I thought so. Perhaps there are some that thought "we" (non-Pa fans) really thought he was being made out to be a dead Catholic who had performed enough miracles to be beautified and then sanctified. :eek:
No-one can be that obtuse, surely?
Perhaps they miss the sarcasm behind the phrase - the fact that all non-Pa's know that a near 40 year old man, who has been clinging onto fame since his teens, one that married Jordan, knowing exactly who she was, one who then sold every aspect of that and still sells everyone around him, and uses every little thing to reinforce the "good" image that he has created is a fairly removed from sainthood seems to escape them.
Not just me that makes typos then AC
But, no, some PA fans already know he is good looking
That's what his detractors were saying this time last year and here we all still are, talking about him, arguing over him. I doubt he's gonna go away any time soon, which is good for me since I'm a fan. It's also good for his detractors too. They say they're bored of him, yet they talk about him enough.
Katie has an obligation to let Pete see Harvey since Harvey thinks Pete's his Daddy. She has no right therefore to keep Harvey away from him.
Katie has no legal obligation to let Peter see Harvey and has a legal right to do whatever she wants in regards to the Pete-Harvey situation . It is imo a moral obligation and it benefits both Peter and Harvey. It is an unselfish action.
Surely "letting Peter see Harvey" is for the good of Harvey too in that Harvey does not feel rejected or set apart from Junior and Princess?
Why would any mother not wish for a bond which had previously been a good, strong one between stepson and stepfather to be discontinued?
However, stating that "But she does do nice things too(letting Peter see Harvey,etc)" sort of cancels out this nice thing, if as the papers recently printed she then disallows it the next year. Surely consistency/routine is a big part of Harvey's life and his condition?
That's my point, Katie thinks of Harvey's best interest when it comes to visitation and that makes it an unselfish act. Also, where have you heard she is disallowing it? Peter said he would see all the kids around Christmas and had presents for Harvey.People never give credit to her for her rare unselfish actions and behave as though she has no choice but to let Peter see Harvey. She does have a choice as Peter has no legal rights over Harvey and she could be horribly selfish if she wanted and deny Pete and Harvey the chance to see each other. But she doesn't.
It would not be selfish it would be very cruel to Harvey, she may not have a legal obligation but as a mother she should do what is best for her son and not what wins her points or aids the game she plays, not that she is playing games just that I don't think she needs a round of applause for "allowing" Harvey to see his "dad"
That's my point, Katie thinks of Harvey's best interest when it comes to visitation and that makes it an unselfish act. Also, where have you heard she is disallowing it? Peter said he would see all the kids around Christmas and had presents for Harvey.People never give credit to her for her rare unselfish actions and behave as though she has no choice but to let Peter see Harvey. She does have a choice as Peter has no legal rights over Harvey and she could be horribly selfish if she wanted and deny Pete and Harvey the chance to see each other. But she doesn't.
I cant believe you think people should heap praise on her for doing the right thing
It was her that brought Pete and Harvey together in the first place and allowed a bond to develop.
Katie has no legal obligation to let Peter see Harvey and has a legal right to do whatever she wants in regards to the Pete-Harvey situation . It is imo a moral obligation and it benefits both Peter and Harvey. It is an unselfish action.
I didn't say she has a legal obligation, I said she has an obligation, which IMO, she does since Harvey sees Pete as his Daddy. It'd be beyond cruel (to both of them but especially to Harvey) to split them up now.
I didn't say she has a legal obligation, I said she has an obligation, which IMO, she does since Harvey sees Pete as his Daddy. It'd be beyond cruel (to both of them but especially to Harvey) to split them up now.
I agree. But when you consider how many people say KP is evil or a monster I was pointing out she isn't. If she was a monster she wouldn't do the right thing but she does in this case.
I cant believe you think people should heap praise on her for doing the right thing
It was her that brought Pete and Harvey together in the first place and allowed a bond to develop.
