Well I thought Perez's 'banquish' was far funnier than Katie's come back. Having said that I know he wasn't being witty, just stupid Often people are funnier when they don't intend it which brings us back to Katie who does intend to be funny, unlike any of the other HMS. Therefore comparisons are irrelevant and unhelpful.
I think those saying Katie amuses them sometimes and defending her by saying humour is subjective are missing the integral point being made by me and others. It isn't that no one does or can ever find her funny, it's that we were sold the idea she'd amuse us with her wit and clever put downs but we've seen very little evidence of this. However we have seen evidence of her picking on the less fortunate in her opinion and being nasty and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it.
Well I thought Perez's 'banquish' was far funnier than Katie's come back. Having said that I know he wasn't being witty but just stupid Often people are funnier when they don't intend it which brings us back to Katie who does intend to be funny, unlike any of the other HMS. Therefore comparisons are irrelevant and unhelpful.
I think those saying Katie amuses them sometimes and defending her by saying humour is subjective are missing the integral point being made by me and others. It isn't that no one does or can ever find her funny, it's that we were sold the idea she's amuse us with her wit and clever put downs but we've seen very little evidence of this. However we have seen evidence of her picking on the less fortunate in her opinion and being nasty and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it.
I've never thought anything other than this about her. She was fawning over most of them until she got a gang behind her, all of whom I think she's scared of. She's a cowardly repugnant snob, making money from behaving like an obnoxious spoiled child. She wouldn't spit on any of her so called friend in there, they are way beneath her inane standards in life. . She's not remotely funny and she's incredibly tedious. Would any of us allow our children to behave the way she does towards each other?
Well I thought Perez's 'banquish' was far funnier than Katie's come back. Having said that I know he wasn't being witty, just stupid Often people are funnier when they don't intend it which brings us back to Katie who does intend to be funny, unlike any of the other HMS. Therefore comparisons are irrelevant and unhelpful.
I think those saying Katie amuses them sometimes and defending her by saying humour is subjective are missing the integral point being made by me and others. It isn't that no one does or can ever find her funny, it's that we were sold the idea she'd amuse us with her wit and clever put downs but we've seen very little evidence of this. However we have seen evidence of her picking on the less fortunate in her opinion and being nasty and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it.
Well said. I came back in to try and articulate why I contributed to the thread in the first place and you've done it for me.
The title of the thread references the Emperor's New Clothes; which is all about responding to an expectation; which I feel some people have been doing. We were 'promised' an acerbic wit. We got the acerbic, just without the wit.
Well said. I came back in to try and articulate why I contributed to the thread in the first place and you've done it for me.
The title of the thread references the Emperor's New Clothes; which is all about responding to an expectation; which I feel some people have been doing. We were 'promised' an acerbic wit. We got the acerbic, just without the wit.
I wouldn't say she has no wit, it's just a very base type of wit that it doesn't take too many brain cells to apply. Her 'witticism' to Perez '..you are an irritant, like thrush or even worse syphilis' (i believe it was something to that effect) was just not very witty, a bit worn-out - and this was a routine she had taken time to work on. I agree mostly with the OP, except I would say she is passionate and you can see her passion rise when she is being particularly mean. During 'banana-gate' she seemed in her element and remarked herself that it was the most fun she has in the house since entering. Bizarre!
I would imagine she is intimidating, but not because of some formidable intelligence. Others possibly don't want to cross her, not because they can't rise to her level but because they don't want to sink to that level where she is most comfortable and passionate.
I agree with you....I confess I was watching with interest as to what she would deliver considering this was planned and she had time to write it..........and that was the best she could do?...deary me, painful....just as bad as her limp, sad and unoriginal diary room observations....
I agree with you....I confess I was watching with interest as to what she would deliver considering this was planned and she had time to write it..........and that was the best she could do?...deary me, painful....just as bad as her limp, sad and unoriginal diary room observations....
I actually cringed, especially as she seemed to believe herself it was good because she was delivering it with such aplomb. Did anyone laugh, beyond a nervous titter?
Well said. I came back in to try and articulate why I contributed to the thread in the first place and you've done it for me.
