Talk:The Chaser's War on Everything/Archive 1

How come
how come this page doesn't come up when I type in "The chaser's war on everything" into search (i found this page through google)? --LeakeyJee 10:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It does now (See: The chaser's war on everything)--Greasysteve13 04:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Firth: No longer in the USA
Apprently hes in Africa somewhere now, as seen last week when he was seeing if stuff was "world famous" in Tanzinia or some place. Update? --Rilstix 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a one off for that episode and judging by the amount of cameos hes had on the actual show recently I'd say he's back in Australia. Deshem 09:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He had a live cameo one week, followed by a pre-recorded cameo (The Adventurous Diner) the next week - these could easily have been recorded in the same week. He could have then had a couple of weeks off and then done the segment in Africa "on the way back" (although it's a very vague definition of "on the way", it is possible).  I don't think we should write him off as "back in Australia" when it could just be a break.  -- Chuq 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing on one of the the commentary tracks that he wanted to go to North korea and Iran(?), would be interesting to see if he ever managed that...ACK-OA Alkoholicks 08:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Off topic, but...
This is the freakin funniest show ever man!

I concur. Amazing.

logie?
i heard the chaser won a logie. is this true? if so, perhaps someone should add it. Flage 04:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but Chas was most probably the most filmed person of the night!!! --LeakeyJee 12:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they won a logie in 2005 for best comedy Steven Fitter 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, however that was for The Chaser Decides, not for The War on Everything. --Smartaalec 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They also won a logie more recently for best comedy with CNNNN, they tied with Kath and Kim. Jabso 04:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sunrise
How is the fact that Sunrise doesn't have a studio audience relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.251.211 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 June 2006


 * Probably because the large amount of profanity Chris used would be unaccceptable to a studio audience. -- Chuq 02:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Sunrise stuff should be removed. People are so gullible. The video was on the ABC website weeks before it got passed around as being supposedly on Sunrise. Wikipedia should not be a forum to debunk internet rumours. Dankru 12:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the rumour debunking is not researched on Wikipedia, I don't see a problem with a few lines summing up the situation, so long as it is factual. -- Chuq 12:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the commentary, I'm pretty sure they said on the commentary that because that bit was leaked on the net and people thought it was real, they had an extra 80,000 viewers that week. Should we check that and add it? GoodOrEvil 11:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Logie? Answer!
Well the thing is he was just mucking around. When Blue Water High won a logie instead of goiing up and pretending to be happy and with them like he did for all the others, he actully went up on stage, Chaz that is, and started to accept the logie for them thanking anyone and everyone, it was all a big joke of theirs but it was live on Channel Nine none the less, they also had it on a episode later that week. I hope that answers your questions. I am now going to watch it as it is Firday as I write this and almost time for it to be on.

Are You Being Shagged?
Surely this is a recurring segment? It's featured in three of the past six episodes. In any case I think three appearances of a segment should grant it status of recurring, as that may lead to future appearances. -- Mixmaster Flibble 10:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, i obviously have missed a few of the recent episodes cause I've only seen it in one episode, I'll put the section back in then. --LeakeyJee 07:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

oh its been done --LeakeyJee 07:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree this should be a recurring segment. It was a series of 10-second scenes shown in three groups, and for them to produce any more, they would have to restage all the set and redo all the elaborate makeup. So far they have only ever done this once and there will never again be another "Shagged" segment. This is unlike all the other recurring segments, eg Current Affairs and Face Off, which are easy to create more of. Whophd 18:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Whophd. Are you being Shagged has been done again. Seems like your intimate relationship with the chaser team which allowed you to make such incredible assertions was (unsurpisingly) complete shit. Go stick a giant dildo up your ass to calm yourself down. Fuckwit. Oh and don't delete this as abuse... i make a valid point. Fuckwit.--Heavy Man 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is possible to make a valid point and be abusive, as you have demonstrated here (and as I have just noted on your talk page.) It also pretty easy to make a point without being abusive, I recommend you do that from now on.   -- Chuq 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stockinghead
I think we should put something about Chris Taylor's stunt of wearing the stocking on his head and visiting stores because it's become quite the internet meme in its own right and is one of the only chaser stunts where they actually had to put a warning at the end not to re-enact. Deshem 13:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

not... A meme. In any way. At. All.

sheesh.

