improved considerably since my first time" people to come back. Answer was an emphatic no and that's that, then for someone to suggest there is a poll about it.......well, final straw stuff as far as i am concerned.

For what it's worth, i think the Rob Thomas leaving thread says a lot about how unfriendly and unsavoury this forum can be and Charlie, i think your final riposte at the end of that thread just lets you down in so many different ways. Rob was great on the show, one of the decent guys, extremely outgoing, pleasant and the manners of a gentleman. I think it's time enough to leave you all to it also. Over-familiarites may be to blame, i dunno, but i think some of you guys need to reel it in a little.

Sorry about my post about having a poll on this subject
I was just being flippant and I am upset that this has contributed to your decision

Charlie Reams wrote:I'd just like to end this topic by saying thanks very much, Rob Thomas, for self-destructing so spectacularly. Never before have so many forumites had so much mirth at the expense of someone so boring.

Good luck with the hecklers.

D Eadie wrote:For what it's worth, i think the Rob Thomas leaving thread says a lot about how unfriendly and unsavoury this forum can be and Charlie, i think your final riposte at the end of that thread just lets you down in so many different ways. Rob was great on the show, one of the decent guys, extremely outgoing, pleasant and the manners of a gentleman. I think it's time enough to leave you all to it also. Over-familiarites may be to blame, i dunno, but i think some of you guys need to reel it in a little.

That's harsh IMO Damian. This site is a product of Charlie's work in a similar way that the show is a product of yours - we've witnessed before that you (rightly) don't appreciate it when people come out with baseless criticisms of the show, so I think Charlie has equal right to take umbrage when people rubbish this site in that manner. We had similar fairly recently with Kate Richardson tossing spurious accusations about (both here and elsewhere) without being able to back them up, and it's not on.

I absolutely genuinely have no idea what could have prompted Rob to flounce off like that re these threads. It's one of the most constructive and frankly politest debates you'll find on here! Even looking back through Rob's post history I can only find two occasions where people have been slightly sarcastic/rude to him. Maybe he thinks we're being genuine when we playfully insult each other, like all mates do? I guess we'll never know if he doesn't come back to explain. The "hecklers" bit is fair comment too, Rob wrote on here (and I think mentioned on the show, if memory serves) about doing stand-up comedy; I honestly don't know how such a sensitive soul could cope, unless he only does church events or something.

Jon Corby wrote:The "hecklers" bit is fair comment too, Rob wrote on here (and I think mentioned on the show, if memory serves) about doing stand-up comedy; I honestly don't know how such a sensitive soul could cope, unless he only does church events or something.

All in all a rather Earl-y departure!

The show isn't a product of my work, i'm not billy ten men, it's a product of a team of people. I don't think Rob was criticising Charlie personally or his site in terms of a product, we know that, he was having a pop at the manner in which some replies are constructed and how some people get savaged, sometimes without good reason. I can't be arsed picking out the exact links Jon, but in the last week alone, i've seen people call each other tosser, cunt, twat, fucktard....and it does seem to be getting worse. It looks to me like a few people are trying to be like you, always looking for the cutting quip, the funny sarcastic side of things, but it ain't working, it's starting to reek of hostility and show signs of lack of warmth. You guys can write what you like, there's no law against it, but there's also no formal association with anyone from the show when it gets to the present levels. It just reflects badly all round and there's no need.

D Eadie wrote:but in the last week alone, i've seen people call each other tosser, cunt, twat, fucktard....

No one has called anyone a cunt or a fucktard in the last month. Douglas Wilson called Corby a twat and then retracted it. Michael called Corby a tosser in jest and it was taken as such. (Why is everyone insulting Corby?) Those are literally the only instances. In contrast, you yourself told someone to fuck off in Aptochat, not at all in jest, and you've scared off at least one other player by calling them a retard.

D Eadie wrote:there's also no formal association with anyone from the show

Which has always been the case, right?

D Eadie wrote:The show isn't a product of my work, i'm not billy ten men, it's a product of a team of people. I don't think Rob was criticising Charlie personally or his site in terms of a product, we know that, he was having a pop at the manner in which some replies are constructed and how some people get savaged, sometimes without good reason. I can't be arsed picking out the exact links Jon, but in the last week alone, i've seen people call each other tosser, cunt, twat, fucktard....and it does seem to be getting worse. It looks to me like a few people are trying to be like you, always looking for the cutting quip, the funny sarcastic side of things, but it ain't working, it's starting to reek of hostility and show signs of lack of warmth. You guys can write what you like, there's no law against it, but there's also no formal association with anyone from the show when it gets to the present levels. It just reflects badly all round and there's no need.

I wasn't suggesting you made the show single-handed, the point I was trying (but obviously failing) to make was that you feel protective of the show in the same way Charlie does of this site - equally Charlie doesn't write everything here, but nonetheless he does kind of oversee it, and feels compelled to defend it from criticism.

If people are trying to be like me, I guess that's what happens when you are voted Most Awesome Person Perhaps if I start being less awesome, people won't try and emulate me... the question is how?

So, is Damian saying it's a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? I don't think that's strictly true. I have been a member here since the beginning, and there has always been a lot of banter, and a good dose of extreme humour. I don't think it can be laid at Mr. Corby's door, just because he is the most frequent poster. Matthew Green, JonO etc. also have extreme senses of humour, often even more so than Jon.

There is also a lot of difference between whatever type of humour, and genuine personal insults, which I think are quite rare. If you stick around, you soon get used to what is meant to be funny, whereas if you run off at the first sign of being offended you don't give yourself a chance, let alone others. Jason Larsen has spoken on here about how he learned to develop a "thick skin", and it helped him to enjoy this site even more.

Bullying, on the other hand, is different, and I can sympathise with why a few people have left, the prime example being the lovely Katherine, whose enthusiasm was squashed like one of the furry animals we all seem to be obsessed with when it ventures out onto a road.