Archive for the ‘Answer Us Back! Your time to opine’ Category

Jewish conspiracy and shoe-ish conspiracy

March 10, 2010

** Click here for Episode 125 **

Here’s a blow, following Episode 125. It has been delivered by Daniel from Borehamwood:

Sorry Olly – Bootleg is already a brand. It’s Clarks shoes’ teenagers’-shoes-section.

Dammit dammit dammit! Olly’s pun-based shoe-shop will have to remain buy a dream. FOR NOW.

Eeva from Turku, Finland

In episode 125 you claimed that you had not previously talked about your secret zionist names. You have. Since episode 60 anyway. I would point out the episode, but having just listened all available Answer Me This! episodes in 42 hours, I snapped my happy muscle. From over-exhaustion. Or just OD’d.

These events now lead me to ask; How are you going to make up this horrendous oversight to dedicated podcast listeners? Our (My) delicate feelings cannot bare to see you forget such important piece of banter. We demand answers. How did this happen, and are any of you considering your resignations?

We’ll tell you how it happened: as soon as we say anything on the podcast, it vanishes from our brains, forever. So unless someone volunteers to transcribe and memorise our entire back catalogue, then stand in the AMT studio rapping us on the knuckles whenever we retread an anecdote – and trust me, YOU DO NOT WANT THAT JOB – these repetitions are going to happen. Since we haven’t resigned over our various mistresses, frauds, embezzlements, insider tradings and fake sick-leaves, we’re going to resist the calls to do so over Schloymergate; but when the day comes that more than 60% of an episode of Answer Me This! is composed of Golden Oldies, you can take us down.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

wedding crushers

March 2, 2010

** Click here for our Jingle Challenge **

Wade back in your memory through the mists of time, around the bog of forgetfulness, and over the stile of reminiscence, right the way to the end of the last series of Answer Me This!, then append the following observations supplied by our beloved listeners. Firstly, Jim in New Jersey:

You may have strongly doubted the origins of the wedding kiss in an actual ritual consummation, but how about this for a dramatic touch? Margaret Mead documented a primitive wedding ceremony performed by a tribe in New Guinea in which the newly wedded couple copulated on a wooden platform in front of all the villagers. At the moment of climax, a huge pile of lumber was released from above them, crushing them to death. One would think this ritual might have a negative effect on population growth.

Not only that, it would really decimate the honeymoon industry. If this came back in vogue, Sandals resorts would close overnight!

On a related note, Matt, who calls himself ‘Moo’ (each to their own), suggests we all have a little paddle in the following pool of schadenfreude:

In Episode 123 you were discussing proposals in public and how shameful it would be – well have a look at this for the ultimate humiliation, and the amazing premonition-like commentators:

Don’t cry, she’s probably just popped off to the loo for a sec. Right? Right?

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel
:

Well, that’s one way to achieve a work-life balance

January 27, 2010
* New series starts March 4th – click here for our most recent episodes *
*** And click here for our Jingle Challenge ***

Breaking News! Charlie from London, the adventurous chap who asked about swinging with his wife and colleague in Episode 123, has provided us with an update on three points:

The conversations I’ve had with my wife were not awkward for either of us as we have a very strong relationship and talk about everything without fear of upsetting each other. It turns out my wife Kim had been thinking about similar things for a while, so she has enthusiastically agreed. As for your last point: if I would have a problem with my wife sleeping with other men, I would never even have suggested swinging. Obviously.

Fair enough, and congrats to Charlie and Kim for embarking on this exciting new era in their relationship. We certainly make no moral judgements about sexual proclivities here, or else we could scarcely look Martin the Sound Man in the eye…

However, even if their marriage is as stable as Charlie claims, we’re yet to be convinced this will pan out well at Charlie’s workplace. How, exactly, are those ‘watercooler moments’ going to go? “Did you see Dancing On Ice last night?… Where were you thinking of having lunch today?… Do you fancy fisting this weekend?”

It’s fascinating territory and one that, thank the Lord, has never been broached at AMT! Towers. But, Charlie – keep us up to date.

In the meantime, here’s Bing Crosby singing about swinging. He certainly makes it sound lovely!


Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

Nice hot cup of hamster

January 19, 2010

Better late than never, eh? Both for me posting this feedback from listener Stuart, and for finding out your family pet has been hiding inside your kitchen equipment. Harking back to Episode 119, Stuart says:

Listening to your story about the cat falling into the pot of stock reminded me about a guy I knew a few years back. His kids had a hamster that went missing, and despite searching the house high and low, they just could not find it. Eventually they just stopped looking and got on with their life.

They did eventually did find it some time later when they filled their kettle by taking the lid off instead of just filling it through the spout.

There was the bloated body of the hamster, having been boiled numerous times a day for about two weeks.

I found it hilarious at the time and it still makes me smile.

This is the British version of those American horror stories about finding an alligator in your lavatory, isn’t it?

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

Yikes!

January 13, 2010

After Bunty confessed to her devious means of protecting herself from shark attacks, Isla in Aberdeenshire was emboldened to share her own irrational fear:

I have a very bad phobia of balloons. I cannot go near them, I cannot touch them, if I know they are in the same room as I am I have to place myself as far away from them as I physically can. I really hate my phobia as people forget how genuinely terrified I am of them and still insist on having them at parties. Helen and Olly, answer me this, what is the phobia of balloons and is there any way I can get over this?

Apparently, Isla, you are far from alone in this: it’s called globophobia, and lots of people suffer from it. Indeed, I was once conversing with a man who was afraid of all inflatable objects, which was particularly unfortunate as he was in the Navy.

As for getting over it: some people on the internet suggest going into a room filled with balloons until you’re no longer sick with fear; but as a room full of balloons would surely freak out even the average non-globophobe, we reckon you should try a couple of sessions of hypnosis instead. But even when you’re cured, you should not watch The Prisoner – it’s one of the few dramas in which the villain is actually a balloon!

Now, readers, help make Isla feel better by sharing your own daft phobias in the comments.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

bookshop bogs

January 12, 2010

We love that the podcast encourages you lot to share. Or do we? Does Ed in Halifax, Nova Scotia just feel comfortable in our relationship, or is it a case of TMI? He says:

I was just now listening to episode 121 and was inspired to write to you after hearing listener Chris’s question “Why do I get the urge to squirt dirt whenever I visit a second-hand bookshop?”
This happens to me too!
It’s been happening for years!
And often enough that I have actually given it some thought.
I think I have a reasonable explanation that does not require some twisted mental association between books and excrement, leaving the works of ________________________ (insert name of your least favourite but wildly popular author… I choose Dan Brown):

1) I like books, so I tend to spend more time per visit in bookshops than in other types of shops.
2) Most used book shops I have visited contain jumbled piles of books and over-stuffed shelves that require even more time to find books of interest.
4) When I pay a long visit to a bookshop (45 minutes to more than an hour) I’m standing still for longer and getting more and more relaxed.
4) Confirmation bias: I claim that book shops ALWAYS makes me want to drown the kittens, but really, I think it has actually happened about six times in my adult life (I am 47 years old) that I have had to urgently leave the book shop in search of a drop-off spot for the hostages. But each time it happens it’s a much more memorable event than all the times it didn’t happen. I’m sure I have made more grunt sculptures at theaters and restaurants, but that just seems more expected, and so less memorable.
5) I suppose if you are the sort of person who makes a habit of reading while sequestered in the fortress of solitude, it is possible that you have a very direct and obvious mental association with reading and putting your thoughts down on paper.

In conclusion, I think it mostly comes down to the amount of time I have spent in bookshops making it more likely that I will be in a bookshop when it becomes necessary to beam down William Shatner.

Ed, we’ll let you off the charge of over-sharing because of your outstanding euphemisms.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

So it was all a dream? Oh.

January 12, 2010

In Episode 121 we talked about decent films that are somewhat cocked up by unfitting endings. Neil from Bexleyheath sees Vicky from Oxted’s shock at the ending of Lolita and raises her The House of Flying Daggers. I’d like to add From Dusk Till Dawn (stupid!), Away We Go (too sentimental!) and The Lovely Bones (I’ve not seen the film, but if it’s anything like the book, the ending is big hairy ball). But what do YOU think? Commit your opinions in a comment below!