The title of the thread references the Emperor's New Clothes; which is all about responding to an expectation; which I feel some people have been doing. We were 'promised' an acerbic wit. We got the acerbic, just without the wit.
I've already addressed that sort of point, and I don't think that adding the word "acerbic" makes much difference.
Notice, btw, that the OP says nothing about what anyone was promised. It just slags her off, claims "we're supposed to applaud her for sticking two fingers up to political correctness", than is "gobsmacked that so many people are falling for it".
Perhaps if the rest of the thread were about her failing at "sticking two fingers up to political correctness", you would have a point of sorts; but it isn't.
Katie is no great wit, she has occasionally made me laugh but her complete lack of tact, empathy and understanding undermines the idea that she is intelligent. She mouths off without thinking anything through.
Pete Burns was a much quicker acerbic wit than Katie will ever be. The idea that we are all supposed to applaud her for being a bit of a maverick would only hold water if she was doing something admirable and making a valid point. All Katie has treated us to so far are rather commonplace views eg. that Alicia is not the full ticket which really doesn't need pointing out. Sadly there is nobody in the house this year who is genuinely witty without resorting to nasty put downs of other people.
I think those saying Katie amuses them sometimes and defending her by saying humour is subjective are missing the integral point being made by me and others. It isn't that no one does or can ever find her funny, it's that we were sold the idea she'd amuse us with her wit and clever put downs but we've seen very little evidence of this. However we have seen evidence of her picking on the less fortunate in her opinion and being nasty and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it.
The subjectivity of humour is neither irrelevant nor missing the point. The claim that "we've seen very little evidence of this" relies on a subjective evaluation of what we've seen.
Then, in the end, your post comes down to yet another claim that she's utterly lacking in some ability: "and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it" -- even emphasising "ALL".
If all that was meant by the criticisms of Katie in this thread was that she hadn't lived up to what we were supposedly "sold", much more would have been made of that aspect from the start; instead, it became the focus only after the attempts to say she was utterly lacking ran onto the rocks.
In any case, "we've seen very little evidence of this" is very different from the "none", "completely", etc claims and implications made earlier about her capabilities.
The subjectivity of humour is neither irrelevant nor missing the point. The claim that "we've seen very little evidence of this" relies on a subjective evaluation of what we've seen.
Then, in the end, your post comes down to yet another claim that she's utterly lacking in some ability: "and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it" -- even emphasising "ALL".
If all that was meant by the criticisms of Katie in this thread was that she hadn't lived up to what we were supposedly "sold", much more would have been made of that aspect from the start; instead, it became the focus only after the attempts to say she was utterly lacking ran onto the rocks.
In any case, "we've seen very little evidence of this" is very different from the "none", "completely", etc claims and implications made earlier about her capabilities.
I'm sorry Veri but you've completely lost me - I am the OP - I think most people understood exactly what I meant. You have posted over and over about what I actually meant and failed etc. The thread has sort of unravelled and gone off track somewhere along the line.
I know what I meant in the OP - I think there were a few others that did too. I don't understand why you feel the need to tell me what I actually meant or should have said or how I should have worded it.
You've bored the life out of me with your ramblings TBH - too pernickety and pedantic for my taste - c'est la vie;-)
Katie is no great wit, she has occasionally made me laugh but her complete lack of tact, empathy and understanding undermines the idea that she is intelligent. She mouths off without thinking anything through.
I don't think it's true that she has any such "complete lack" or that she mouths off without thinking anything through.
Pete Burns was a much quicker acerbic wit than Katie will ever be. The idea that we are all supposed to applaud her for being a bit of a maverick would only hold water if she was doing something admirable and making a valid point. All Katie has treated us to so far are rather commonplace views eg. that Alicia is not the full ticket which really doesn't need pointing out. Sadly there is nobody in the house this year who is genuinely witty without resorting to nasty put downs of other people.
Pete Burns is an example of how "wit" can make nastiness, if anything, more objectionable, rather than less. Not that he actually was very witty in CBB.
I'm sorry Veri but you've completely lost me - I am the OP - I think most people understood exactly what I meant.
