I've no problem who whoever this guy is. I've no idea who he is.

Comedy is a funny thing.

Obviously.

Given that making people laugh is a "jedi mind trick" it's no surprise that when it fails, audience members can react quite negatively to it. It's a bit like a magician trying to convince you that he can predict your card when you've just glimpsed the fact that the whole pack is the same. You can feel cheated. A comedian who doesn't make you laugh can be the world's worst charlatan.

Comedians are, in the main, more polarised and extreme audience members that non comedians. A comedian's judgement of another is most often emphatic. It comes from the illusion of knowledge about the art and craft. A comedian could say "Speaking as a comedian, I think that this other comedian clearly doesn't know what they're doing, in a way that I can determine because I am a master of the craft." I emphasise the word "could" there.

I don't think it's the right of a comedian to use their status as a comedian as somehow proof that their dislike of an act is somehow more justified than a non-comedian's admiration of an act. I say that, I'm pretty sure that I fall into this trap. I have no time for:

• Lazy old-school drag-wearing character comics
• Young boys whose idea of humour is to declare everyone a prick...
• ... or who substitute good cheer and a haircut for material
• ... or who have Daddy Issues and no talent
• Old school "blue" comedians who substitute received bigotry for wit
• Newbies who think that their formulaic dross, delivered without panache, is somehow deserving of a break
• People who mistake their own ambition as proof that they're contributing to the art somehow
• Anyone for whom their own hubris is invisible to them
• Lazy musical comics
• Lazy comics
• Comedians who deliberately make an issue of things about their life that, by rights, shouldn't make us hate them
• Comics with all style and no substance, selling old rope to idiots
• The blacks