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

Twelve days of WRONG

December 17, 2009

** Click here for the Best of Answer Me This! 2009 – Part I **

Following Episode 120, in which we discussed whether ‘The Twelve Days of Christmas’ refers to an over-generous poultry lover or to a whole load of God Stuff, both Judy in San Francisco and Andrew in Southampton wrote in to tell us that whatever we said was a big plate of Wrong Pie. Their counter-evidence was this:

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp

OK listeners. It’s tug-of-love time. Whom do you love more, us or Snopes? Huh?

This could get ugly.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

fake girlfriend: update

December 2, 2009

** Click here for Episode 119 **

In Episode 119 young Ed from Market Harborough sought our advice regarding his fake girlfriend. They’d only been fake-going out for a week and a half at the time, and she was already causing trouble! We said he should dump the fake-bitch, or that he should say she dumped him.

I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT MY FAKE GF AND WHY I CAN’T DUMP HER!

1) IF I DUMP HER ILL BE A TOTAL PRICK FOR DUMPING HER!

Who cares, Ed – what’s the worst that can happen? Is her fake father going to come round to your house with a baseball bat?

2)IF I SAY SHE’S DUMPED ME THEN I’LL GET JEERED AT FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO KEEP A GIRL FOR MORE THAN A MONTH

Your friends are probably fresh out of jeers, having expended them all last week when you invented a girlfriend.

3)I CAN’T SAY SHE MOVED TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTRY BECAUSE SHE ALREADY LIVES IN JERSEY

Let’s not forget, Ed – YOU MADE HER UP! YOU put her in Jersey; YOU get her out of there! One of the numerous benefits of fake girlfriends is that they are highly portable, so invent her an interest in South American ferns and send her off to live in a remote part of Chile or something.

Buck up, young man: this is the only relationship you will ever have where she does exactly what you say. The only limit is the breadth of your imagination. Now, go away, and don’t you dare reject our sage advice again until you’ve stopped being such a silly sausage.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

Wrestlemania!

December 2, 2009

** Click here for Episode 119 **

Oh dear. Olly’s answer to Dean in Peterborough‘s question about wresting last week caused quite the ruckus amongst listeners, who furiously wrote in to correct Olly’s pronunciation of Vince McMahon, his misapprehension of The Facts, and, essentially, everything. At considerable length. First up, Mike:

The history of pro wrestling becoming fixed you gave was as fake any wrestling match!

Unfortunately you’ve bought in to the “official” history as promoted by Vince K. McMahon and the WWE. The idea that Vince J. McMahon – the current Vince’s father – was responsible for the faking of pro wrestling is utter, total bullshit.

The fixing of Pro Wrestling matches dates back the William Muldoon in the 1880s who would have men under his employment go to towns, perform matches and build up the appearance of the champion Muldoon would then come into town, draw a big crowd and beat one of his men. In January 1890 the Police Gazette magazine reported that Muldoon and Evan ‘Strangler’ Lewis had “been giving wrestling exhibitions in Philadelphia” and in 1905 the same magazine stated “nine out of ten bouts are now prearranged affairs”.

The reason for it being fake is very simple – to avoid getting injured in order to have more matches and make more money.

I’d also raise issue with the statement at the McMahon’s took wrestling into major arenas and out of ‘dirty little clubs’. Pro Wrestling had been a regular fixture at Madison Square Gardens since the 1880s and in 1908 a match between Frank Gotch and George Hackenschmidt main evented at Chicago’s Comiskey Park in front of 30,000 people.

The government regulation issue you raised was almost correct. The McMahons announced that it was fake in 1989 to avoid the athletic tax in New Jersey, but they certainly didn’t make it fake at that time.

Maximilian sees Mike’s beginner’s guide to wrestling, and raises with the following tract:

Here is a quick history of fakery in the world of wrestling.

Let me just interject here: Maximilian is fibbing.  Strap in for the duration!

Wrestling as a touring show began in the late 19th century in America and was originally distinct from the legitimate sport of catch wrestling. Carnival wrestling exhibitions would wow audiences with spectacular matches, colourful costumes and on-going feuds in much the same way as they do today. The term for the showy, fictional elements of a wrestling show, ‘kayfabe’ comes from this period. It is thought to be a contraction of the name Kaye Fabian which carnival workers would use when making a reverse charges call to loved ones at home. Upon hearing the name from the operator the person receiving the call would know the person had arrived and was safe, well and making money.