It's clear what you meant in the OP from what you said in the OP, for instance by talking of "so many people ... falling for it". That's why I could explain what the OP said largely by quoting from it.
You have posted over and over about what I actually meant and failed etc
I have not. If you interpreted many of my posts as being about what YOU in particular meant, you have misread them. So far as I can recall, I have made only one post about what you (or, rather, the text of the OP) said, and it's not even the one you quoted.
I think those saying Katie amuses them sometimes and defending her by saying humour is subjective are missing the integral point being made by me and others. It isn't that no one does or can ever find her funny, it's that we were sold the idea she'd amuse us with her wit and clever put downs but we've seen very little evidence of this. However we have seen evidence of her picking on the less fortunate in her opinion and being nasty and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it.
But who sold that to you? And why would you have ever bought it, knowing her and what she is?
I never bought that, I never expected anything from her that would make me reassess her. It's for that reason that I'm really enjoying her as a HM, showing us who she is.
The subjectivity of humour is neither irrelevant nor missing the point. The claim that "we've seen very little evidence of this" relies on a subjective evaluation of what we've seen.
. . .
I didn't say that the subjectivity of humour is irrelevant and missing the point per se I said it missed the integral point here and then I went on to explain why.
As for me being subjective when I say I have seen little evidence of Katie's humour, what else can I be What else can anybody do but give their view on what they have witnessed. Having said that though, I am open to hearing about other's subjective view on the humour Katie has demonstrated but there hasn't been much response to that request as of yet.
If all that was meant by the criticisms of Katie in this thread was that she hadn't lived up to what we were supposedly "sold", much more would have been made of that aspect from the start; instead, it became the focus only after the attempts to say she was utterly lacking ran onto the rocks.
In any case, "we've seen very little evidence of this" is very different from the "none", "completely", etc claims and implications made earlier about her capabilities.
I understood that this is what the the OP was getting at but I'm not too bothered if the point hasn't been religiously followed all the way though as threads often twist and turn. Still for me, Katie hasn't lived up to expectations and I have been pointing this out since the launch night when she was given a task in which her wit could shine. She was a let down then and has been subsequently.
But who sold that to you? And why would you have ever bought it, knowing her and what she is?
I never bought that, I never expected anything from her that would make me reassess her. It's for that reason that I'm really enjoying her as a HM, showing us who she is.
Well I haven't been let down too badly or mis-sold for too lengthy a period as I caught on in her launch night twist that she was pretty useless at off the cuff humour ;-):D
I didn't say that the subjectivity of humour is irrelevant and missing the point per se I said it missed the integral point here and then I went on to explain why.
I meant it was not missing that point which you claimed it missed.
As for me being subjective when I say I have seen little evidence of Katie's humour, what else can I be What else can anybody do but give their view on what they have witnessed. Having said that though, I am open to hearing about other's subjective view on the humour Katie has demonstrated but there hasn't been much response to that request as of yet.
If it's subjective, then those "defending her by saying humour is subjective" are not missing the integral point.
I don't know who or what you think "sold the idea she'd amuse us with her wit and clever put downs", but I am quite sure they did not intend whatever they said as a promise that people were bound to be amused no matter what their subjective take on wit etc might be.
Can you, btw, find anyone who thinks they bought such an idea themself and were disappointed, so as to count as "falling for it"? So far as I could tell, the complaints about anything like that were from people who didn't buy it.
I understood that this is what the the OP was getting at but I'm not too bothered if the point hasn't been religiously followed all the way though as threads often twist and turn. Still for me, Katie hasn't lived up to expectations and I have been pointing this out since the launch night when she was given a task in which her wit could shine. She was a let down then and has been subsequently.
If that was the understanding, then it is odd that so little was made of that aspect in post after post until after the attempts to say she was utterly lacking ran onto the rocks. It's not about anything being religiously followed, just that it did not seem to be the focus, main emphasis, chief topic, or even very a very significant part of what was said. And remember that the OP said "we're supposed to applaud her for sticking two fingers up to political correctness." Not for wit or humour or clever put-downs.
How many horrible housemates over the years have used "I'm just being honest!" to excuse their behaviour and why are people falling for it this time?
