Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey:
“Well it probably wasn't, come to think of it. That would suggest that Chip paper actually did think the others looked 'bitter and beat', whereas actually I think he or she was just baiting. ”
I am disappointed to see you adopting that use of "baiting" as an acceptable way to criticise forum members.
(I was hoping that particular meme would stay confined to a certain thread where it seemed to originate and flourish.)
Quote:
“It seemed obvious that both conversations were arranged in advance by those involved. (I mean, the first one could not possibly have been anything else, since it was in a private room, and the second one did not look like a camera crew creeping up unexpectedly.) Both Amy and Rebecca wanted to state their position; perhaps both really did think they would get the other one to back down.
...
No, I'm sure she was stuck with it once it had been filmed; I think it was a bit of a mistake for her to do the conversations at all. She had already said her piece in the tabloids and had nothing much to gain by being filmed having arguments; she seemed oddly taken by surprise by Alfonso's, and reduced to agreeing meekly with everything he said.”
Well, you think it's obvious that the conversations were arranged by those involved; someone else thought it was obvious that the producers set them up as a bit if "constructed reality"; and somehow the issue of consent (or agreeing to have the conversations on camera), which had seemed to be what this was about, has dropped out of the picture.
I don't understand -- and I don't think anyone's said -- why it's thought to
matter. I can't recall it ever being brought up about anything similar before.
In another thread, you said "both conversations were on camera, with the consent of those involved". I tried to see if you explained further there, but if you did, I can't find it.