I didn't say there was a problem - you asked for proof of the article that suggested that Cheryl admitted she can't sing. I provided it for you. I hope you're grateful :rolleyes:
Cheryl could stand up there and say "I know I can't sing, I know that I'm conning all of my fans by making out that I can, and I'm loving raking in all your money to pay for my extremely fake teeth and eyelashes and the hair I get from children in India whilst you chomp at the bit for my latest generic, uninspiring, crap single" and you'd still all be gushing about her.
If she can't sing, and she's not confident in her singing ability, she's in the wrong career. If standing on stage and singing terrifies her so much, she's in the wrong career. But no, she's raking in so much money and the public wuv her so much she keeps up the whole charade and when she looks nervous her fans gush all the more and say how amazing she was when she actually barely sang in tune.
Exactly this.
These guys are too blinded to see how eyewateringly pathetic this cosmetically enhanced clown really is.
I didn't say there was a problem - you asked for proof of the article that suggested that Cheryl admitted she can't sing. I provided it for you. I hope you're grateful :rolleyes:
Nope she stated that she knew the limits of her ability not that she can't sing.
Cheryl could stand up there and say "I know I can't sing, I know that I'm conning all of my fans by making out that I can, and I'm loving raking in all your money to pay for my extremely fake teeth and eyelashes and the hair I get from children in India whilst you chomp at the bit for my latest generic, uninspiring, crap single" and you'd still all be gushing about her.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion.
If she can't sing, and she's not confident in her singing ability, she's in the wrong career. If standing on stage and singing terrifies her so much, she's in the wrong career. But no, she's raking in so much money and the public wuv her so much she keeps up the whole charade and when she looks nervous her fans gush all the more and say how amazing she was when she actually barely sang in tune.
She's confident on stage when doing the faster paced tracks and has stated herself she loves dancing and had been dancing from early age.
Even the most acomplished performers suffer from nerves as their after all human beings(that might suprise you).
Seems that you do as you always emphasize how she always sings live everytime her singing is criticised.
Besides the thread is quite apt given that she appeared on the Royal Variety show & therefore she's bound to be dissected in all shapes and forms.
The fact that you don't want to see any negative threads/posts about her then you shouldn't open them & stop yourself from contributing to such threads and instead stick to any appreciation posts about her if they exist.
I have noticed that Cheryl fans seem more interested in arguing with people who don't like Cheryl than in actually talking about the things they appreciate about Cheryl. They are a strange bunch.
I have noticed that Cheryl fans seem more interested in arguing with people who don't like Cheryl than in actually talking about the things they appreciate about Cheryl. They are a strange bunch.
I have also noticed how condescending non Cheryl fans are with her fans. So we're strange, sad, blinded, possibly delusional and much more...
I have noticed that Cheryl fans seem more interested in arguing with people who don't like Cheryl than in actually talking about the things they appreciate about Cheryl. They are a strange bunch.
I could have sworn you've already said this before?!
You're last sentence is really quite rude and what ever threads her fans like to read and post in should be of no concern to you or anyone else.
why.t.f shouldn't people be allowed to dispute how good a singer she is?! I think your comment about "arguing with people who don't like Cheryl" sums it up - people simply don't like her so just dismiss all of her performances and drag up a recording of "Fireflies" to "prove" she can't sing. I don't see why this thread should be a place for people to just bitch about her so everyone is entitled to comment on it, in peace.
I could have sworn you've already said this before?!
You're last sentence is really quite rude and what ever threads her fans like to read and post in should be of no concern to you or anyone else.
why.t.f shouldn't people be allowed to dispute how good a singer she is?! I think your comment about "arguing with people who don't like Cheryl" sums it up - people simply don't like her so just dismiss all of her performances and drag up a recording of "Fireflies" to "prove" she can't sing. I don't see why this thread should be a place for people to just bitch about her so everyone is entitled to comment on it, in peace.
Absolutely. I can't believe people get away it.
It that supposed to be some sort of clever oxymoron? Posts should be of no concern to me or anyone else yet people are allowed to dispute how good a singer she is? I find some of her fan behaviour stange and that's rude, yet fans calling people who don't support her condescending isn't? Double standards much?
I never said that but if that's how you identify yourself far be it for me to argue
Well, I didn't say you said all those things, that's why I used "non Cheryl fans" but if you identify yourself as the only non fan in the whole universe far be it for me to argue.