ACK-OA Alkoholicks 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
I reckon this kind of programme would draw some controversy and criticisms. How about including them in the article? Cheungpat 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of the "well known stunts" are criticism from the mainstream media. -- Chuq 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jihad Jack
I don't really think this is a "well known" stunt - all of the others were reported in the media, bar the sunrise incident which was well distributed as an internet meme. -- Chuq 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That is in no way a meme, not even faintly remotely close. ACK-OA Alkoholicks 02:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Citizen's Infringement Officer: A recurring segment?
Would the CIO qualify as a recurring segment? It was certainly a reoccurring element, but doesn't have an announcement screen or jingle, or other elements the listed segments have. Is it worth adding? -- Mixmaster Flibble 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my vote would be that it is recurring. -- Chuq 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - add it. Deshem 12:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone make a userbox for fans of the show
Can someone make a userbox of the show. I want to it put it on my page. Xiaodai 02:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Theres one on my userpage IAmTheCoinMan 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Internet meme?
As hilarious as the Chaser boys are (I'm an Aussie, watched the show religiously when it was on and bought the new DVD), I would barely call them internet phenomena. I put a call for citation just yesterday and someone "cited" it by linking to Chaser videos on YouTube. Sure, YouTube is a popular website, but does that mean everything on it is phenomena? I've got a few videos on YouTube but they're barely well known.

I call for a criteria for "internet meme"-age to be set. I mean, they're not nearly as popular as memes like Badgerx3, Snakes on a Plane, Numa Numa, etc. I don't see any Chaser references on Newgrounds. When they start showing up on Newgrounds, people's forum signatures, and they're laughed at by any geek or teenager I talk to, then I'd call it a phenomenon. But for now, I'd leave it case-closed and I've deleted the citing.Taylor 09:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

hahha
i have written about the osama stuff at Videos of Osama bin Laden, Greengiraffe 04:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
Obviously whoever wrote this article thinks it's a hilarious show... I'm disputing the neutrality and tagging it as such. Naysie 13:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just read through the article, and I don't find anything stated in it to be unduly biased. Could you demonstrate a passage that lacks neutrality?  Mixmaster Flibble 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find anything biased either -- apart from perhaps the degree of detail and amount of content, which, while suggesting the author/s did think it was a good show, is no worse than other articles on TV shows. That Trivia section is pointless though, I might delete it soon if no-one objects. Cathryn 07:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see no evidence of POV - most of the writing is quite neutral and factual. If you can see any value judgments or unsourced opinions, point them out. SM247 My Talk  22:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, whether the show is hilarious or not has nothing to do with what the article's reported. Naysie hasn't provided any proof of bias. -- Anonymous 1 March 2007
 * On an unrelated note, i notice the "Recurring segments on the show" section is written in present tense. I didn't want to spend hours rewording it just so that someone can revert me, so i left it alone. But my feeling is it should be written in past tense, as the episodes have already happened. Does anyone else agree? -- Anonymous 1 March 2007
 * I think it's fine the way it is, after all, they are recurring segments, which might be brought back for the next season. If some of the segments were discontinued, then past tense would be appropriate. -- Anonymous 25 March 2007


 * Neutrality seems fine to me. MrsPlum 08:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

'Recurring Segment'
Scenes, skits or segments should only be referred to as a recurring segment only when it has had more than one appearance, therefore i'll take 'Clive, the slightly too-loud commuter' down until its second appearance... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JDoogins (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree sorta, as previously stated, a segment needs to have appeared 3 times for it to put in there, so they all shall be taken down. It also must not be an ad/trailer as defined by the DVD. This is why Are you being shagged? isn't there. IAmTheCoinMan 10:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Objections?
Any objections to writing an episode guide, futhermore anyone want to help me? IAmTheCoinMan 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how we should name the articles. The general form is; EPISODE NAME (SHOW NAME episodes) So, 1.1 (TCWOE episode) or 1.1 (The Chaser's War On Everything episode). That seems long to me but thats how Desperate Houswives did it Coming Home (Desperate Housewives episode). So we shall use they hey? IAmTheCoinMan 10:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict) Personally, I would object to it. There's no point to it in this kind of show. What would it be, a list of 10 or so skits? We don't really need 20 or so pages of a list of 10 items. The recurring segments are listed, and the major notable events are listed - I think that is plenty, anything else would be unmaintainable and unverifiable (of the notable events, there were only 5-6 last season.) -- Chuq (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tasteless jokes
I thought the 'joke' they made last week about Bindy Irwin cutting up her dead dad and snorting him like cocaine was pretty sick. They've said stuff like that on more than one occasion, and it just ruins the show. I'm sure they can find other ways to be 'outrageous' than insulting the dead. I start to question their motive when they do things like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.79.98 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * This talk page is for discussion about the article. Having said that, their motive was probably to get people such as yourself to give them free publicity.  Good work! -- Chuq (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Publicity?... Who said anything about that? I mentioned it here because there was nothing in the atricle about it, and it was a topic that came up on several radio stations the day after. Don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of other people out there who'd like to continue to hear jokes about dead people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.159.138 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * As you just said, they were on several radio stations the day after, that is publicity. Remember the show is called The Chaser's War on Everything. -- Chuq (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

