Public opinion seems to be polarised around the " old " who would have the pair sacked and the " young " who like " edgy " humour and can't see what the fuss is about.
Being old and crinkly myself, I have no time for either of them. I find them neither entertaining nor funny ( particularly Brand whose humour is so puerile it reminds me of infant scolchildren roaring with laughter at the mention of " poo ".)
I certainly see nothing funny in the stunt they pulled on Sachs.
My question is how old do you have to be not to be young in this scenario?
I suspect the " young " supporters of the 2 are a lot younger that Ross ( 47 ) and Brand ( 33 ).
And isn't " edgy " comedy just a license to get a cheap laugh out of ANY situation?
Being old and crinkly myself, I have no time for either of them. I find them neither entertaining nor funny ( particularly Brand whose humour is so puerile it reminds me of infant scolchildren roaring with laughter at the mention of " poo ".)
I certainly see nothing funny in the stunt they pulled on Sachs.
My question is how old do you have to be not to be young in this scenario?
I suspect the " young " supporters of the 2 are a lot younger that Ross ( 47 ) and Brand ( 33 ).
And isn't " edgy " comedy just a license to get a cheap laugh out of ANY situation?
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
