Yes, it would make a husband angry. If it happened. Refresh my memory - did the article say that someone has said these things happened (in which case they can print it as hearsay) or did the paper state that these things definitely happened? As an example - remember when Ulrika Jonsson accused someone of raping her, but wouldn't name him? The papers couldn't name him either, but when Matthew Wright accidentally *cough cough* said that it was John Leslie on tv, the papers could print that, because they weren't themselves saying that JL had done it. They were saying that someone had said that JL had done it. Could be a similar situation here.
These threads always go this way. Whatever Pete does is fine, because Katie is worserer. And anything bad that is printed about Pete cannot possibly be true. Proof is always required. Anything bad that is printed about Katie must be true. No proof required.
.
A bit like you are asking in the first quote :rolleyes:
A bit like you are asking in the first quote :rolleyes:
Maybe you misunderstood my post. I didn't ask for proof. I was genuinely asking how the article had printed this alleged behaviour. If it came across as sarcastic, that was entirely unintentional.
The post I was quoting seemed to be saying that as it was in The Mirror, it must be true. I was asking if that was actually the case.
Maybe you misunderstood my post. I didn't ask for proof. I was genuinely asking how the article had printed this alleged behaviour. If it came across as sarcastic, that was entirely unintentional.
Nope, I didn't see you asking for proof either.
You were just asking a simple question to further the discussion.
Maybe you misunderstood my post. I didn't ask for proof. I was genuinely asking how the article had printed this alleged behaviour. If it came across as sarcastic, that was entirely unintentional.
The post I was quoting seemed to be saying that as it was in The Mirror, it must be true. I was asking if that was actually the case.
Right, sorry AR. IIRC, the article named the woman whom KP supposedly said these things to.
Aaaaand the thread had been successfully derailed into a KP is worser one
If you look farther back in the thread you will see that I was replying to someone who said it was weird they were trying for a baby and how hateful they are towards each other (something big must have happened). If PA is attacked for making digs at his ex unneccessarily, then I will put my opinion forward as to why it might be well justified.
As you say, this is all just your opinion. You may be right, you may be wrong. Just as I may be right, or may be wrong when I say that his behaviur since the break up is not indicative of any desire to keep any aspect of his life private, unless it serves his public image.
My opinion from seeing the show, reading the articles etc.
No - Gould's wife being there doesn't mean Katie wasn't in love with him, or that there was nothing going on. Nor does it mean that she WAS in love with him. Nor does it mean that there WAS anything going on. It certainly is not beyond Katie's behaviour to lust after people. Whether she lusted after anyone - or more to the point, did anything about it - when she was married to Pete - is another matter.
Yes, it would make a husband angry. If it happened. Refresh my memory - did the article say that someone has said these things happened (in which case they can print it as hearsay) or did the paper state that these things definitely happened? As an example - remember when Ulrika Jonsson accused someone of raping her, but wouldn't name him? The papers couldn't name him either, but when Matthew Wright accidentally *cough cough* said that it was John Leslie on tv, the papers could print that, because they weren't themselves saying that JL had done it. They were saying that someone had said that JL had done it. Could be a similar situation here.
These threads always go this way. Whatever Pete does is fine, because Katie is worserer. And anything bad that is printed about Pete cannot possibly be true. Proof is always required. Anything bad that is printed about Katie must be true. No proof required.
Don't get me wrong - I don't like Katie Price any more than I like her ex husband. But they're as bad as each other really. The perfect couple in fact. What a shame they ever broke up, when they were actually two peas in a pod.
I think I've answered the worserer part, to defend his actions sometimes means to bring her into it.
I put a link earlier to the Daily Mirror exclusive. That explains everything you've just questioned here.
I've seen PA be blamed for breaking up the family loads of times, when this story has been there since May 2009.
His wife being there doesn't mean KP wasn't in love with him. Her being there doesn't mean nothing was going on. Do you think the article is lies? Is it beyond KP's behaviour to lust after someone else? Has the exclusive (not source, or friend) ever been disputed? Let me know if you can find an retraction or a contest.
Just because a newspapers claims an 'exclusive' doesn't make it definitely true!!! And it certainly doesn't mean that the information came from KP or her spokesperson - and it also doesn't mean it's true if someone (with their own agenda to raise their profile) claims KP said some stuff to her about Pete.
All an exclusive means is that they're the only paper / or the first paper / to run with the story!
