Keane has a pop at the WAGs.

[Fop 1]

It doesn't really matter if you think Posh earned the money she has or not because she has anyway, i.e. she got paid for doing stuff. If you're going to extend the argument much beyond that you can argue almost anyone doesn't earn what they get paid. Especially me.

 

You indirectly earn it by correcting grammar, spelling and phrase used on the internet, thereby minutely raising the standards of civilization.

 

However can you think of anything that Posh has done that's been productive? She's probably indirectly responsible who knows how many trees being destroy and a significant proportion of the UK credit crisis.

It's not a case of being 'productive' though. I don't like her but there's a market for gossip about her and she was in the biggest girl-band ever, I think, so she made money and makes money for giving something people want. You don't like her but that's irrelevent really. I don't like her either. I think some of the vitriol directed towards her at times is nuts though (in general, not from you).

I agree I'm good for humanity, unlike her, that's a whole different kettle of fish though

 

 

Nah the market for gossip is self sustaining thing (and no one is being productive or earning anything by sustaining it), much like the famous for being famous thing (which really she is, she's more famous post Spice Girls, than she ever was in them [even then people used to say she just used to stand in a corner and pose ] really due to the way she's handled the media with her and Beckham).

 

Personally I don't hate her (I simply don't care enough to do anything like that), but I do think the world would be a much better place without her and those like her. Not just directly, but indirectly in the myriad supermarket gossip magazines (Heat!, Chat!, Shite! and various other eye straining luminous things).

The bits in bold contradict each other imo. I've said before you'd start an argument in an empty room though

 

For it to be contradictory you'd have to believe Heat, Chat!, Shite! etc. where in someway productive or a good thing, as opposed to some more like a heroin addiction or mental illness.

[Fop 1]

That people are entitled to a career despite what your personal parameters of acceptablity may be. Women who EARN their own money differ from those who don't earn their own money.

 

You'll never convince me that Posh has "earned" anything in her life. She is very, very good at being opportunist though, I'll give her that.

 

 

It appears though, that you are as thick as the proverbial mince. Never mind dude...just carry on as you were I'm done.

 

Can't attack the argument, so attack the poster.

 

But you're clearly a very frustrated individual so I'll forgive you.

I put my points clearly enough for even an amphibian to understand them...when it became clear you are a smart arse who is unable to reason with new information I gave up. Simple really.

 

See giving up is why you'll never be the next Posh Spice.

 

Giving up what? I thought you didn't need talent to become a pop star...

 

You don't, but you still need to try. (so scarily Posh > you! )

[Guest alex]

It doesn't really matter if you think Posh earned the money she has or not because she has anyway, i.e. she got paid for doing stuff. If you're going to extend the argument much beyond that you can argue almost anyone doesn't earn what they get paid. Especially me.

 

You indirectly earn it by correcting grammar, spelling and phrase used on the internet, thereby minutely raising the standards of civilization.

 

However can you think of anything that Posh has done that's been productive? She's probably indirectly responsible who knows how many trees being destroy and a significant proportion of the UK credit crisis.

It's not a case of being 'productive' though. I don't like her but there's a market for gossip about her and she was in the biggest girl-band ever, I think, so she made money and makes money for giving something people want. You don't like her but that's irrelevent really. I don't like her either. I think some of the vitriol directed towards her at times is nuts though (in general, not from you).

I agree I'm good for humanity, unlike her, that's a whole different kettle of fish though

 

 

Nah the market for gossip is self sustaining thing (and no one is being productive or earning anything by sustaining it), much like the famous for being famous thing (which really she is, she's more famous post Spice Girls, than she ever was in them [even then people used to say she just used to stand in a corner and pose ] really due to the way she's handled the media with her and Beckham).

 

Personally I don't hate her (I simply don't care enough to do anything like that), but I do think the world would be a much better place without her and those like her. Not just directly, but indirectly in the myriad supermarket gossip magazines (Heat!, Chat!, Shite! and various other eye straining luminous things).

The bits in bold contradict each other imo. I've said before you'd start an argument in an empty room though

 

For it to be contradictory you'd have to believe Heat, Chat!, Shite! etc. where in someway productive or a good thing, as opposed to some more like a heroin addiction or mental illness.

For it to be contradictory it would only require people to earn money out of those magazines actually. Just going off what you wrote of course.

[Fop 1]

It doesn't really matter if you think Posh earned the money she has or not because she has anyway, i.e. she got paid for doing stuff. If you're going to extend the argument much beyond that you can argue almost anyone doesn't earn what they get paid. Especially me.

 

You indirectly earn it by correcting grammar, spelling and phrase used on the internet, thereby minutely raising the standards of civilization.