I don't think anyone falls for it. Some people see it that way themselves, and agree if the HM says it too; they don't think something different but change their mind because the HM says "I'm just being honest!". (I suppose it's conceivable that someone does that, but it must be very, very rare.
I similarly don't think many were "sold" something about Katie or "fell" for it.
Well I haven't been let down too badly or mis-sold for too lengthy a period as I caught on in her launch night twist that she was pretty useless at off the cuff humour ;-):D
My hope (although it's not really a bothersome one as I don't really come across her outside of BB, she's just not on my horizon) is that CBB will actually be the nail in her overhyped coffin. Those who knew/saw her for what she is will welcome her appearance on CBB for giving the reality of what she is a platform, and those who saw her as an 'intelligent voice of reason' will die of embarrassment that they could ever have seen her as that.
My hope (although it's not really a bothersome one as I don't really come across her outside of BB, she's just not on my horizon) is that CBB will actually be the nail in her overhyped coffin. Those who knew/saw her for what she is will welcome her appearance on CBB for giving the reality of what she is a platform, and those who saw her as an 'intelligent voice of reason' will die of embarrassment that they could ever have seen her as that.
My hope (although it's not really a bothersome one as I don't really come across her outside of BB, she's just not on my horizon) is that CBB will actually be the nail in her overhyped coffin. Those who knew/saw her for what she is will welcome her appearance on CBB for giving the reality of what she is a platform, and those who saw her as an 'intelligent voice of reason' will die of embarrassment that they could ever have seen her as that.
Well I thought Perez's 'banquish' was far funnier than Katie's come back. Having said that I know he wasn't being witty, just stupid Often people are funnier when they don't intend it which brings us back to Katie who does intend to be funny, unlike any of the other HMS. Therefore comparisons are irrelevant and unhelpful.
I think those saying Katie amuses them sometimes and defending her by saying humour is subjective are missing the integral point being made by me and others. It isn't that no one does or can ever find her funny, it's that we were sold the idea she'd amuse us with her wit and clever put downs but we've seen very little evidence of this. However we have seen evidence of her picking on the less fortunate in her opinion and being nasty and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it.
Comments
Excellent.:) Spot on!
I've never thought anything other than this about her. She was fawning over most of them until she got a gang behind her, all of whom I think she's scared of. She's a cowardly repugnant snob, making money from behaving like an obnoxious spoiled child. She wouldn't spit on any of her so called friend in there, they are way beneath her inane standards in life. . She's not remotely funny and she's incredibly tedious. Would any of us allow our children to behave the way she does towards each other?
Well said. I came back in to try and articulate why I contributed to the thread in the first place and you've done it for me.
The title of the thread references the Emperor's New Clothes; which is all about responding to an expectation; which I feel some people have been doing. We were 'promised' an acerbic wit. We got the acerbic, just without the wit.
Love the bib :cool:
I agree with you....I confess I was watching with interest as to what she would deliver considering this was planned and she had time to write it..........and that was the best she could do?...deary me, painful....just as bad as her limp, sad and unoriginal diary room observations....
I actually cringed, especially as she seemed to believe herself it was good because she was delivering it with such aplomb. Did anyone laugh, beyond a nervous titter?
I've already addressed that sort of point, and I don't think that adding the word "acerbic" makes much difference.
Notice, btw, that the OP says nothing about what anyone was promised. It just slags her off, claims "we're supposed to applaud her for sticking two fingers up to political correctness", than is "gobsmacked that so many people are falling for it".
Perhaps if the rest of the thread were about her failing at "sticking two fingers up to political correctness", you would have a point of sorts; but it isn't.
Pete Burns was a much quicker acerbic wit than Katie will ever be. The idea that we are all supposed to applaud her for being a bit of a maverick would only hold water if she was doing something admirable and making a valid point. All Katie has treated us to so far are rather commonplace views eg. that Alicia is not the full ticket which really doesn't need pointing out. Sadly there is nobody in the house this year who is genuinely witty without resorting to nasty put downs of other people.
The subjectivity of humour is neither irrelevant nor missing the point. The claim that "we've seen very little evidence of this" relies on a subjective evaluation of what we've seen.