Why not? People heap hate on her whenever she does the wrong thing but she cannot be praised finally doing something right? People go on and on about how terrible she is and has no morals but I brought it up because it proves she has some. If she was evil or truly a monster(as her detractors on here frequently state) then she wouldn't give a thought to Harvey's bond with PA but she does. PA gets praised as a great father endlessly for simply being around his kids or mentiong them but KP is never to be praised apparently.:rolleyes:
Did she let him see Harvey straight away or did she play a few games first?
Are we still deflecting away from the boy blunder to discuss an entirely different topic?
Harvey is her son, not his. She doesn't have to let him have any contact. So letting him have contact, in the right circumstances with the right staff is her doing the right thing.
He is still a twonk who sold the story of not seeing the boy then seeing the boy at the first opportunity - even though that turned out the be a lie.
This thread is about him, KK and media manipulation. Not Kp's mothering "skills".
Are we still deflecting away from the boy blunder to discuss an entirely different topic?
Harvey is her son, not his. She doesn't have to let him have any contact. So letting him have contact, in the right circumstances with the right staff is her doing the right thing.
He is still a twonk who sold the story of not seeing the boy then seeing the boy at the first opportunity - even though that turned out the be a lie.
This thread is about him, KK and media manipulation. Not Kp's mothering "skills".[/QUOTE]
Is it? There was me thinking it was about his Liz Hurley comment
Are we still deflecting away from the boy blunder to discuss an entirely different topic?
Harvey is her son, not his. She doesn't have to let him have any contact. So letting him have contact, in the right circumstances with the right staff is her doing the right thing.
He is still a twonk who sold the story of not seeing the boy then seeing the boy at the first opportunity - even though that turned out the be a lie.
This thread is about him, KK and media manipulation. Not Kp's mothering "skills".[/QUOTE]
Is it? There was me thinking it was about his Liz Hurley comment
I thought it was about his Liz Hurley comment too.
All the KK/PA/KP/CAN threads merge/go off topic, I have never known them not to - does anyone expect them not to? :rolleyes:
I thought it was about his Liz Hurley comment too.
All the KK/PA/KP/CAN threads merge/go off topic, I have never known them not to - does anyone expect them not to? :rolleyes:
No, which is why it's so easy to get confused over what the original topic is. They usually go off on a 'he said she said' tangent after the 3rd or 4th post!
No, which is why it's so easy to get confused over what the original topic is. They usually go off on a 'he said she said' tangent after the 3rd or 4th post!
An easy mistake on Artless's part.
Doesn't the heading give a clue?
By the way it was sidsgirl who noticed the "mistake". Maybe you should have multi quoted.
Mine was very tongue in cheek too, unfortunately there is no "tongue in cheek" smilie, hence my roll of the eyes and a smile. No argument or something from this quarter Lexi.
I thought it was about his Liz Hurley comment too.
All the KK/PA/KP/CAN threads merge/go off topic, I have never known them not to - does anyone expect them not to? :rolleyes:
These threads go off on side bars - Kp's mothering is a whole other topic. You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it. But it has nothing to do with Pa offering up his a opinion as a very thinly veiled attempt at reinforcing his "good boy" image - "Look at me, I'm so good, I didn't make my girlfriend hide in bins until after I got a piece of paper!".
These threads go off on side bars - Kp's mothering is a whole other topic. You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it. But it has nothing to do with Pa offering up his a opinion as a very thinly veiled attempt at reinforcing his "good boy" image - "Look at me, I'm so good, I didn't make my girlfriend hide in bins until after I got a piece of paper!".
Yeah, and a boring one at that.....its been done to death. I think we can all be guilty of going ot, but in this case l dont think it was the person you quoted (pinknico) who actually started the diversion, or deflection as you call it.
Yeah, and a boring one at that.....its been done to death. I think we can all be guilty of going ot, but in this case l dont think it was the person you quoted (pinknico) who actually started the diversion, or deflection as you call it.
