[QUOTE=John DiFool]
Except the (Head?) KWSN says “Suffice it say that it is one of the words that the
Knights of Ni cannot bear to hear!” Note how he IDs himself and his band of
merry crusaders. 
[/QUOTE]
But contemplate a moment on the inherent difference between Knights of Ni and Knights who say Ni.
Sir Fish, that was simply an awesome job of deconstructing Monty Python. This does however raise the question of why is it inherently humorous for English K’niggets to strike people in the face wish you?
[QUOTE=Suburban Plankton]
Fish, you frighten me. Quite a bit.
That’s all I have to say, because I’m too scared to stick around this thread right now.
[/QUOTE]
Whereas I believe I’m in love.
Re. the Knights Who Say “Ni!”, it’s really a piss-take on the class system and linguistic formal pronouns, as in the Swedish highly-informal 2nd-degree personal pronoun “ni”. This is precisely the sort of thing the Pythons could reference because at least a couple of them studied Swedish in university – or so I’ve read and/or heard in TV programs on the Pythons – and no, I don’t have a cite for it. (I suspect they studied Swedish in the hope of eventually seducing Swedish women; Swedish sexuality was very much in the international spotlight in the '60’s. Or maybe the Swedish 101 instructor was really hot.)
[QUOTE=betenoir]
Whereas I believe I’m in love.
[/QUOTE]
It was a top class post.
I’m not in love with him though.
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
But contemplate a moment on the inherent difference between Knights of Ni and Knights who say Ni.
[/QUOTE]
Well everyone knows that the Knights Who Say Ni are Fearless Freedom Fighters,
while the Knights of Ni are just a bunch of wannabee pansy poseurs.
Splitter!
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
On second thought, lets not go to Cafe Society. It is a silly place.
[/QUOTE]
It’s just a model. (Shhhhhh!)
[QUOTE=The Scrivener]
Re. the Knights Who Say “Ni!”, it’s really a piss-take on the class system and linguistic formal pronouns, as in the Swedish highly-informal 2nd-degree personal pronoun “ni”. This is precisely the sort of thing the Pythons could reference because at least a couple of them studied Swedish in university – or so I’ve read and/or heard in TV programs on the Pythons – and no, I don’t have a cite for it. (I suspect they studied Swedish in the hope of eventually seducing Swedish women; Swedish sexuality was very much in the international spotlight in the '60’s. Or maybe the Swedish 101 instructor was really hot.)
[/QUOTE]
But does the sister being bitten by the moose refer to the expanding sexual mores of '60’s, as exemplified by the exceptance of the “love bite,” Or does the moose biting the sister refer to the class struggles of women as they demand their rightful place in society as equals to men rather than subjegated to them?
I am totally baffled by this.
As the link reveals, the Fish-Slapping Dance is a contest between two men in safari outfits. They are played by Cleese (the man on the left) and Palin (the other one). They are facing each other at a distance of about 3 paces. Palin is in possession of two pilchards while Cleese has assumed the classic ‘at ease’ stance in readiness for receipt of a slap.
When the music starts, Palin dances up to Cleese, strikes him on the right cheek with the left pilchard and returns to his starting position. He repeats the manoeuvre but this time he slaps Cleese on the right cheek with the right pilchard. Following two more offensive plays, during which he slaps Cleese in the face (executing the technically difficult ‘Double Pilchard Slap’ in the process) Palin returns to his position and assumes the ‘at ease’ stance.
Cleese takes one step forward and knocks Palin into the canal with a large halibut.
If this is comedy it’s a tragedy. Everything about the sketch is wrong, and the only humour I can see is in the poignant irony of a lifebelt hanging unused on the front of a building when Palin has fallen in the water. If this post was in another forum I’d say more. Anyway, could someone please explain the following:
(a) I understand the pilchards. We use them at home in competition, unless there’s money riding on it in which case I normally rent a small barracuda from the local aquarium. But what’s with the halibut? I’ve never seen one used in a singles match before and I’d be seriously surprised if anyone else has either.
(ii) Why does Palin use the sequence left pilchard, right pilchard, both pilchards, both pilchards when his only viable option* was the more orthodox right pilchard, left pilchard, both pilchards, both pilchards? Arguably this tactical error cost him the game.
(3) Why is the Fish-Slapping Dance taking place at Teddington Lock when there’s a perfectly good Fish-Slapping Dance & Massage Parlour** in Teddington itself?
Many thanks.
.
.
.
*Source: Fish-Slapping for Beginners Vol.3 pp. 147-233 (Piranha Bros., 2004. All rights reserved. Not available for sale in the US).
** Private rooms with en suite pool. For full dance & massage call Lola on 0800-555555. Coach parties welcome. Bring your own fish.
[QUOTE=Chez Guevara]
(17) The Fish-Slapping Dance
<snip>
But what’s with the halibut? I’ve never seen one used in a singles match before and I’d be seriously surprised if anyone else has either.
[/QUOTE]
It seems clear to me that the flatfish in question is none other than Eric the 'alibut. Another thing to consider is that, while Palin is clearly very concerned with perfect pilchard procedure and protocol, Cleese appears to be participating just for the halibut.
A cough massage parlour cough that requires you to bring your own fish seems a little Unclear on the Concept – can’t see that place staying in business long…
[QUOTE=Antonius Block]
Another thing to consider is that, while Palin is clearly very concerned with perfect pilchard procedure and protocol, Cleese appears to be participating just for the halibut..
[/QUOTE]
Well played, sir. 