Red dwarf was OK, but the others, even Fawlty Towers, were not my cup of 
tea. A couple of them are definitely after  my time. I left the UK in 
1989. I did enjoy the film version of Hitchhikers. In fact I thought it 
better than the book. Marvin just doesn't come across quite so well in
text.

Al



Alex Holden wrote:

>On 17 May 2005, at 2:57 pm, Onestone wrote:
>  
>
>>Sorry, I should say that other than Some Mothers do 'Ave 'em,
Last of
>>the Summer Wine, the occasional Black Adder, and Yes minister I find
>>sitcoms more sit than com.
>>    
>>
>
>How about Red Dwarf, Father Ted, The League of Gentlemen (although  
>that one stretches the definition), One Foot in the Grave, Fawlty  
>Towers, Bottom? I could go on.
>
>What really bore me are the sitcoms where fairly ordinary people sit  
>around an everyday house or office just talking to each other. I've  
>never managed to figure out what people find so funny about The  
>Office or The Royle Family.
>
>I think perhaps I watch far too much TV...
>
>  
>

On 17 May 2005, at 2:57 pm, Onestone wrote:
> Sorry, I should say that other than Some Mothers
do 'Ave 'em, Last of
> the Summer Wine, the occasional Black Adder, and Yes minister I find
> sitcoms more sit than com.

How about Red Dwarf, Father Ted, The League of Gentlemen (although  
that one stretches the definition), One Foot in the Grave, Fawlty  
Towers, Bottom? I could go on.

What really bore me are the sitcoms where fairly ordinary people sit  
around an everyday house or office just talking to each other. I've  
never managed to figure out what people find so funny about The  
Office or The Royle Family.

I think perhaps I watch far too much TV...

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer

Sorry, I should say that other than Some Mothers do 'Ave 'em,
Last of 
the Summer Wine, the occasional Black Adder, and Yes minister I find 
sitcoms more sit than com.

Al

Alex Holden wrote:

>On 17 May 2005, at 9:55 am, Onestone wrote:
>  
>
>>Alex Holden wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Have you seen "Black Books" down under yet? I think
that's the
>>>funniest sitcom so far this century.
>>>      
>>>
>>It would have to go a long way to beat "I'm sorry I'll
read that  
>>Again"
>>from the last century, but that was just a radio show, the spawning
>>ground for pythons.
>>    
>>
>
>The BBC has been repeating it recently:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/genres/comedy/aod.shtml?bbc7/ 
>sorryreadthatagain
>It's not a sitcom though. I've listened to a couple but
didn't find  
>them anywhere near as funny as Monty Python. My favourite radio  
>comedy is The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, of which the latest  
>series is currently being broadcast:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/
>
>  
>

When I was young, probably between the ages of 8-12, I used to hide 
under the blankets at night pretending to sleep so I could hear the 
latest program. Of course 90% of the jokes would now be politically 
incorrect, like the long running Black Knight saga. Python was good, so 
was square world, and even the goon show, but certaoinly Python and 
Square world were spawned by ISIRTA, and I have a sneaky suspicion that 
the goons were too.

Al

Alex Holden wrote:

>On 17 May 2005, at 9:55 am, Onestone wrote:
>  
>
>>Alex Holden wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Have you seen "Black Books" down under yet? I think
that's the
>>>funniest sitcom so far this century.
>>>      
>>>
>>It would have to go a long way to beat "I'm sorry I'll
read that  
>>Again"
>>from the last century, but that was just a radio show, the spawning
>>ground for pythons.
>>    
>>
>
>The BBC has been repeating it recently:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/genres/comedy/aod.shtml?bbc7/ 
>sorryreadthatagain
>It's not a sitcom though. I've listened to a couple but
didn't find  
>them anywhere near as funny as Monty Python. My favourite radio  
>comedy is The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, of which the latest  
>series is currently being broadcast:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/
>
>  
>

On 17 May 2005, at 9:55 am, Onestone wrote:
> Alex Holden wrote:
>> Have you seen "Black Books" down under yet? I think
that's the
>> funniest sitcom so far this century.
> It would have to go a long way to beat "I'm sorry I'll read
that  
> Again"
> from the last century, but that was just a radio show, the spawning
> ground for pythons.

The BBC has been repeating it recently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/genres/comedy/aod.shtml?bbc7/ 
sorryreadthatagain
It's not a sitcom though. I've listened to a couple but didn't
find  
them anywhere near as funny as Monty Python. My favourite radio  
comedy is The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, of which the latest  
series is currently being broadcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer

It would have to go a long way to beat "I'm sorry I'll read
that Again" 
from the last century, but that was just a radio show, the spawning 
ground for pythons.