 

However can you think of anything that Posh has done that's been productive? She's probably indirectly responsible who knows how many trees being destroy and a significant proportion of the UK credit crisis.

It's not a case of being 'productive' though. I don't like her but there's a market for gossip about her and she was in the biggest girl-band ever, I think, so she made money and makes money for giving something people want. You don't like her but that's irrelevent really. I don't like her either. I think some of the vitriol directed towards her at times is nuts though (in general, not from you).

I agree I'm good for humanity, unlike her, that's a whole different kettle of fish though

 

 

Nah the market for gossip is self sustaining thing (and no one is being productive or earning anything by sustaining it), much like the famous for being famous thing (which really she is, she's more famous post Spice Girls, than she ever was in them [even then people used to say she just used to stand in a corner and pose ] really due to the way she's handled the media with her and Beckham).

 

Personally I don't hate her (I simply don't care enough to do anything like that), but I do think the world would be a much better place without her and those like her. Not just directly, but indirectly in the myriad supermarket gossip magazines (Heat!, Chat!, Shite! and various other eye straining luminous things).

The bits in bold contradict each other imo. I've said before you'd start an argument in an empty room though

 

For it to be contradictory you'd have to believe Heat, Chat!, Shite! etc. where in someway productive or a good thing, as opposed to some more like a heroin addiction or mental illness.

For it to be contradictory it would only require people to earn money out of those magazines actually. Just going off what you wrote of course.

 

Ah, but then that'd be the difference between make money and earn it.

 

Not saying it's not a huge £££'s industry, just saying it's a worthless, non-productive one (and no one really "earns" their money in it).

[Guest alex]

It doesn't really matter if you think Posh earned the money she has or not because she has anyway, i.e. she got paid for doing stuff. If you're going to extend the argument much beyond that you can argue almost anyone doesn't earn what they get paid. Especially me.

 

You indirectly earn it by correcting grammar, spelling and phrase used on the internet, thereby minutely raising the standards of civilization.

 

However can you think of anything that Posh has done that's been productive? She's probably indirectly responsible who knows how many trees being destroy and a significant proportion of the UK credit crisis.

It's not a case of being 'productive' though. I don't like her but there's a market for gossip about her and she was in the biggest girl-band ever, I think, so she made money and makes money for giving something people want. You don't like her but that's irrelevent really. I don't like her either. I think some of the vitriol directed towards her at times is nuts though (in general, not from you).

I agree I'm good for humanity, unlike her, that's a whole different kettle of fish though

 

 

Nah the market for gossip is self sustaining thing (and no one is being productive or earning anything by sustaining it), much like the famous for being famous thing (which really she is, she's more famous post Spice Girls, than she ever was in them [even then people used to say she just used to stand in a corner and pose ] really due to the way she's handled the media with her and Beckham).

 

Personally I don't hate her (I simply don't care enough to do anything like that), but I do think the world would be a much better place without her and those like her. Not just directly, but indirectly in the myriad supermarket gossip magazines (Heat!, Chat!, Shite! and various other eye straining luminous things).

The bits in bold contradict each other imo. I've said before you'd start an argument in an empty room though

 

For it to be contradictory you'd have to believe Heat, Chat!, Shite! etc. where in someway productive or a good thing, as opposed to some more like a heroin addiction or mental illness.

For it to be contradictory it would only require people to earn money out of those magazines actually. Just going off what you wrote of course.

 

Ah, but then that'd be the difference between make money and earn it.

 

Not saying it's not a huge £££'s industry, just saying it's a worthless, non-productive one (and no one really "earns" their money in it).

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like? Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre? Get a grip man.

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

[Fop 1]

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like?

 

They are more likely to be exploited for their money.

 

 

 

Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

 

I'm sure they could get productive jobs if they tried.

 

Get a grip man.

 

You do realise you're the one defending Heat?

 

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

 

You ever actually read one of those magazines? Most could be knocked up in a school kids lunch break (and would actually be better if they were in many cases).

Edited August 16, 2007 by Fop

[Meenzer 15526]

Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

[Guest alex]

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like?

 

They are more likely to be exploited for their money.

 

 

 

Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

 

I'm sure they could get productive jobs if they tried.

 

Get a grip man.

 

You do realise you're the one defending Heat?

 

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

 

You ever actually read one of those magazines? Most could be knocked up in a school kids lunch break (and would actually be better if they were in many cases).

You see Fop, your problem is, your definition of "earning" money differs from the one in the OED. Try looking it up and then tell me the above don't earn money. Your opinion on the magazine content is totally irrelevent to the meaning of the word. And the cleaners are exploited? Maybe but they still earn money, so do the admin staff (who probably hate their tedious jobs but again - not the point).