if you'd notice the point of the joke was to be tastless - JDoogins

I know the jokes are about them being tasteless. It doesn't matter what the intention is. I like the chaser. Probably the funniest show on TV right now. They can leave a sour feeling after an otherwise good episode. -BDJoe

There doesn't need to be examples of every single thing they do...
As such, please don't add new examples unless they get lots of media. If you agree, please also indicate to demonstrate consensus. ~AFA ʢűčķ¿Ю 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Only add to well known stunts/controversies when there have been significant media response to the incident. Jasewase 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Tampering
When someone changes a little thing like adding a new and interesting fact of information thats fine, but when people change/add/delete an entire section then that should be brought to the discussion page first so everyone agrees with what your doing or have done. i have a few concerns that i would like to address. 1. Reccuring segments - this is probably the most tampered with piece of information on the chasers war page, this page has been changed atleast tree times this past fortnight and each time it just gets more and more ridiculous eg. adding segments that which arent reccuring, taking things down that are reccuring, re-editing the page because YOU think it looks better.... 2. Removing/Adding entire sections - my 2 main concerns on this are the Trivia section and the Reccuring Themes section. I happen to think that any interesting fact on the chaser should be allowed there, it was there for a while until someone removed it, why should something that only one person has a problem with be taken down? shouldnt it have been discussed first? or maybe doing it and then letting the discuss forum know why you did it? Same thing could be said for the reccuring things said ie. post/discuss why your doing something to the article before you change it to not piss anyone off.

if you change something and the majority don't agree with it then change it the fuck back —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoogins (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 April 2007


 * I agree that major additions should be discussed if they are going to be controversial - but if something is clearly unsuitable (including non-notable, unverifiable, not from a neutral point of view, etc - see Five pillars) then there is no problem with removing it straight away. Don't forget, this isn't a fan site, and it definitely isn't majority rules.  If something is not appropriate for the article then it gets removed, no matter how many people "vote" for it to stay.  -- Chuq (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i meant the layout and things that arent verifiable ie. agreeing if things are reccuring or well known or not - JDoogins


 * The main problem is that people, who have only seen a few episodes of the show, come along, go: "hmmm, this segment was in the last episode, but it isn't listed, hmmm lets add it". These people are normally unregistered. The thing is we need critea to make things, personally i feel that for something to be listed in Reccuring segments it needs to appear at least five times(thats every sixth episode). However in this article its three times. Thats ok i guess, and i follow that rule. I do however think it needs an increase, i also think the trivia section needs to be back, but only with useful trivia. Not stupid things like: the number 3253263467345634634653464334 appeared in the opening title sequence in episode 24.IAmTheCoinMan 08:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrews Songs
Songs -- Andrew Hansen performs songs with a humorous theme. Some include Prolix Songwriter (a songwriter who is prolix); Hill$ong (a parody of Hillsong, a Christian rock group); boyBand (a parody on boybands) and Scottish Comedian (a parody of Billy Connolly). Although all the music and vocals are by Andrew, the other members often appear to be singing or playing but they are in fact miming or pretending to play. The songs are usually written by Andrew or Chris.