To tell the truth, I CBA to go back and quote the first person to go on about Kp - I don't understand what she has to do with this discussion. I understood the "saint peter" meander, it was relevant and good to clarify. But what she is or is not doing is not.
Pinknico seemed to really want to discuss that, so it was easier for me to quote that one. Although, I did mean to quote 2real.
Are we still deflecting away from the boy blunder to discuss an entirely different topic?
Harvey is her son, not his. She doesn't have to let him have any contact. So letting him have contact, in the right circumstances with the right staff is her doing the right thing.
He is still a twonk who sold the story of not seeing the boy then seeing the boy at the first opportunity - even though that turned out the be a lie.
This thread is about him, KK and media manipulation. Not Kp's mothering "skills".
These threads go off on side bars - Kp's mothering is a whole other topic. You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it. But it has nothing to do with Pa offering up his a opinion as a very thinly veiled attempt at reinforcing his "good boy" image - "Look at me, I'm so good, I didn't make my girlfriend hide in bins until after I got a piece of paper!".
"You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it", why artless? As it has already been stated on here and numerous other threads, they all merge/go into one about them all anyway. :rolleyes:
However, if you feel the need to open a separate one on the thread you thought you were on, please do so, I will post there as I love these threads...don't we all?
By the way, have you all heard Peter Andre is going on a motorbike holiday for a couple of weeks/months? I wonder if that will be shown on TV. If not, what are we going to talk about. :eek:
Yeah, and a boring one at that.....its been done to death. I think we can all be guilty of going ot, but in this case l dont think it was the person you quoted (pinknico) who actually started the diversion, or deflection as you call it.
Sidsgirl, we could start a thread about divertors / deflectors / detractors. However, I somehow think it would come back to KP/PA/KK and CAN. :rolleyes: So why waste the time and effort?
"You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it", why artless? As it has already been stated on here and numerous other threads, they all merge/go into one about them all anyway. :rolleyes:
However, if you feel the need to open a separate one on the thread you thought you were on, please do so, I will post there as I love these threads...don't we all?
By the way, have you all heard Peter Andre is going on a motorbike holiday for a couple of weeks/months? I wonder if that will be shown on TV. If not, what are we going to talk about. :eek:
Yes, and that KP is thinking of suing him. Oh where is Bunny. lol
"You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it", why artless? As it has already been stated on here and numerous other threads, they all merge/go into one about them all anyway. :rolleyes:
However, if you feel the need to open a separate one on the thread you thought you were on, please do so, I will post there as I love these threads...don't we all?
By the way, have you all heard Peter Andre is going on a motorbike holiday for a couple of weeks/months? I wonder if that will be shown on TV. If not, what are we going to talk about. :eek:
There is already a thread about KK and Pa and their media manipulation. You have posted in it, I think.
I made a mistake Val - like you did when you went on and on and on about Alex having the kids in his show, which turned out not to be at all accurate.
As to the "they all merge into one" well they do when Pa fans bring Kp into everything in order to prove she is so much worserer than Pa, but that is not relevant to the discussion about what he is saying about other people in order to reinforce his image.
If you want a thread about Kp, start one. I don't!
These threads go off on side bars - Kp's mothering is a whole other topic. You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it. But it has nothing to do with Pa offering up his a opinion as a very thinly veiled attempt at reinforcing his "good boy" image - "Look at me, I'm so good, I didn't make my girlfriend hide in bins until after I got a piece of paper!".
Comments
Not just me that makes typos then AC
But, no, some PA fans already know he is good looking
Ah yes, the extra u. Obviously I meant beatified. Had I been talking about his looks I would have said plasticised.:D
Katie has no legal obligation to let Peter see Harvey and has a legal right to do whatever she wants in regards to the Pete-Harvey situation . It is imo a moral obligation and it benefits both Peter and Harvey. It is an unselfish action.
