The stories are confirmed though, so while its in the DM they do happen to be true.
Also, people shouldn't pay for it forever however "redemption" and change happen over time, not over night.
As for caring and non discriminatory... Or maybe they simply aren't flippant and hypocritical, making up their standards as it suits them. Who knows?
I'm not going to defend someone who has proven themselves recently to a dick, unsavory, a criminal, violent, immature etc because I wouldn't support anyone who had recently proven themselves as any of those things.
Being on a TV show, having talent or being hot isn't going to change my stance towards someone as that would make me shallow and hypocritical.
But there you go.
Eta: that doesn't mean anyone who supports people who prove themselves to be those things to be a hypocrit, not if they would be complimentary and accepting of the same characteristics in Jane or Bob down the pub.
I'm all for accountability, but The X-Factor is a competition; judge the acts using measures related to the competition (voice, stage presence, etc.). If her bad behaviour spills out to her performances, then call her out for that. Unless the girl she beat up is a girl from the show, it is nothing short of unfair to judge her as unworthy in the competition for that.
I'm all for accountability, but The X-Factor is a competition; judge the acts using measures related to the competition (voice, stage presence, etc.). If her bad behaviour spills out to her performances, then call her out for that. Unless the girl she beat up is a girl from the show, it is nothing short of unfair to judge her as unworthy in the competition for that.
Umm... Chris Brown could write and produce the best record on the planet, after nuclear war where he is the only artist left and I the only buyer, and I would not buy it as I won't support him for what he did.
So you can bet your ass I'll not support some random on a TV show, so you have a really hard sell on that one I'm afraid.
Umm... Chris Brown could write and produce the best record on the planet, after nuclear war where he is the only artist left and I the only buyer, and I would not buy it as I won't support him for what he did.
So you can bet your ass I'll not support some random on a TV show, so you have a really hard sell on that one I'm afraid.
If you use irrelevant measures in testing talent, that's your loss.
So I'm guessing you're going cold turkey on Ike & Tina songs because Ike abused Tina...
Why stop there? Naomi Campbell was an abusive woman, so why not boycott all the brands she's posed for?
Better yet, why not boycott Made in China products because they abuse Chinese workers and all that?
It's hypocritical to boot out Frankie and Emma for drugs and assault and not Tamera and Lorna. I know they're arguably the more talented but it's no excuse. If my family were in Holly's position, they would hire a very ruthless lawyer.
How so, the point was in the principle of not supporting people who do things you feel strongly about.
And no, I wouldn't support people/products who confirmed they did things I disagreed with, what kind of person would I be if I did?
Is the action relevant, though? What does the abuse have to do with the music? If you don't want to buy the music, fine (I think it's absurd, but that's not my call to make), but it's another thing altogether to follow the narrative of the OP, to say that the "abuser" doesn't deserve a chance at a potentially fruitful music career because of something that has nothing to do with the music, which you seem to agree with, as well.
Is the action relevant, though? What does the abuse have to do with the music? If you don't want to buy the music, fine (I think it's absurd, but that's not my call to make), but it's another thing altogether to follow the narrative of the OP, to say that the "abuser" doesn't deserve a chance at a potentially fruitful music career because of something that has nothing to do with the music, which you seem to agree with, as well.
I wasn't saying that she should be booted from the show, I don't think she should, just explaining that some people do care about that kind of stuff and will be critical (privately or publically) about it.
Some of the peoples comments on here are embarrassing, i'm pretty certain Fizix is trying to ramp up Tamera's price with the bookies, no one can be that vindictive.
People make mistakes, young people make lots of mistakes, every person is entitled to change as they mature, to continually condemn someone for something they did as a 14 yr old child, is quite frankly, shocking.
It's hypocritical to boot out Frankie and Emma for drugs and assault and not Tamera and Lorna. I know they're arguably the more talented but it's no excuse. If my family were in Holly's position, they would hire a very ruthless lawyer.
Lorna should be booted out for what reason?
Committing a bad act does not make someone a bad person, everyone should be given the chance to learn from their crimes and move on with their lives.
Some of the peoples comments on here are embarrassing, i'm pretty certain Fizix is trying to ramp up Tamera's price with the bookies, no one can be that vindictive.
People make mistakes, young people make lots of mistakes, every person is entitled to change as they mature, to continually condemn someone for something they did as a 14 yr old child, is quite frankly, shocking.
It's a singing contest, judge it on that please.
Vindictive? Shocking? For saying that I won't support someone due to their recent behaviour?
That's neither vindictive nor shocking and if you think it is, you need a serious reality check.
Some of the peoples comments on here are embarrassing, i'm pretty certain Fizix is trying to ramp up Tamera's price with the bookies, no one can be that vindictive.
People make mistakes, young people make lots of mistakes, every person is entitled to change as they mature, to continually condemn someone for something they did as a 14 yr old child, is quite frankly, shocking.
It's a singing contest, judge it on that please.
Sorry, but you've only managed to rank up fifteen posts since 2010, yet still feel entitled to make sweeping and quite serious accusations about other forum members?
It wouldn't be irrelevant if you were her victim though, would it?
Did you have an issue with it when Cheryl was hired as a judge?
I have no issue with anyone with a criminal record being on the show as a judge or as a contestant, but I don't remember hearing all the "how will her victim feel" arguments when Cheryl was on the show... I may be wrong though.
Did you have an issue with it when Cheryl was hired as a judge?.