Then, in the end, your post comes down to yet another claim that she's utterly lacking in some ability: "and it seems to me that this is ALL she can do really when it comes down to it" -- even emphasising "ALL".
If all that was meant by the criticisms of Katie in this thread was that she hadn't lived up to what we were supposedly "sold", much more would have been made of that aspect from the start; instead, it became the focus only after the attempts to say she was utterly lacking ran onto the rocks.
In any case, "we've seen very little evidence of this" is very different from the "none", "completely", etc claims and implications made earlier about her capabilities.
I'm sorry Veri but you've completely lost me - I am the OP - I think most people understood exactly what I meant. You have posted over and over about what I actually meant and failed etc. The thread has sort of unravelled and gone off track somewhere along the line.
I know what I meant in the OP - I think there were a few others that did too. I don't understand why you feel the need to tell me what I actually meant or should have said or how I should have worded it.
You've bored the life out of me with your ramblings TBH - too pernickety and pedantic for my taste - c'est la vie;-)
I
I don't think it's true that she has any such "complete lack" or that she mouths off without thinking anything through.
Pete Burns is an example of how "wit" can make nastiness, if anything, more objectionable, rather than less. Not that he actually was very witty in CBB.
It's clear what you meant in the OP from what you said in the OP, for instance by talking of "so many people ... falling for it". That's why I could explain what the OP said largely by quoting from it.
I have not. If you interpreted many of my posts as being about what YOU in particular meant, you have misread them. So far as I can recall, I have made only one post about what you (or, rather, the text of the OP) said, and it's not even the one you quoted.
But who sold that to you? And why would you have ever bought it, knowing her and what she is?
I never bought that, I never expected anything from her that would make me reassess her. It's for that reason that I'm really enjoying her as a HM, showing us who she is.
I didn't say that the subjectivity of humour is irrelevant and missing the point per se I said it missed the integral point here and then I went on to explain why.
As for me being subjective when I say I have seen little evidence of Katie's humour, what else can I be
I understood that this is what the the OP was getting at but I'm not too bothered if the point hasn't been religiously followed all the way though as threads often twist and turn. Still for me, Katie hasn't lived up to expectations and I have been pointing this out since the launch night when she was given a task in which her wit could shine. She was a let down then and has been subsequently.
Well I haven't been let down too badly or mis-sold for too lengthy a period as I caught on in her launch night twist that she was pretty useless at off the cuff humour ;-):D
I meant it was not missing that point which you claimed it missed.
If it's subjective, then those "defending her by saying humour is subjective" are not missing the integral point.
I don't know who or what you think "sold the idea she'd amuse us with her wit and clever put downs", but I am quite sure they did not intend whatever they said as a promise that people were bound to be amused no matter what their subjective take on wit etc might be.
Can you, btw, find anyone who thinks they bought such an idea themself and were disappointed, so as to count as "falling for it"? So far as I could tell, the complaints about anything like that were from people who didn't buy it.
If that was the understanding, then it is odd that so little was made of that aspect in post after post until after the attempts to say she was utterly lacking ran onto the rocks. It's not about anything being religiously followed, just that it did not seem to be the focus, main emphasis, chief topic, or even very a very significant part of what was said. And remember that the OP said "we're supposed to applaud her for sticking two fingers up to political correctness." Not for wit or humour or clever put-downs.
I don't think anyone falls for it. Some people see it that way themselves, and agree if the HM says it too; they don't think something different but change their mind because the HM says "I'm just being honest!". (I suppose it's conceivable that someone does that, but it must be very, very rare.
I similarly don't think many were "sold" something about Katie or "fell" for it.
My hope (although it's not really a bothersome one as I don't really come across her outside of BB, she's just not on my horizon) is that CBB will actually be the nail in her overhyped coffin. Those who knew/saw her for what she is will welcome her appearance on CBB for giving the reality of what she is a platform, and those who saw her as an 'intelligent voice of reason' will die of embarrassment that they could ever have seen her as that.
That would be a good outcome.
It really would wouldn't it?:)
I could live happily with that
Agree totally TT