That's my point, Katie thinks of Harvey's best interest when it comes to visitation and that makes it an unselfish act. Also, where have you heard she is disallowing it? Peter said he would see all the kids around Christmas and had presents for Harvey.People never give credit to her for her rare unselfish actions and behave as though she has no choice but to let Peter see Harvey. She does have a choice as Peter has no legal rights over Harvey and she could be horribly selfish if she wanted and deny Pete and Harvey the chance to see each other. But she doesn't.
I cant believe you think people should heap praise on her for doing the right thing
It was her that brought Pete and Harvey together in the first place and allowed a bond to develop.
I didn't say she has a legal obligation, I said she has an obligation, which IMO, she does since Harvey sees Pete as his Daddy. It'd be beyond cruel (to both of them but especially to Harvey) to split them up now.
I agree. But when you consider how many people say KP is evil or a monster I was pointing out she isn't. If she was a monster she wouldn't do the right thing but she does in this case.
Why not? People heap hate on her whenever she does the wrong thing but she cannot be praised finally doing something right?
Are we still deflecting away from the boy blunder to discuss an entirely different topic?
Harvey is her son, not his. She doesn't have to let him have any contact. So letting him have contact, in the right circumstances with the right staff is her doing the right thing.
He is still a twonk who sold the story of not seeing the boy then seeing the boy at the first opportunity - even though that turned out the be a lie.
This thread is about him, KK and media manipulation. Not Kp's mothering "skills".
No, which is why it's so easy to get confused over what the original topic is. They usually go off on a 'he said she said' tangent after the 3rd or 4th post!
An easy mistake on Artless's part.
Doesn't the heading give a clue?
By the way it was sidsgirl who noticed the "mistake". Maybe you should have multi quoted.
Good grief. I was agreeing with you. Are you just looking for an argument or something?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Mine was very tongue in cheek too, unfortunately there is no "tongue in cheek" smilie, hence my roll of the eyes and a smile. No argument or something from this quarter Lexi.
These threads go off on side bars - Kp's mothering is a whole other topic. You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it. But it has nothing to do with Pa offering up his a opinion as a very thinly veiled attempt at reinforcing his "good boy" image - "Look at me, I'm so good, I didn't make my girlfriend hide in bins until after I got a piece of paper!".
Yeah, and a boring one at that.....its been done to death. I think we can all be guilty of going ot, but in this case l dont think it was the person you quoted (pinknico) who actually started the diversion, or deflection as you call it.
To tell the truth, I CBA to go back and quote the first person to go on about Kp - I don't understand what she has to do with this discussion. I understood the "saint peter" meander, it was relevant and good to clarify. But what she is or is not doing is not.
Pinknico seemed to really want to discuss that, so it was easier for me to quote that one. Although, I did mean to quote 2real.
"You could start a thread on it, if you really feel the need to discuss it", why artless? As it has already been stated on here and numerous other threads, they all merge/go into one about them all anyway. :rolleyes:
However, if you feel the need to open a separate one on the thread you thought you were on, please do so, I will post there as I love these threads...don't we all?
By the way, have you all heard Peter Andre is going on a motorbike holiday for a couple of weeks/months? I wonder if that will be shown on TV.
Sidsgirl, we could start a thread about divertors / deflectors / detractors. However, I somehow think it would come back to KP/PA/KK and CAN. :rolleyes:
Yes, and that KP is thinking of suing him. Oh where is Bunny. lol
There is already a thread about KK and Pa and their media manipulation. You have posted in it, I think.
I made a mistake Val - like you did when you went on and on and on about Alex having the kids in his show, which turned out not to be at all accurate.
As to the "they all merge into one" well they do when Pa fans bring Kp into everything in order to prove she is so much worserer than Pa, but that is not relevant to the discussion about what he is saying about other people in order to reinforce his image.
If you want a thread about Kp, start one. I don't!