Need something to back this up? Jpk82 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * audio commentary does


 * Cheers! :) Jpk82 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a standard format for citing DVD audio commentary? :P -- Chuq (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a good question, I would think at least mentioning where it came from would be a good start. "In the DVD commentary for episode x, it was mentioned that the songs are usually written by Andrew or Chris." ...or something like that? Jpk82 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i added that bit. But someone added the last sentence, it is false. Andrew does all the songs by himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * One way or another, a reference would be good. -- Chuq (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How do we reference? We can't say in the commentary it ... that would sound stupidIAmTheCoinMan 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode Guide
It is located here: List of The Chaser's War On Everything episodes. If you want to help out wikis coverage of the war you should add stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Or not. I've just nominated it for deletion.  I understand your intention, but it isn't what Wikipedia is for (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information).  What I do recommend is setting up an off-site wiki dedicated to the Chaser (such as at http://www.wikia.com ) - you can then go into as much detail as you like, into all the Chaser shows/publications. -- Chuq (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely if you can justify episode guides for the thousands of other shows on wikipedia you can justify it for the chaser? Probably even more so as people will be interested as what specific segments came from what episode?? Jpk82 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the AfD page for a reply & continue discussion there. -- Chuq (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stunts...
For the Controversies and well known stunts section i think maybe that you should add something about the first What Have We Learnt From History(Wooden Horse). It was played on the popular tv show Good Morning America one morning. (Oh and an off topic thought, did anyone else think the last episode was really bad. I even noticed that Andrew only appeared in the studio at the closing bit when there all on the couch)IAmTheCoinMan 04:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you saw the podcast? hansen had a song in the studio, the mcdonalds ads, the spruiker - he did quite a bit. the song wasnt in the podcast for some reason. Jasewase 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah off the record isohunt works wonders, thats the full episode not the incomplete podcast


 * The song didn't make it to air. And im talking in the studio.IAmTheCoinMan 04:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * it definetely did (pauline hanson song) Jasewase 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * then i must have been hullucinating or something coz im pretty sure i saw the Pauline Hansen song and i wasnt in the studio JDoogins 23:50, 21 April 2007 (NZST)


 * wasn't that the week before... im so confused right now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.148.21 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC).


 * no the week before was the wolfmother jtv one Jasewase 05:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * if chas's bed fiasco or the grim reaper with a bowling ball doesn't ring any bells then your probably a week behind

War on Everything targets Jimbo
Jimbo has had the honour of being swept up in the War on Everything. I'm not sure if this is significant enough to be a well known stunt. It did get reported in the non-ABC press, but wasn't front page news, so was of some note. Perhaps wait until it makes it to the screen then add it to the relevant episode guide? Here's the reference ready to go: John Dalton 09:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly: Spoiler Warning for next weeks episode, secondly it should be there ( as a well known stunt); and thirdly mr ten questions get its debut for season two! Jasewase 10:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Content Reshuffle
While it is looking better and better as time goes on, theres still quite a few things that erk me bout this article. For starters the intro seems overly long winded, I think that alot of that can be moved to a new subsection called 'Show Concept' or something like that.

Also the recurring segments on the show colour thing is confusing and not easy to read at all. I think there should be: Recurring Segments on The Chasers War on Everything or something to that affect which would then have more space to elaborate better with a table or something. Comments? Jpk82 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the intro, it does need a bit of work. I don't think we need yet another article though - we have only just recently had List of The Chaser's War on Everything episodes created.  If it can't fit in there, it really should be pruned a bit.  There is another option - see my Chaser Wikia proposal below. -- Chuq (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Made some changes, I might have got a bit carried away, as I started ot move things other things needed moving too. Shortened the intro, created the 'Show Concept' section, moved some of the intro to a new trivia section and created a season 2 heading, moved some stuff there and added some stuff with cite. Bit rough around the edges, but I think its a bit better. Jpk82 06:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaser Wikia proposal
Chaser fans may wish to take a look at my proposal here - http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Chaser. If you have had stuff removed from any of their articles here, this new proposed Wikia will be a suitable site for any Chaser related content! -- Chuq (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like wikia and, don't see the need --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * External wiki then, I'm not fussed. Regarding the need,  a lot of the content of List of The Chaser's War On Everything episodes is beyond scope for Wikipedia.  I just haven't deleted it yet because I thought it would be more polite to instigate the creation of an external host for it first. -- Chuq (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the idea. There is alot more information that can be provided on a Chaser Wiki. I propose it to be called Chaserpedia. We could also embed YouTube videos into it. I'm going by the idea and success of www.lostpedia.com. --Lakeyboy 11:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New Userbox
Just to let chaser fans know, they can now show the whole of Wikipedia their passion for The Chaser's War on Everything by placing this userbox on their userpage.