Just because a newspapers claims an 'exclusive' doesn't make it definitely true!!! And it certainly doesn't mean that the information came from KP or her spokesperson - and it also doesn't mean it's true if someone (with their own agenda to raise their profile) claims KP said some stuff to her about Pete.
All an exclusive means is that they're the only paper / or the first paper / to run with the story!
Is there a reason to doubt this is true? Has it been retracted or contested, like I've already said? It was an interview with an actual person, not a source.
Is there a reason to doubt this is true? Has it been retracted or contested, like I've already said? It was an interview with an actual person, not a source.
I've absolutely no idea - but it has been denied!
If she took legal action for every single newspaper article that has proved not to be true, she would be in court every day of the week!!!!
I could say - is there a reason to doubt the accuracy of the report bearing in mind both KP and AG have categorically denied it, and the person they interviewed - so a source- was a failed apprentice candidate so had not received the publicity they had hoped from there because they were booted out fairly early?
I've absolutely no idea - but it has been denied!
If she took legal action for every single newspaper article that has proved not to be true, she would be in court every day of the week!!!!
I could say - is there a reason to doubt the accuracy of the report bearing in mind both KP and AG have categorically denied it, and the person they interviewed - so a source- was a failed apprentice candidate so had not received the publicity they had hoped from there because they were booted out fairly early?
They denied having an affair (of course) but did they ever refer to this article? Surely KP should have sued over something as important as this if it was made up?
@avidreader - Wow! No anger at all - I'm a very happy man.:mad:
I was juss saying!
Besides, 'tis a public forum! Can I not comment on comments???!!!
As for this "worserer" thing all the time - that 'joke' has been used more times than Posh's backside - (ask football supporters) - and if I hear it one more time, I'm gonna hang myself upside down by my pubic hair!!!!!!!!
PS - please no one suggest I just go and hang myself!!!!
PPS - Why have some more of my innocent posts been removed???!!!!!
Just because a newspapers claims an 'exclusive' doesn't make it definitely true!!! And it certainly doesn't mean that the information came from KP or her spokesperson - and it also doesn't mean it's true if someone (with their own agenda to raise their profile) claims KP said some stuff to her about Pete.
All an exclusive means is that they're the only paper / or the first paper / to run with the story!
I suppose thats the one good thing about Pandry................you never have to wait for it........................he was born a twonk, lives his life as a twonk and will die a twonk.
Good to see this thread is going in the usual direction. Obviously all those non-fans of his who spend all their time defending Pa ran out of logical defences/arguments/discussions and went straight to taking the thread for a meander.
She may be all those things and more. It doesn't mean a thing in terms of his behaviour and actions. He, at best, behaves like a twonk, and at worst as a person with a strong sense of entitlement who is willing to use anyone (including his kids or his relationships) to cling onto the fame he craves. He is as fake as his tan, as natural as his nose and has the charm and wit of a piece of thinly laminated chip board.
Good to see this thread is going in the usual direction. Obviously all those non-fans of his who spend all their time defending Pa ran out of logical defences/arguments/discussions and went straight to taking the thread for a meander.
She may be all those things and more. It doesn't mean a thing in terms of his behaviour and actions. He, at best, behaves like a twonk, and at worst as a person with a strong sense of entitlement who is willing to use anyone (including his kids or his relationships) to cling onto the fame he craves. He is as fake as his tan, as natural as his nose and has the charm and wit of a piece of thinly laminated chip board.
Unfortunately for him he is stand alone now so any of his actions over the last couple of years are down to his behaviour and his alone.
The silly interviews, concerns for other celebs:rolleyes: in his columns his questionable friends and relationships are soley his or his managements doing.
If his career or popularity takes a nosedive he knows who to blame.
Unfortunately for him he is stand alone now so any of his actions over the last couple of years are down to his behaviour and his alone.
The silly interviews, concerns for other celebs:rolleyes: in his columns his questionable friends and relationships are soley his or his managements doing.
If his career or popularity takes a nosedive he knows who to blame.
