April Fools fail for comedy genius
Noted Aussie humourist Scott Bridges is the comedy genius behind the Pepsi bottle penis, author of "Stone.Cold.Classic." political humour and discoverer of laughs in unexpected places:
Bridges' latest, an April Fools gag was perhaps a tad too subtle; at least according to one reader:
Bridges' latest, an April Fools gag was perhaps a tad too subtle; at least according to one reader:
Quite possibly the weakest April Fools prank I've ever read.Better stick with penis, rooting and swallowing hard humour, Scottie.
posted by Anonymous at 4:19 PM |
31 Comments:
The structure of that April Fool gag is abysmal. It leads with hundreds of words about nothing at all then it reveals the stunning "joke" about twitter charging money.
No legit article would hide the big news like that. This is a parody of a form that doesn't even exist. FAIL
Even if it were brilliantly written, it's hardly original.
The "Internet tax" hoax is as old as the Internet itself...
You can see what he was thinking: Twitter is the greatest biggest most superest thing in the world, so a clever Twitter prank will bring millions of hits and see me hailed as a Twitter genius.
But it was done so badly that he only got 12 comments.
The real joke is that Scott Bridges sometimes lectures at university about new media. This is his area of expertise. MEGA FAIL WITH PIKE.
Beck, you would have to be the laziest, most inert blogger in Christendom. A week of reading your blog and all I've seen so far is a pitiful flood of snarls and snipes at Lowenstein, Sear and others on their periphery.
Do you actually have anything meaningful to say yourself? I mean, like an opinion or an argument, laid out with erudite prose and validated with evidence? Or is this the sum total of your blogging... huddling at the fringes of the Internet, trawling over the blogs of four or five others, so you can eagerly log on to piss and moan about something they've said?
Tell us it ain't so. Tell us there's more to your blogging than being the internet equivalent of those lice that eat dead skin flakes. Show us you can contribute as well as carp and whine. Make us believe you're something other than a doughy washed-up old testicle who get aroused by scoring some of the pettiest points in internet history.
As a famous VFL coach once said, "Do something!" We're all waiting here to see if you can manage it.
Mmmm Scottie made a joke that wasn't about kids and sex.
Maybe his problem is cured.
Anon 5:53 should submit her comment to Crikey as constructive criticism of their "Poison Pen" blog.
Ella, nice try at deflection, but it won't wash.
Firstly, the premise of Pure Poison is to critique journalists and commentators in the mainstream media. That is, those who are paid to provide opinions and points-of-view, in a forum that plays a much larger role in shaping public opinion. Where are the writers of national prominence that Beck critiques here? Sear, Bridges, Loewenstein and Hinman? You must be joking.
Secondly, even Pure Poison - as woeful as it can be - doesn't resort to the tactic employed in this post, and many like it. Beck just sounds like the class moron who goes out of his way to remind the teachers about the dirty joke some other kid told back in Grade Three. Is that really the sum total of his blogging?
Please try harder; we are still waiting.
Jeremy that's a spirited defence. What's the hourly rate for that now?
I am not Jeremy. Nor am I female, as suggested by "Ella". I'm just an interested onlooker to your shenanigans.
"shenanigans" is such a Jeremy word, isn't it.
"Lattecat", I have already said quite clearly that I am not Jeremy. If you wish to ignore or reject that, it is your choice. But to do so would be more suggestive of some kind of phobia or fixation on your part, than any obvious dishonesty on mine.
Who's the "we" that Mr Anonymous is referring to?
Me and all right-thinking people who are sceptical about websites that contain nothing more than sour fixations about minor bloggers, "Graeme".
OK, so Anonymous feels that Beck's blog is meaningless, fair enough.
Then he goes out of his way 3 times to demand(!) Beck change his behaviour.
That's odd.
Oh by the way, 'Anonymous', it's Beck's blog and he can write what he darn well pleases. You have no more right to tell him what to blog about than I have to come into your house and tell you what colour to paint your walls.
Bridges, Sear and Loewenstein are more than mere "minor bloggers": Bridges was the driving force behind the trend-setting Grods and now works for al Jazeera; Sear is one of Melbourne's top barristers and blogs for media powerhouse Crikey; and Loewenstein has been published by damn near every top newspaper on the planet, wrote a best seller and regularly appears on TV and the radio.
"Mr Smith", of course it's his blog and he's free to do as he pleases. I'm not 'demanding' anything; I'm issuing a challenge. Let's see if he's up to it. He'll either take it up, ignore, it or make some kind of wishy-washy excuse.
There are, generally speaking, two types of people. The first kind rolls up their sleeves and give something a try. The second kind slouches in their armchairs and bitches like stuck Harpies about the first kind. I'm just curious about which basket our host belongs in (not that it's difficult to ascertain).
Beck, I half-expected this feeble retort.
Bridges ran a comedy blog that shut down, what, three years ago? And you're still dredging stuff up from it. The fact he works or worked for al Jazeera is hardly relevant, unless you are critiquing his work for al Jazeera (which I haven't yet seen you do).