It that supposed to be some sort of clever oxymoron? Posts should be of no concern to me or anyone else yet people are allowed to dispute how good a singer she is? I find some of her fan behaviour stange and that's rude, yet fans calling people who don't support her condescending isn't? Double standards much?
No its not.
I said the threads in which her fans choose to post in are of no concern to anyone else. Of course the posts are there for everyone to see and to dispute.
People weren't called condescending for no reason. The way some people talk down to her fans is really rude.
I said the threads in which her fans choose to post in are of no concern to anyone else. Of course the posts are there for everyone to see and to dispute.
People weren't called condescending for no reason. The way some people talk down to her fans is really rude.
I'm not seeing any double standards on my behalf
See the post above yours, where one poster calls another a "bitter and twisted individual". Are you going to tell that poster that they are rude because if not, then there's a clear example of double standards on your behalf.
See the post above yours, where one poster calls another a "bitter and twisted individual". Are you going to tell that poster that they are rude because if not, then there's a clear example of double standards on your behalf.
Well i know Unigal dislikes all things Cheryl. Don't think i'd say that makes her a "bitter and twisted individual". I haven't read every page on this thread so i don't know what promted that poster in question to call her that.
What i do know is that Unigal has twice told people to ignore my posts because I'm a Cheryl fan which is, i think, a perfect example of the condescending attitude Ajar is refering to.
But you've picked out a a totally differnt example because Ajar is talking about people beign targeted simply because they are Cheryl fans which is rude. I somehow think Unigal said something which prompted jediknight's comment. I shall read the whole thread now though
Well i know Unigal dislikes all things Cheryl. Don't think i'd say that makes her a "bitter and twisted individual". I haven't read every page on this thread so i don't know what promted that poster in question to call her that.
What i do know is that Unigal has twice told people to ignore my posts because I'm a Cheryl fan which is, i think, a perfect example of the condescending attitude Ajar is refering to.
But you've picked out a a totally differnt example because Ajar is talking about people beign targeted simply because they are Cheryl fans which is rude. I somehow think Unigal said something which prompted jediknight's comment. I shall read the whole thread now though
And therein lies the double standard. Fans believe they are targeted just for being fans and that is rude but when non fans are targeted it is because they probably prompted it.
This could go back and forth all night but the truth is both sides give as good as each other and fans have no case to take the high ground and call anyone rude or condescending when quite clearly, they can be just as bad.
And therein lies the double standard. Fans believe they are targeted just for being fans and that is rude but when non fans are targeted it is because they probably prompted it.
This could go back and forth all night but the truth is both sides give as good as each other and fans have no case to take the high ground and call anyone rude or condescending when quite clearly, they can be just as bad.
Sly digs are different from accusing someone of being "bitter and twisted". Usually that sort of strong response would have been provoked from something specifically said.
I don't know many people who refer to someone as being "a bitter and twisted individual" for the sheer buzz of it.
Sly digs are different from accusing someone of being "bitter and twisted". Usually that sort of strong response would have been provoked from something specifically said.
I don't know many people who refer to someone as being "a bitter and twisted individual" for the sheer buzz of it.
There's a clear difference. Not double standards.
I love how when I say "they are a strange bunch" you tell me that sentence really was quite rude yet when someone targets ungial specifically and calls her "bitter and twisted" you call it a strong response that would have been provoked. You will quite happily label non fans rude and condescending yet look for justification to defend fans when they are a lot harsher in their comments. It is blatantly double standards.
I love how when I say "they are a strange bunch" you tell me that sentence really was quite rude yet when someone targets ungial specifically and calls her "bitter and twisted" you call it a strong response that would have been provoked. You will quite happily label non fans rude and condescending yet look for justification to defend fans when they are a lot harsher in their comments. It is blatantly double standards.
You're not listening to what i'm saying and if you are, then you;re just blatantly ignoring it.
"they are a strange bunch" Right, (a.) directed at Cheryl fans. not anything specific to refer to just the usual dig at fans for...being fans.
(b.) I never said suggesting someone was "bitter and twisted" was right, i said that it probably wasn't just taken from thin air.
I said "some people" are unfairly condescending and rude towards fans of Cheryl.