[Fop 1]

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like?

 

They are more likely to be exploited for their money.

 

 

 

Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

 

I'm sure they could get productive jobs if they tried.

 

Get a grip man.

 

You do realise you're the one defending Heat?

 

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

 

You ever actually read one of those magazines? Most could be knocked up in a school kids lunch break (and would actually be better if they were in many cases).

You see Fop, your problem is, your definition of "earning" money differs from the one in the OED. Try looking it up and then tell me the above don't earn money. Your opinion on the magazine content is totally irrelevent to the meaning of the word. And the cleaners are exploited? Maybe but they still earn money, so do the admin staff (who probably hate their tedious jobs but again - not the point).

 

I see you're trying to earn yours now.

 

But my definition has been the same all the way through. I've never said the celebrities cannot make money (directly or indirectly - so does Foot and Mouth for some people doesn't make it a good thing), just that they don't earn it.

 

And come to think of it show me where I've said some pulp "journalist" or a cleaner for them don't deserve to be paid for their job? Oh right yes, NOWHERE (as much as you're trying to pretend I did ).

 

Just that the whole industry is worthless and wouldn't be missed (and the cleaners could get a job else where - no enough cleaners around as it is, so it'd actually be a public service if they disappeared too).

[Guest alex]

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like?

 

They are more likely to be exploited for their money.

 

 

 

Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

 

I'm sure they could get productive jobs if they tried.

 

Get a grip man.

 

You do realise you're the one defending Heat?

 

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

 

You ever actually read one of those magazines? Most could be knocked up in a school kids lunch break (and would actually be better if they were in many cases).

You see Fop, your problem is, your definition of "earning" money differs from the one in the OED. Try looking it up and then tell me the above don't earn money. Your opinion on the magazine content is totally irrelevent to the meaning of the word. And the cleaners are exploited? Maybe but they still earn money, so do the admin staff (who probably hate their tedious jobs but again - not the point).

 

I see you're trying to earn yours now.

 

But my definition has been the same all the way through. I've never said the celebrities cannot make money (directly or indirectly - so does Foot and Mouth for some people doesn't make it a good thing), just that they don't earn it.

 

And come to think of it show me where I've said some pulp "journalist" or a cleaner for them don't deserve to be paid for their job? Oh right yes, NOWHERE (as much as you're trying to pretend I did ).

 

Just that the whole industry is worthless and wouldn't be missed (and the cleaners could get a job else where - no enough cleaners around as it is, so it'd actually be a public service if they disappeared too).

People earn money out of sustaining the market for gossip. Said journalists etc. above do. You said no one is earning anything out of it. A page ago.

[Fop 1]

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like?

 

They are more likely to be exploited for their money.

 

 

 

Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

 

I'm sure they could get productive jobs if they tried.

 

Get a grip man.

 

You do realise you're the one defending Heat?

 

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

 

You ever actually read one of those magazines? Most could be knocked up in a school kids lunch break (and would actually be better if they were in many cases).

You see Fop, your problem is, your definition of "earning" money differs from the one in the OED. Try looking it up and then tell me the above don't earn money. Your opinion on the magazine content is totally irrelevent to the meaning of the word. And the cleaners are exploited? Maybe but they still earn money, so do the admin staff (who probably hate their tedious jobs but again - not the point).

 

I see you're trying to earn yours now.

 

But my definition has been the same all the way through. I've never said the celebrities cannot make money (directly or indirectly - so does Foot and Mouth for some people doesn't make it a good thing), just that they don't earn it.

 

And come to think of it show me where I've said some pulp "journalist" or a cleaner for them don't deserve to be paid for their job? Oh right yes, NOWHERE (as much as you're trying to pretend I did ).

 

Just that the whole industry is worthless and wouldn't be missed (and the cleaners could get a job else where - no enough cleaners around as it is, so it'd actually be a public service if they disappeared too).

People earn money out of sustaining the market for gossip. Said journalists etc. above do. You said no one is earning anything out of it. A page ago.

Celebrities may make money out of it, but again they don't earn it (as pedantic as you want to be it's quite clear what context I've used that in all through out this so ).

 

The mags however don't so much sustain the market for gossip so much as cater to that which is stirred up in other ways (which may indirectly sustain it, but only once it's there).

 

However the cleaners earn their money for cleaning, the admin staff for doing admin, but I refuse to agree plup "journalists"

"earn" their money for the shite they produce, even if that are paid for it.

[Guest alex]

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like?

 

They are more likely to be exploited for their money.