Sear is "one of Melbourne's top barristers"... are you freaking kidding me? He's a third-rate bench jockey who handles drink-driving and minor assault cases. A quick search on news indexes hardly turns him up. If you're attacking him on the basis of his legal elan, or putting him on the same level as Robert Richter or the Galballys, you are utterly deluded.
Lowenstein's work I'm not that familiar with. But the fact he's been published widely means little, since he describes himself as a freelance journalist. He doesn't hold any position of note in academia, cultural life or the media; most people wouldn't know who he is.
You track this trio daily, look for any pathetic excuse to nit-pick at them, and continually assert their lack of credibility - and now you're trying to tell us how important they are? Give. Me. A. Break.
Bridges not only founded Grods, he was hired by Crikey to write political commentary at Pure Poison before moving to al Jazeera. I believe that he also has lectured on new media at university.
Sear is a founding blogger at Pure Poison, a Crikey blog where he continues to write.
Loewenstein is not only a blogger, widely published journalist and best selling author, he is a board member of Macquarie University’s Centre for Middle East and North African Studies.
All three seek a high profile and are fair game for criticism.
They seek 'high profile', do they? How do you know this? Have you asked them?
Only Loewenstein, who is a published author with a regular presence in the mainstream media, has anything approaching a 'high profile'. The other two are little more than glorified hobby bloggers. Claiming that Sear should be constantly critiqued for his blogging because he is a "top barrister" is like saying that Elmer Fudd should be on the terrorism watchlist because he owns a shotgun.
(Incidentally, as I understand it from a friend at Crikey, none of the Pure Poison writers are paid retainers. Like other Crikey bloggers they are paid bonuses if site traffic reaches certain levels.)
Given your persistent whinging about the ethics, competence or poor judgement of this trio, for you then mount the soapbox and try to argue how important or influential they are just thrums with hypocrisy. The reality is that of all the journalists, columnists, writers, bloggers, new media gurus and academics in Australia, you choose to hone in on these three. At best that makes you lazy, at worst, downright weird.
The challenge still awaits.
Always recall Jeremy's "I am not Jeremy Sear!" spirited defense of himself.
That's what makes it difficult to take seriously any anonymous defender of his.
His name should be "An Onymous" surely?
That's what makes it difficult to take seriously any anonymous defender of his.
You need to learn some elementary comprehension skills. Where above have I "defended" Jeremy Sear? I am more interested in Beck's ongoing and almost daily fixation with Sear and others. If you think that constitutes a vigorous defence of Jeremy Sear, who he is and what he writes, then you are obviously simple-minded.
Also, posting anonymously to say you're inclined not to believe those who post anonymously... pretty feeble really.
His name should be "An Onymous" surely?
I'll say it again for the benefit of the slow and the denying: 'I am not Jeremy Sear'.
I know that being unable to defend Beck's weird obsessions has left you, his electronic blowflies, kind of lost for words. But even by your already low standards, the responses here have been laughably impotent.
The denying is all being done by you Walter.
I note Jeremy that you're attacking those who threaten to sue for published nasiness who themselves publish nastiness.
I recall our conversation on the phone where you threatened to call the law when you thought (incorrectly I might add) that I may have published something you were not fond of.
Of course you also published (or had knowledge and influence of someone who did) a defamatory website dedicated to a critic. Remember that Jeremy?
I'll say it again for the benefit of the slow and the denying: 'I am not Jeremy Sear'.
Allow me to summarise the 'arguments' put forward by JF Beck and his acolytes thus far:
1. "You're Jeremy!"
2. "This is Beck's blog and he can write what he likes! (Even if it is weird...)"
3. "Why are you using collective pronouns?"
4. "Jeremy is, like, REALLY FAMOUS! So we're allowed to blog about him five times a week."
5. "You're Jeremy!"
6. "You're still Jeremy!"
Hoplessly and utterly pathetic. Why can't at least one of you explain your conduct without resorting to piss-weak point-scoring or a conspiracy theory about identity?
Of course "anonymous" is Jeremy. Who else would comment on a post about Jeremy Sear (except me ... Hi, Bridgit here!)? Sear just loves to be the focus of anyone's attention. He loves it. Give him more.
It's hard to imagine who would launch and maintain such a spirited and heart-felt defense of Wally J.
"J Chandler", I don't know who or what you are, but the fact you've mentioned "Bridgit" [Gread] suggests you're probably something to do with Iain Hall. Which to my mind makes you the Internet equivalent of a rabid dog - that is, do not approach.
"Mrs Smith", I'm not Jeremy and I'm not defending Jeremy. I'm calling Beck on his weird obsessions. When person A is in conflict with person B, you can criticise person A without defending person B. Please try to understand; it's not difficult, even for you.
I see Dixon the wife beating motelier is here again
I'm really Jeremy and I'm not Jeremy either.
I'm really Jeremy and I'm not Jeremy either.
What you really are is a fool; your identity is more of a mystery, though I doubt it's anything of prominence.
Post a Comment
<< Home