Not only are ignoring what i'm saying but you're also putting words into my mouth. You suggested i was using double standards from the word go and now you're taking things i'm saying out of context, which btw came from comments i made after the "Double standards much?" comment to try to justify your initial implication which is unfounded.
I love how when I say "they are a strange bunch" you tell me that sentence really was quite rude yet when someone targets ungial specifically and calls her "bitter and twisted" you call it a strong response that would have been provoked. You will quite happily label non fans rude and condescending yet look for justification to defend fans when they are a lot harsher in their comments. It is blatantly double standards.
Targets someone like this ?
"She's thick. She can't possibly think of anything else to say. "
"I think Cheryl got on well with Cher, probably because they are much of a muchness, very similar characters. Both chavs with attitude problems. "
Both comments from Unigal. It looks like double standards are everyone favorite forum pass time.
You're not listening to what i'm saying and if you are, then you;re just blatantly ignoring it.
"they are a strange bunch" Right, (a.) directed at Cheryl fans. not anything specific to refer to just the usual dig at fans for...being fans.
It was directed at the behaviour of fans which I find strange. Finding something strange does not make a person rude.
I have noticed that Cheryl fans seem more interested in arguing with people who don't like Cheryl than in actually talking about the things they appreciate about Cheryl. They are a strange bunch.
(b.) I never said suggesting someone was "bitter and twisted" was right, i said that it probably wasn't just taken from thin air.
I said "some people" are unfairly condescending and rude towards fans of Cheryl.
Not only are ignoring what i'm saying but you're also putting words into my mouth. You suggested i was using double standards from the word go and now you're taking things i'm saying out of context, which btw came from comments i made after the "Double standards much?" comment to try to justify your initial implication which is unfounded.
I stand by that. You were quick to label me rude yet when someone says something far harsher you were quick to say they were probably provoked.
"She's thick. She can't possibly think of anything else to say. "
"I think Cheryl got on well with Cher, probably because they are much of a muchness, very similar characters. Both chavs with attitude problems. "
Both comments from Unigal. It looks like double standards are everyone favorite forum pass time.
Neither comment were directed at another forum member. It's hardly a forum secret that Unigal has a less than flattering opinion of Cheryl.
I don't have double standards. I have said above that both sides give as good as they get. What I find amusing is that I make a general comment about how I find fan behaviour strange and I am labelled very rude, yet you direct a personal remark at a specific forum member and it's brushed off as probably being provoked. That is double standards.
It doesn't really matter as the remarks were still targeted another person.
I could have been far worse but usually draw the line at calling people "chavs" and other derogatory remarks.
Reading Unigals replies it goes beyong dislike to that of resentment and into obvious personal insults and what could viewed as hatred.
So "less than flattering" isn't the term I would use.
You're wrong here. I don't care who the person is, personal abuse isn't right on an online forum between members. But in a thread about Cheryl Cole's Royal Variety performance, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss Cheryl; the good *and* the bad.
You're wrong here. I don't care who the person is, personal abuse isn't right on an online forum between members. But in a thread about Cheryl Cole's Royal Variety performance, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss Cheryl; the good *and* the bad.
You don't care who it is as long the abuse it thrown at Cheryl Cole with the usual "chav" remarks.
I guess it's acceptable for you to call people "chavs" then ?.
"Discussions" on there forum if you want to call them that often go beyond what is good and bad and Unigal has plenty examples of it.
If people can't take it they shouldn't dish it out.
No I didn't but it's gotton to the point where we're just repeating the same things over and over and it's become really boring so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Didn't watch the whole thing (her "music" isn't my cup of tea TBH) but from what I saw she did ok. Seemed like she was miming a little into the song, but it wasn't as bad as that T4 beach thing they do every year where she sang "live."
Comments
Exactly this.
These guys are too blinded to see how eyewateringly pathetic this cosmetically enhanced clown really is.
Its just so sad for them...:rolleyes:
Nope she stated that she knew the limits of her ability not that she can't sing.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion.
She's confident on stage when doing the faster paced tracks and has stated herself she loves dancing and had been dancing from early age.
Even the most acomplished performers suffer from nerves as their after all human beings(that might suprise you).
Point 1 - I did say this when I posted the link to the article. I merely pointed out the article that the FM may have been referring to.
Point 2 - so you don't deny it...
Point 3 - so then she should be a dancer. You don't buy a CD to watch dancers, you buy it to hear someone sing. And Cheryl can't.