 

 

 

Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

 

I'm sure they could get productive jobs if they tried.

 

Get a grip man.

 

You do realise you're the one defending Heat?

 

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

 

You ever actually read one of those magazines? Most could be knocked up in a school kids lunch break (and would actually be better if they were in many cases).

You see Fop, your problem is, your definition of "earning" money differs from the one in the OED. Try looking it up and then tell me the above don't earn money. Your opinion on the magazine content is totally irrelevent to the meaning of the word. And the cleaners are exploited? Maybe but they still earn money, so do the admin staff (who probably hate their tedious jobs but again - not the point).

 

I see you're trying to earn yours now.

 

But my definition has been the same all the way through. I've never said the celebrities cannot make money (directly or indirectly - so does Foot and Mouth for some people doesn't make it a good thing), just that they don't earn it.

 

And come to think of it show me where I've said some pulp "journalist" or a cleaner for them don't deserve to be paid for their job? Oh right yes, NOWHERE (as much as you're trying to pretend I did ).

 

Just that the whole industry is worthless and wouldn't be missed (and the cleaners could get a job else where - no enough cleaners around as it is, so it'd actually be a public service if they disappeared too).

People earn money out of sustaining the market for gossip. Said journalists etc. above do. You said no one is earning anything out of it. A page ago.

Celebrities may make money out of it, but again they don't earn it (as pedantic as you want to be it's quite clear what context I've used that in all through out this so ).

 

The mags however don't so much sustain the market for gossip so much as cater to that which is stirred up in other ways (which may indirectly sustain it, but only once it's there).

 

However the cleaners earn their money for cleaning, the admin staff for doing admin, but I refuse to agree plup "journalists"

"earn" their money for the shite they produce, even if that are paid for it.

And as I said, you're basically refusing to accept one of the OED definitions of the word

Edited August 16, 2007 by alex

[Fop 1]

Do the cleaners at the offices of Heat, for example, not "earn" their money like?

 

They are more likely to be exploited for their money.

 

 

 

Or the admin staff for that matter? Or are they somehow morally moribund because you don't like Peter Andre?

 

I'm sure they could get productive jobs if they tried.

 

Get a grip man.

 

You do realise you're the one defending Heat?

 

Define 'earning' money too while you're at it. As I'm sure the people writing the magazine and supplying the photos etc. work hard.

 

You ever actually read one of those magazines? Most could be knocked up in a school kids lunch break (and would actually be better if they were in many cases).

You see Fop, your problem is, your definition of "earning" money differs from the one in the OED. Try looking it up and then tell me the above don't earn money. Your opinion on the magazine content is totally irrelevent to the meaning of the word. And the cleaners are exploited? Maybe but they still earn money, so do the admin staff (who probably hate their tedious jobs but again - not the point).

 

I see you're trying to earn yours now.

 

But my definition has been the same all the way through. I've never said the celebrities cannot make money (directly or indirectly - so does Foot and Mouth for some people doesn't make it a good thing), just that they don't earn it.

 

And come to think of it show me where I've said some pulp "journalist" or a cleaner for them don't deserve to be paid for their job? Oh right yes, NOWHERE (as much as you're trying to pretend I did ).

 

Just that the whole industry is worthless and wouldn't be missed (and the cleaners could get a job else where - no enough cleaners around as it is, so it'd actually be a public service if they disappeared too).

People earn money out of sustaining the market for gossip. Said journalists etc. above do. You said no one is earning anything out of it. A page ago.

Celebrities may make money out of it, but again they don't earn it (as pedantic as you want to be it's quite clear what context I've used that in all through out this so ).

 

The mags however don't so much sustain the market for gossip so much as cater to that which is stirred up in other ways (which may indirectly sustain it, but only once it's there).

 

However the cleaners earn their money for cleaning, the admin staff for doing admin, but I refuse to agree plup "journalists"

"earn" their money for the shite they produce, even if that are paid for it.

And as I said, you're basically refusing to accept one of the OED definitions of the word :razzL:

 

Yup and you're just ignoring the context I was using all along.

 

And so you're just trying to pedantically "win" one point that you've basically made up in the first place to win it (even though as I said even in that context cleaners earn their money for cleaning etc. so ner ).

[Asprilla 96]

That people are entitled to a career despite what your personal parameters of acceptablity may be. Women who EARN their own money differ from those who don't earn their own money.

 

You'll never convince me that Posh has "earned" anything in her life. She is very, very good at being opportunist though, I'll give her that.

 

 

It appears though, that you are as thick as the proverbial mince. Never mind dude...just carry on as you were I'm done.