Use the following template link to get it to show up.  

Improvement suggestions are welcome. Enjoy. --Lakeyboy 11:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned earlier on the page there is this one as well: Click here --IAmTheCoinMan

Unfortuantly, your one is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia due to a fair use image (the war title screen) being in use. My one is allowed due to the fact it has a SXC licence allowing the full use of the image. They also have the very same dartboard as a prop in the background on the wall in the studio. --Lakeyboy 05:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

vote on recurring segments
There is some debate on how many times a segment has appeared for it to be recognised as a recurring segment. please vote on what you think. For me 2 appearances is enough.

Once there is a clear indication of what people want, can we never have this debate ever again. We keep seeing new segments get deleted from the recurring segments section... Jasewase 09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 times was the number. 3 times it should be at a minimum. Honestly i think it should be more. Because if it appears in three episodes that means its in one in every ten. Not very many if you think about it. 2 times is reappearing not recurring. If we did do the two time rule, that means if someone missed out on two episodes they could have never have seen that segment. 2 timer segments include; (can't be bothered capitalising) If life was a musical, What have we learnt from history, The news according to fox, Clive the slightly too loud commuter, 2:30 report. If you really want to add these segments, maybe create a reappearing segements section. I don't think this is necessary and i think Chuq would agree with me.   IAmTheCoinMan 13:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If something occurs more then one time, that means it is reoccurring. Thus, if it is in the show twice, it counts as having reoccurred. And this isn't a popularity contest, so who cares who would agree with you. Chewbacca1010 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia makes decisions based on consensus, so maybe "vote" is the wrong term, but I don't think asking for others' opinion amounts to a "popularity contest."   The argument is not over the definition of "reoccurring."  I totally agree with you on the definition.  But the discussion here is how many times must it recur for it to be notable enough to appear on the wikipedia page.  Personally I like the 3 times minimum idea.  Jpp42 09:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, and it may very well be, then hold a vote or whatever needs to be done, to establish it.Chewbacca1010 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that if three is the standard number for segments to be recurring why is the famous face off listed as an occasional segment when it has appeared five times

Virgin Blue
The section on Virgin blue included a non-cited, and apparently untrue, sentence:

The prank was acknowledged by Virgin Blue who later in the day put out a press release saying that if the Chaser wants to spend $300 on jokes like that then that's fine.

You can review the list of press releases for all of August 2006 here: http://www.virginblue.com.au/about_us/news/index.php?co=vb&artdate=082006. Clearly there is no press release related to The Chaser. I modified this to reflect the actual content of the article in The Age. Jpp42 09:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Andrew Hansen's departure?
I was going to add in a tag for the section's lack of sources, but someone beat me to it. So I'll add in a section for this on the talk page - where is the evidence for his possible departure? And what happened to the high quality editing that was here earlier? It looks like someone's just sweeped in, did their business and left, leaving others to clean up the mess. -- Permafrost 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was me =P
 * Anyway, perhaps it might be just to cause some controversy. Nothing has appeared on any site except this about Andrew Hansen leaving. anger2headshot 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly think it is just to cause confusion and controversy, especially since the edits were made by an unregistered user (I believe) and the impression at the official Chaser forums is that he is quite sick.
 * MagpieShooter 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I've canned the additions. No external sources, added by an anon user, very unbelievable.   (Of course you always think, what if it is true .. nooo!  But what are the odds!) -- Chuq (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but Andrew was in fact too sick to appear on last week's show. --Richmeistertalk 20:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All we know so far is that Andrew wasn't on episode 7, and they blamed the Logies. No mention of Andrew actually LEAVING. I also just realised that seven.com.au isn't even the Channel 7 website: that's at au.tv.yahoo.com/tv (Channel 7 and Yahoo are partnered at the moment like 9 and MSN). Taylor 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think seven.com.au redirects to Yahoo!7... Anyway we'll just have to wait and see if what that person said is just a stupid rumour or the real thing. anger2headshot 11:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He was just sick IAmTheCoinMan 08:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)