Quote: Ulysses @ August 4 2013, 2:21 PM BSTIt's not really that clever but I'm happy for you to think that
Here's another useful tool that I've just stumbled across
I know nothing about technology, I think everything is clever. So to me, that's clever.
Really like that second kink too.
Edit: Obviously, I meant link, not kink. But I like it, so I'm going to leave it as it is. 
Quote: Marc P @ August 4 2013, 10:02 AM BSTDan Pearce
Here's the thread. It's a corker.
Wow, twenty-five pages and not one post from me - where was I? You all suffered without my input - I could have got it locked at 12 pages.
It should never have been locked at all! And should be re-opened.
Quote: Marc P @ August 8 2013, 9:45 AM BSTIt should never have been locked at all! And should be re-opened.
I learnt a lot from that thread. Tetchy doesn't equal bad.
James is a good chap and doing well at his acting at the moment, he was at college when that thread happened. Not sure what the other chap Dan is doing.
Fair play to him. He was obviously passionate about what he was doing - he was just young.
He's certainly left his mark here.
Hey Marc tell me about your underpants
Quote: Marc P @ August 8 2013, 9:45 AM BSTIt should never have been locked at all! And should be re-opened.
Free the Sheringham one!
Quote: Marc P @ August 8 2013, 10:16 AM BSTJames is a good chap and doing well at his acting at the moment, he was at college when that thread happened. Not sure what the other chap Dan is doing.
James recorded some of my sketches, horribly.
But nice guy and someone who's work showed a decent upward trajectory his final pieces were pretty good.
Worked as a lollypop man.
I reedited his entire novel.
I was bored.
Critique has got to be honest else it's worthless to and does a disservice to the poster.
Quote: Shandonbelle @ August 8 2013, 11:21 AM BST
Critique has got to be honest else it's worthless to and does a disservice to the poster.
3/10
Quote: Shandonbelle @ August 8 2013, 11:21 AM BST
Critique has got to be honest else it's worthless to and does a disservice to the poster.
In which case: Jennie, "critique-y" isn't a f**king adjective, never use it again.
You're welcome.
It would be interesting to have an anonymous critique section, where you can't tell who the author is, because I've noticed people tend to be too nice to their mates.
I have no mates so I'm not nice to anyone.
Or is it the other way round?
Quote: Marc P @ August 8 2013, 3:05 PM BST3/10
"I want you, I need you, but there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you, now don't be sad, cos 3/10 ain't bad"
>_<
There are certain posters who work in pairs, one sends it over and the other one heads it in, I often suspect they may in fact be the same person.
I read one review that was so enthusiastic that I went back over the sketch six times looking to see if I had missed something.
But all in all you get honest reviews, even that lunatic Sooty is capable of putting together a decent insight into a thing.
I think these boards should put together ten people who henceforth would be known as the 'Panel'
If someone is saying that a sketch/ gag etc is shit and the poster thinks it's personal rather than practical the 'Panel' could step in an adjudicate.
All the 'Panel' would have to do would be to put up individual scores from one to ten and the percentages would work this.
Less than 20%
Total Sketch is Shite
30% - 40
Not that good
50 -50 fence sitting
60 -70%
Reviewer is talking shite
80- 90%
Reviewer should consider their position.
100% 'Panel on way round to your house with bats!
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ August 8 2013, 3:31 PM BSTThere are certain posters who work in pairs, one sends it over and the other one heads it in, I often suspect they may in fact be the same person.
Go on, name names...