Yup. BTW any jaded PA fans looked for someone who is actually talented and (IMHO) seriously attractive - Sean Bean is on the Market again. Now there's someone who doesn't have to pose with his pant falling off to look hot
Yup. BTW any jaded PA fans looked for someone who is actually talented and (IMHO) seriously attractive - Sean Bean is on the Market again. Now there's someone who doesn't have to pose with his pant falling off to look hot
Agree with you there, my dad met him at a football match, sooooo annoyed I wasn't with him. :mad:
Yup. BTW any jaded PA fans looked for someone who is actually talented and (IMHO) seriously attractive - Sean Bean is on the Market again. Now there's someone who doesn't have to pose with his pant falling off to look hot
Oh, he's on my little list, along with Robert Redford, Johnny Depp and Heath Ledger (a post divorce screen crush - I thought those tummy flutters had died in my teenage years until I watched him in A Knights tale )
Phew , ANYWAY, the point is, you don't have to pose like an ageing, desperate for business , rent boy to be attractive. CAN , take note.:)
Comments
A bit like you are asking in the first quote :rolleyes:
Maybe you misunderstood my post. I didn't ask for proof. I was genuinely asking how the article had printed this alleged behaviour. If it came across as sarcastic, that was entirely unintentional.
The post I was quoting seemed to be saying that as it was in The Mirror, it must be true. I was asking if that was actually the case.
I've seen damp sponges with more about them
Nope, I didn't see you asking for proof either.
You were just asking a simple question to further the discussion.
Right, sorry AR. IIRC, the article named the woman whom KP supposedly said these things to.
Thank you
No probs (no harm, no foul as they say
If you look farther back in the thread you will see that I was replying to someone who said it was weird they were trying for a baby and how hateful they are towards each other (something big must have happened). If PA is attacked for making digs at his ex unneccessarily, then I will put my opinion forward as to why it might be well justified.
I think I've answered the worserer part, to defend his actions sometimes means to bring her into it.
I put a link earlier to the Daily Mirror exclusive. That explains everything you've just questioned here.
I've seen PA be blamed for breaking up the family loads of times, when this story has been there since May 2009.
I'm off to read it now (and then get my eyes tested).
Of course I believe you, infact I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't still there. If it's gone google " Katie Price in love with another man"
Just because a newspapers claims an 'exclusive' doesn't make it definitely true!!! And it certainly doesn't mean that the information came from KP or her spokesperson - and it also doesn't mean it's true if someone (with their own agenda to raise their profile) claims KP said some stuff to her about Pete.
All an exclusive means is that they're the only paper / or the first paper / to run with the story!
Is there a reason to doubt this is true? Has it been retracted or contested, like I've already said? It was an interview with an actual person, not a source.
I've absolutely no idea - but it has been denied!
If she took legal action for every single newspaper article that has proved not to be true, she would be in court every day of the week!!!!
I could say - is there a reason to doubt the accuracy of the report bearing in mind both KP and AG have categorically denied it, and the person they interviewed - so a source- was a failed apprentice candidate so had not received the publicity they had hoped from there because they were booted out fairly early?
They denied having an affair (of course) but did they ever refer to this article? Surely KP should have sued over something as important as this if it was made up?
I was juss saying!
Besides, 'tis a public forum! Can I not comment on comments???!!!
As for this "worserer" thing all the time - that 'joke' has been used more times than Posh's backside - (ask football supporters) - and if I hear it one more time, I'm gonna hang myself upside down by my pubic hair!!!!!!!!
PS - please no one suggest I just go and hang myself!!!!
PPS - Why have some more of my innocent posts been removed???!!!!!
It is true, however, that she wished him dead.
Nice.
Just proves she's worserer than him!!!!
And a.. wait for it ... twonk.
I suppose thats the one good thing about Pandry................you never have to wait for it........................he was born a twonk, lives his life as a twonk and will die a twonk.
Good to see this thread is going in the usual direction. Obviously all those non-fans of his who spend all their time defending Pa ran out of logical defences/arguments/discussions and went straight to taking the thread for a meander.
She may be all those things and more. It doesn't mean a thing in terms of his behaviour and actions. He, at best, behaves like a twonk, and at worst as a person with a strong sense of entitlement who is willing to use anyone (including his kids or his relationships) to cling onto the fame he craves. He is as fake as his tan, as natural as his nose and has the charm and wit of a piece of thinly laminated chip board.
Unfortunately for him he is stand alone now so any of his actions over the last couple of years are down to his behaviour and his alone.
The silly interviews, concerns for other celebs:rolleyes: in his columns his questionable friends and relationships are soley his or his managements doing.
If his career or popularity takes a nosedive he knows who to blame.
Yup. BTW any jaded PA fans looked for someone who is actually talented and (IMHO) seriously attractive - Sean Bean is on the Market again. Now there's someone who doesn't have to pose with his pant falling off to look hot
Agree with you there, my dad met him at a football match, sooooo annoyed I wasn't with him. :mad:
Now if you had said Sean Connery....:o
Phew