I have no issue with anyone with a criminal record being on the show as a judge or as a contestant, but I don't remember hearing all the "how will her victim feel" arguments when Cheryl was on the show... I may be wrong though.
Yes, I did, I've never made any secret of the fact I strongly dislike Cheryl, and my main reasoning for that is that she never showed an ounce of remorse for what she did to that toilet attendant. And trust me, lots of comments about Cheryl, the assault and her victim have been made on this and the showbiz forum.
The fact that anyone has it in them to deliberately cause harm to another human being shows that they have a deeply unpleasant side to their character. Violence is never the answer and it can't be justified.
Did you have an issue with it when Cheryl was hired as a judge?
I have no issue with anyone with a criminal record being on the show as a judge or as a contestant, but I don't remember hearing all the "how will her victim feel" arguments when Cheryl was on the show... I may be wrong though.
There was a lot of disapproval, I dislike Cheryl and that is one of the primary reasons why.
Yes, I did, I've never made any secret of the fact I strongly dislike Cheryl, and my main reasoning for that is that she never showed an ounce of remorse for what she did to that toilet attendant. And trust me, lots of comments about Cheryl, the assault and her victim have been made on this and the showbiz forum.
The fact that anyone has it in them to deliberately cause harm to another human being shows that they have a deeply unpleasant side to their character. Violence is never the answer and it can't be justified.
So people with bad personalities shouldn't be given a platform to shine?
Yes, I did, I've never made any secret of the fact I strongly dislike Cheryl, and my main reasoning for that is that she never showed an ounce of remorse for what she did to that toilet attendant. And trust me, lots of comments about Cheryl, the assault and her victim have been made on this and the showbiz forum.
The fact that anyone has it in them to deliberately cause harm to another human being shows that they have a deeply unpleasant side to their character. Violence is never the answer and it can't be justified.
Fair enough, at least you're consistent.
BIB - I guess that's the crux of it, I view it as they had an unpleasant side to them not that they necessarily still have. But then I do tend to try and see the best in everyone, often to my detriment.
Comments
I'm all for accountability, but The X-Factor is a competition; judge the acts using measures related to the competition (voice, stage presence, etc.). If her bad behaviour spills out to her performances, then call her out for that. Unless the girl she beat up is a girl from the show, it is nothing short of unfair to judge her as unworthy in the competition for that.
Umm... Chris Brown could write and produce the best record on the planet, after nuclear war where he is the only artist left and I the only buyer, and I would not buy it as I won't support him for what he did.
So you can bet your ass I'll not support some random on a TV show, so you have a really hard sell on that one I'm afraid.
If you use irrelevant measures in testing talent, that's your loss.
So I'm guessing you're going cold turkey on Ike & Tina songs because Ike abused Tina...
Why stop there? Naomi Campbell was an abusive woman, so why not boycott all the brands she's posed for?
Better yet, why not boycott Made in China products because they abuse Chinese workers and all that?
How so, the point was in the principal of not supporting people who do things you feel strongly about.
And no, I wouldn't support people/products who confirmed they did things I disagreed with, what kind of person would I be if I did?
Oh whatever. :rolleyes:
Boring. The vodka has clearly gone to your head.
Is the action relevant, though? What does the abuse have to do with the music? If you don't want to buy the music, fine (I think it's absurd, but that's not my call to make), but it's another thing altogether to follow the narrative of the OP, to say that the "abuser" doesn't deserve a chance at a potentially fruitful music career because of something that has nothing to do with the music, which you seem to agree with, as well.
I wasn't saying that she should be booted from the show, I don't think she should, just explaining that some people do care about that kind of stuff and will be critical (privately or publically) about it.
People make mistakes, young people make lots of mistakes, every person is entitled to change as they mature, to continually condemn someone for something they did as a 14 yr old child, is quite frankly, shocking.
It's a singing contest, judge it on that please.
Lorna should be booted out for what reason?
Committing a bad act does not make someone a bad person, everyone should be given the chance to learn from their crimes and move on with their lives.
Vindictive? Shocking? For saying that I won't support someone due to their recent behaviour?
That's neither vindictive nor shocking and if you think it is, you need a serious reality check.
Sorry, but you've only managed to rank up fifteen posts since 2010, yet still feel entitled to make sweeping and quite serious accusations about other forum members?
You would if it was melaine be honest?
Tamera 100% deserves her place in the competition unless she breaks the rules once the live shows start everything is irrelevant right now.
It wouldn't be irrelevant if you were her victim though, would it?
your playing a great game! keep it up
Yes, absolutely, I would not feel I could support her.
Did you have an issue with it when Cheryl was hired as a judge?
I have no issue with anyone with a criminal record being on the show as a judge or as a contestant, but I don't remember hearing all the "how will her victim feel" arguments when Cheryl was on the show... I may be wrong though.
Yes, I did, I've never made any secret of the fact I strongly dislike Cheryl, and my main reasoning for that is that she never showed an ounce of remorse for what she did to that toilet attendant. And trust me, lots of comments about Cheryl, the assault and her victim have been made on this and the showbiz forum.
The fact that anyone has it in them to deliberately cause harm to another human being shows that they have a deeply unpleasant side to their character. Violence is never the answer and it can't be justified.
There was a lot of disapproval, I dislike Cheryl and that is one of the primary reasons why.
So people with bad personalities shouldn't be given a platform to shine?
Fair enough, at least you're consistent.
BIB - I guess that's the crux of it, I view it as they had an unpleasant side to them not that they necessarily still have. But then I do tend to try and see the best in everyone, often to my detriment.