Al

Alex Holden wrote:

>On 17 May 2005, at 12:34 am, microbit wrote:
>  
>
>>While still on K&K, the paper said that the Poms greeted Kath &
Kim  
>>very well.
>>Apparently 2.5 Million tuned in to BBC2.
>>    
>>
>
>I got bored and turned off after about ten minutes. Perhaps the  
>humour was too subtle for me.
>
>Have you seen "Black Books" down under yet? I think that's
the  
>funniest sitcom so far this century.
>
>  
>

On 17 May 2005, at 12:34 am, microbit wrote:
> While still on K&K, the paper said that the
Poms greeted Kath & Kim  
> very well.
> Apparently 2.5 Million tuned in to BBC2.

I got bored and turned off after about ten minutes. Perhaps the  
humour was too subtle for me.

Have you seen "Black Books" down under yet? I think that's the  
funniest sitcom so far this century.

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer

Hi Lee,

I was inclined to ignore the subject, as it must be inherent that reasonable
debate
with a person of your character is futile, but you requested my
"criterion",
so I'll comment one last time :

> > ... and I feel it warranted.
> 
> A real classy guy.  I point out a disagreement with part of his post, 
> and he accuses me of being retarded.  

I posed it as a possibility (I ended with a ? ), 
IMO it takes little intelligence and creativity to interpret what I had
attempted to convey. 
It's more your "...and then he went on to say...." which
unambigously is interpreted
as nothing less than supercilious and patronising.
I will not tolerate such misplaced ridicule.
> opinionated, and then reposting, __verbatim__,
Kris's own opinions stated 
Furthermore, "...and then he went on to say...." is far from
"verbatim", geez, give it a bone.

> ...And stands by the assertion.  

There he goes again !
I stood/stand by my assertion vis-a-vis facts vs. opinions, _not_ the
speculation on your
possible lack of ability to grasp the content and context of my post.

> Very well educated and well-read; apparently
I'm not.

No inference has been made in that regard, if you feel that way, that has
nothing
to do with me.

> Speaking of unfinished business, I'm still
waiting for Kris to point 
> out the criterion for being retarded.  Then I can see if I properly 
> fit the category and can grovel accordingly.

That's rather rhetorical of course, I don't think I need to present
criterion.
You seemed to be doing just fine when you went through all the trouble to
"verbatim"
quote my posting, and hastily pointed out a shortcoming in your opinion.
It must be exhilerating (in your mind).
My context means that one might be slow on the uptake, of course.
But I've worked with digital PLLs in HW or SW where clocks can be
"retarded". 
That and Al's comments should get you back on track, perhaps.

> I stand by my pointing out the complaint about the
thread being 
> opinionated, and then reposting, verbatim, Kris's own opinions stated 
> in the same posting.  Upon re-reading, I thought it fairly tame 
> compared to many of the strong opinions I have seen in posts on this 
> forum.  If >>that<< has riled you to a state never before seen,
you 
> have lived a sheltered life.

Again supercilious and patronising.....
I think it's more that most people who post here don't go through the
effort of
(erroneously) dissecting one's post, and then start chestbeating with it,
yet are
equally unable to receive a retort.
I've substantiated where I think you're out of line, but if you
can't handle such,
I suggest you refrain from little thrills to vicariously attempt to ridicule
when it's just
out of place in my opinion.

PS : In the art of debate, it's pretty poor to try and drag in others to
convince yourself
       of your standpoint.

-- Kris

--- In msp430@msp4..., "microbit" <microbit@c...> wrote:
> ... and I feel it warranted.

A real classy guy.  I point out a disagreement with part of his post, 
and he accuses me of being retarded.  And stands by the assertion.  
Very well educated and well-read; apparently I'm not.

I guess us old farm boys ain't good enough to hang around with y'all, 
golly.  I must have missed the FAQ on the qualifications for posting.

Speaking of unfinished business, I'm still waiting for Kris to point 
out the criterion for being retarded.  Then I can see if I properly 
fit the category and can grovel accordingly.

I stand by my pointing out the complaint about the thread being 
opinionated, and then reposting, verbatim, Kris's own opinions stated 
in the same posting.  Upon re-reading, I thought it fairly tame 
compared to many of the strong opinions I have seen in posts on this 
forum.  If >>that<< has riled you to a state never before seen, you 
have lived a sheltered life.

Lee

Hi Paul, Lee,

> > Perhaps others are intimidated as I am after
jumping into the 
> > thread.  
> > Being labeled "retarded" for questioning a point certainly 
> > gives one pause.
> 
> Well, I never accused John of being retarded, only inaccurate.  I still
> believe his "facts" to be completely inaccurate in a number of
cases, as
> I have shown.  

There were other "facts" that were inaccurate, as I pointed out (and I
can
substantiate it anytime).
Even that can be viewed as "opinion-prone", but it's not. (even
vis-a-vis the CCE compiler)

As far as Lee is concerned, if you went through the trouble of attempting to
ridicule 
me on a pointless and hollow subject, and in a futile manner, don't expect
pleasantries 
from me.
In all the years I've been on this group, this would have to count for just
about the 
only time I've reacted so strong, and I feel it warranted.
The rest is up to you.

-- Kris