But I'm the one paying for that CD, it's as free country
I have also noticed how condescending non Cheryl fans are with her fans. So we're strange, sad, blinded, possibly delusional and much more...
But back on topic, she sang live at the RVP
I could have sworn you've already said this before?!
You're last sentence is really quite rude and what ever threads her fans like to read and post in should be of no concern to you or anyone else.
why.t.f shouldn't people be allowed to dispute how good a singer she is?! I think your comment about "arguing with people who don't like Cheryl" sums it up - people simply don't like her so just dismiss all of her performances and drag up a recording of "Fireflies" to "prove" she can't sing. I don't see why this thread should be a place for people to just bitch about her so everyone is entitled to comment on it, in peace.
Absolutely. I can't believe people get away it.
Well, I didn't say you said all those things, that's why I used "non Cheryl fans" but if you identify yourself as the only non fan in the whole universe far be it for me to argue.
No its not.
I said the threads in which her fans choose to post in are of no concern to anyone else. Of course the posts are there for everyone to see and to dispute.
People weren't called condescending for no reason. The way some people talk down to her fans is really rude.
I'm not seeing any double standards on my behalf
Well i know Unigal dislikes all things Cheryl. Don't think i'd say that makes her a "bitter and twisted individual". I haven't read every page on this thread so i don't know what promted that poster in question to call her that.
What i do know is that Unigal has twice told people to ignore my posts because I'm a Cheryl fan which is, i think, a perfect example of the condescending attitude Ajar is refering to.
But you've picked out a a totally differnt example because Ajar is talking about people beign targeted simply because they are Cheryl fans which is rude. I somehow think Unigal said something which prompted jediknight's comment. I shall read the whole thread now though
This could go back and forth all night but the truth is both sides give as good as each other and fans have no case to take the high ground and call anyone rude or condescending when quite clearly, they can be just as bad.
Sly digs are different from accusing someone of being "bitter and twisted". Usually that sort of strong response would have been provoked from something specifically said.
I don't know many people who refer to someone as being "a bitter and twisted individual" for the sheer buzz of it.
There's a clear difference. Not double standards.
You're not listening to what i'm saying and if you are, then you;re just blatantly ignoring it.
"they are a strange bunch" Right, (a.) directed at Cheryl fans. not anything specific to refer to just the usual dig at fans for...being fans.
(b.) I never said suggesting someone was "bitter and twisted" was right, i said that it probably wasn't just taken from thin air.
I said "some people" are unfairly condescending and rude towards fans of Cheryl.
Not only are ignoring what i'm saying but you're also putting words into my mouth. You suggested i was using double standards from the word go and now you're taking things i'm saying out of context, which btw came from comments i made after the "Double standards much?" comment to try to justify your initial implication which is unfounded.
Targets someone like this ?
"She's thick. She can't possibly think of anything else to say. "
"I think Cheryl got on well with Cher, probably because they are much of a muchness, very similar characters. Both chavs with attitude problems. "
Both comments from Unigal. It looks like double standards are everyone favorite forum pass time.
Neither comment were directed at another forum member. It's hardly a forum secret that Unigal has a less than flattering opinion of Cheryl.
I don't have double standards. I have said above that both sides give as good as they get. What I find amusing is that I make a general comment about how I find fan behaviour strange and I am labelled very rude, yet you direct a personal remark at a specific forum member and it's brushed off as probably being provoked. That is double standards.
It doesn't really matter as the remarks were still targeted another person.
I could have been far worse but usually draw the line at calling people "chavs" and other derogatory remarks.
Reading Unigals replies it goes beyong dislike to that of resentment and into obvious personal insults and what could viewed as hatred.
So "less than flattering" isn't the term I would use.
Thanks so much for the laugh haha
Understatement of the year? Qui, most definitely
You're wrong here. I don't care who the person is, personal abuse isn't right on an online forum between members. But in a thread about Cheryl Cole's Royal Variety performance, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss Cheryl; the good *and* the bad.
You don't care who it is as long the abuse it thrown at Cheryl Cole with the usual "chav" remarks.
I guess it's acceptable for you to call people "chavs" then ?.
"Discussions" on there forum if you want to call them that often go beyond what is good and bad and Unigal has plenty examples of it.
If people can't take it they shouldn't dish it out.