At this time though, most wrestling contests were still legitimate contests although most championship and big stakes matches were openly corrupt. The line started to blur more between these two forms after the retirement of catch wrestling legend Frank Gotch in the 1920s. With few big names in the sport, its popularity began to wane. In response to this, three wrestlers, Ed Lewis, Billy Sandow and Toots Mondt, known as the ‘Gold Dust Trio’, formed their own promotion and introduced many more showy elements from carnival wrestling into the professional wrestling world such as tag teams, distracting referees, bouncing off the ropes and of course, more pre-determined results. This is largely seen as the time when wrestling switched from mostly real to mostly ‘worked’.

Eventually this model of carnival style exhibition over legitimate contest spread to other countries like the Mexico, Canada, UK, Germany and Japan. The WWF (formally WWWF, now WWE) did indeed pioneer nationwide TV coverage of a single pro-wrestling product but then they also pioneered story lines involving incest and necrophilia and are by no means the leading lights in the great working class entertainment tradition that is professional wrestling.

It is important also to respect the distinction between the words ‘worked’ and fake. Wrestlers find the term fake offensive when applied to what they do because it implies that being suplexed or fallen on by a 25-stone man somehow doesn’t hurt. The outcome of matches is pre-determined but much of the action cannot be completely faked and performers risk their lives and their careers every time they enter the ring, injuries such as torn muscles, fractured bones, broken necks and shattered pelvises are commonplace. The term worked simply means the opponents are co-operating in creating the best possible story for that particular match and distinguishes it from a ‘shoot’ or legitimate wrestling contest.

The WWF and McMahon family can be said to have had, at best, a mixed effect on the form of entertainment they have popularised and do not require any more credit than they already have.

Thankyou, Mike and Maximilian, for that primer. I have learnt many things from it, primarily the word ‘suplexed’, and never to let Olly do research again for fear of the resultant tide of retribution.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

Put your hands in the air like it’s just not appropriate

November 25, 2009

** Click here for Episode 118 **

You remember Episode 115, right? In which we talked about Mexican Waves? Well, Doug from Leicester certainly does:

I remember well (literally) dragged by my then girlfriend to the Royal Albert Hall to see Enrique Iglesias in 2004, and about halfway through he asked us all to get waving, Mexico style. Well, we did, but the Albert Hall isn’t as huge as Wembley, plus it’s got a massive fucking stage in the middle of one wall, so it really was more of a Mexican petering-out as the wave waved round a bit, then stopped stage left, and then started up again stage right in four places at four different times, before we all got bored and sat down again. It was my personal highlight of two interminable hours as 5,000 women of a certain age waited for him to sing ‘Hero’ to sublimate the pain of their own insignificant lives.

So answer me this: what is the most inappropriate or unimpressive place you’ve ever seen a Mexican Wave?

Go on, readers – tell us about all your lacklustre or misbegotten Mexican Waves in a comment on this post. I’ll start: Grandad’s funeral.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel

Things not to say on Big Brother

November 18, 2009

** Click here for Episode 117 **

Lock up Prince Philip, it’s time to continue the latest AMT trend, ‘Is that phrase racist, or just delightfully old-fashioned?’ Carol from Leeds enters the fray:

You guys were wondering if the Chinese had any sort of derogatory phases to referring to the whites. We call you guys ghosts, though I don’t think it’s meant to be that derogatory, it’s just referring to your pale skin? I grew up listening to people around me saying it and never thought it was racist. To be honest I wasn’t even aware that there was any hidden meaning, I thought it was just what we call white people, though maybe I was a racist child and grew up to be an old racist? All my friends are Caucasian, even though I don’t have many friends. Hahaha, it’s funny because it’s true. Hope this helps.

Here’s another expression from which it is probably sensible to refrain, courtesy of Jude from Shipley near Bradford:

I’m just listening to Episode 117 and you mentioned a westernised Chinese person is called a banana. The equivalent to this for black people is a coconut.

I first heard this said by a black colleague about another black colleague.

I want to apologise that I’m continuing your ‘is it racist’ thread.

Don’t blame yourself, Jude. We did ask.

Subscribe with iTunesListen to episodesQuestion ArchiveFAQ
FacebookTwitterMerch SuperstoreYouTube Channel