 

Can't attack the argument, so attack the poster.

 

But you're clearly a very frustrated individual so I'll forgive you.

I put my points clearly enough for even an amphibian to understand them...when it became clear you are a smart arse who is unable to reason with new information I gave up. Simple really.

 

See giving up is why you'll never be the next Posh Spice.

 

Giving up what? I thought you didn't need talent to become a pop star...

 

You don't, but you still need to try. (so scarily Posh > you! )

 

What was that about "can't attack the argument, attack the poster"?

 

 

It's clear you have a very strange view of the entertainment world. Footballers are skilled in ways that many people would find meaningless, yet you continually fail to recognise the talent required to succeed in other industries. Football is only entertainment too at the end of the day and you really ought to be able to fathom that.

[Shearergol 0]

What a shit argument

[Asprilla 96]

What a shit argument

Sorry...let's have another one about Bellamy eh?

[Fop 1]

That people are entitled to a career despite what your personal parameters of acceptablity may be. Women who EARN their own money differ from those who don't earn their own money.

 

You'll never convince me that Posh has "earned" anything in her life. She is very, very good at being opportunist though, I'll give her that.

 

 

It appears though, that you are as thick as the proverbial mince. Never mind dude...just carry on as you were I'm done.

 

Can't attack the argument, so attack the poster.

 

But you're clearly a very frustrated individual so I'll forgive you.

I put my points clearly enough for even an amphibian to understand them...when it became clear you are a smart arse who is unable to reason with new information I gave up. Simple really.

 

See giving up is why you'll never be the next Posh Spice.

 

Giving up what? I thought you didn't need talent to become a pop star...

 

You don't, but you still need to try. (so scarily Posh > you! )

 

What was that about "can't attack the argument, attack the poster"?

 

You'd given up with anything remotely like an argument and made it completely personal so why not?

 

Besides I'd have thought being compared to Posh would make you happy deep, deep inside.

 

It's clear you have a very strange view of the entertainment world. Footballers are skilled in ways that many people would find meaningless, yet you continually fail to recognise the talent required to succeed in other industries. Football is only entertainment too at the end of the day and you really ought to be able to fathom that.

 

Again football requires natural talent, pop does not (although it may help).

[Guest alex]

Drop the mock indignation Fop, no one's buying it

[Fop 1]

Drop the mock indignation Fop, no one's buying it

 

Aye the truth is often hard to sell, but it's still the truth.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Well, Mido turning them down to go and live in Boro..BORO for fucks sake...totally blows the dog wankers argument out the window.

[Guest alex]

Drop the mock indignation Fop, no one's buying it

 

Aye the truth is often hard to sell, but it's still the truth.

I hope this isn't MORE sour grapes

 

 

JOKE FFS!!!

[Fop 1]

Drop the mock indignation Fop, no one's buying it

 

Aye the truth is often hard to sell, but it's still the truth.

I hope this isn't MORE sour grapes

 

 

JOKE FFS!!!

 

You missed an iffy reference to sour grapes in another thread btw.

[Asprilla 96]

You'd given up with anything remotely like an argument and made it completely personal so why not?

 

Besides I'd have thought being compared to Posh would make you happy deep, deep inside.

More insults...? Yet having a go at me about attacks? :)

 

It's clear you have a very strange view of the entertainment world. Footballers are skilled in ways that many people would find meaningless, yet you continually fail to recognise the talent required to succeed in other industries. Football is only entertainment too at the end of the day and you really ought to be able to fathom that.

Again football requires natural talent, pop does not (although it may help).

 

 

 

Clearly unable to grasp the concept tbh. Talent is required for success in any competitive field. Your narrow parameters are the downfall of your argument.

[Fop 1]

You'd given up with anything remotely like an argument and made it completely personal so why not?

 

Besides I'd have thought being compared to Posh would make you happy deep, deep inside.

More insults...? Yet having a go at me about attacks? :)

 

It's clear you have a very strange view of the entertainment world. Footballers are skilled in ways that many people would find meaningless, yet you continually fail to recognise the talent required to succeed in other industries. Football is only entertainment too at the end of the day and you really ought to be able to fathom that.

Again football requires natural talent, pop does not (although it may help).

 

 

 

Clearly unable to grasp the concept tbh. Talent is required for success in any competitive field. Your narrow parameters are the downfall of your argument.

 

Sorry but genuine talent (being better than most at something) is really not needed for a pop career (although it may help), but someone that can't play football is NOT going to be a successful footballer, big old difference.

 

No matter how many times you say it, it does not make the above any less true.

[Guest alex]

Genuine talent is required to get a job writing for Heat though.