|
||||||||
Stop blaming Jules |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Don't worry. If we were voting for 'The person who talks most nonsense' you'd absolutely come first. I don't think there's a doubt in anyone's mind about that.
And you're right, you can't have any form of serious debate with an idiot who has neither common sense or anything even resembling a sense of perspective respective. Or the ability to do anything besides repeat the same thing over and over. I posted above, plenty of facts in my post. You ignored it because facts are not what you deal in. Random waffling and making it up as you go along is more your style. You're monumentally boring and like a never ending broken record. So please, carry on with your inane waffling. But please understand that people see it as just that. Inane waffling. It was a con and made out to be one with producers now apologising and some crying. - Strange behaviour if nothing has happened. Still, if you are not going to face and address the facts the first time, there is no point asking you to address them this time either. The fact that you cut out all the actual facts that you can't address in my post says it all - More cover-up and avoidance than the BGT final! |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,487
|
Quote:
The only people whose opinions seem to matter to you are those who watched every episode of the show and those who own smart phones. Why are you against people who don't have smart phones? I have several friends who earn more than me who choose not to have smart phones (I do have one and only voted from it). What's wrong with that? All some people require in every day life is a mobile to make and receive calls; some don't even need that. If they have spent their hard earned money on something which they later feel has been a con, it is none of your business, no matter how big or small the amount.
You also keep using the word 'since.' Chase has not been used 'since' the semi-final. Chase was used in the semi-final and that was made explicit by Jules. It was not made explicit by her in the final. Therefore the use of the word 'since' is incorrect. Would the act have got the same number of votes if the public knew beforehand a double of Matisse was doing the high wire act . I'm not sure . |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
Quote:
Indeed. But if they're to blame anyone, the proof shows it should be the producers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Wasn't the voting very close between first and second . If the viewers had known 3 dogs were involved she may not have got as many votes .
Remember also a quarter of a million pounds is involved . The 2nd placed contestant could well have won the money .
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
The only people whose opinions seem to matter to you are those who watched every episode of the show and those who own smart phones. Why are you against people who don't have smart phones? I have several friends who earn more than me who choose not to have smart phones (I do have one and only voted from it). What's wrong with that? All some people require in every day life is a mobile to make and receive calls; some don't even need that. If they have spent their hard earned money on something which they later feel has been a con, it is none of your business, no matter how big or small the amount.
Quote:
You also keep using the word 'since.' Chase has not been used 'since' the semi-final. Chase was used in the semi-final and that was made explicit by Jules. It was not made explicit by her in the final. Therefore the use of the word 'since' is incorrect.
I said 'We've known Chase was a part of her act since the semi final', which is true and gramatically correct. I didn't say Chase was used since her semi final.
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
I disagree. If your act is Jules and Matisse, you should not be pretending that another dog is Matisse. If Matisse can't do the rope walk, then you shouldn't have the rope walk
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
I disagree. If your act is Jules and Matisse, you should not be pretending that another dog is Matisse. If Matisse can't do the rope walk, then you shouldn't have the rope walk
It's all very clear and clan cut, yet these facts are not being addressed here and all we are getting is a group of fans trying to tell others what is what and ignore the facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
That's it exactly. The act is titled "Jules and Matisse" and deception was used in the act to make out that it was one dog and made obvious that was what they were trying to do by not mentioning it and hiding the extra dog at the end.
It's all very clear and clan cut, yet these facts are not being addressed here and all we are getting is a group of fans trying to tell others what is what and ignore the facts. Jules wanted to call her act Jules & Friends but the producers generalised it to Jules & Matisse. Jules wanted to bring Chase out but the producers told her not to. Those are facts. |
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
That wasn't her fault, though.
Jules wanted to call her act Jules & Friends but the producers generalised it to Jules & Matisse. Jules wanted to bring Chase out but the producers told her not to. Those are facts. She was complicit in the act and if she didn't like it she could have taken that section out of her act. She could have said a quick line about it whenever they stuck a mic in her mouth to ask how she was doing. It was she who committed the crime. If I tell you to murder someone and you do it, then I can assure you that you will be in a lot more trouble than me and saying "He told me to do it!" won't get you off of the fact that you murdered someone. You have free will. So did she! You are trying to make her out to be innocent when she freely chose to do that deception and if coerced into it she was free to object and to go to the papers about it afterwards. She just chose to actively deceive the voting public. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
She was complicit in the act and if she didn't like it she could have taken that section out of her act. She could have said a quick line about it whenever they stuck a mic in her mouth to ask how she was doing. It was she who committed the crime. Quote:
If I tell you to murder someone and you do it, then I can assure you that you will be in a lot more trouble than me and saying "He told me to do it!" won't get you off of the fact that you murdered someone. You have free will. So did she!
That's a completely different scenario. This one is just a acting dog act with three dogs instead of two. It's not a murder.Quote:
You are trying to make her out to be innocent when she freely chose to do that deception and if coerced into it she was free to object and to go to the papers about it afterwards. She just chose to actively deceive the voting public.
Jules is innocent as Simon Cowell (the executive producer) has said as such. Her innocence is fact.
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
|
Quote:
If I tell you to murder someone and you do it, then I can assure you that you will be in a lot more trouble than me and saying "He told me to do it!" won't get you off of the fact that you murdered someone. You have free will. So did she!
. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Another time, another place..
Posts: 24,629
|
Quote:
How many numerous other threads do you have and comments on others where you have made out that the whole thing is nonsense and now on this one you are just trying to narrow it down to getting her off after failing to get the whole show off.
She was complicit in the act and if she didn't like it she could have taken that section out of her act. She could have said a quick line about it whenever they stuck a mic in her mouth to ask how she was doing. It was she who committed the crime. If I tell you to murder someone and you do it, then I can assure you that you will be in a lot more trouble than me and saying "He told me to do it!" won't get you off of the fact that you murdered someone. You have free will. So did she! You are trying to make her out to be innocent when she freely chose to do that deception and if coerced into it she was free to object and to go to the papers about it afterwards. She just chose to actively deceive the voting public. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
Has this issue really affected you so dearly that you think taking someone's life is the same thing as training a dog to walk a tightrope on a talent show. It's actually very depressing you have compared the two.
Perhaps they've found a way of avoiding it entirely, by just finding things to whine about on the telly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Simon Cowell: "I was frustrated because I didn't really know what I was judging until afterwards so I felt like a bit of an idiot."
So if he didn't know what he was judging then sure as hell the voters who parted with money didn't either and Mr Cowell was there live watching everything. So all this nonsense about seeing that it was another dog with all the camera edits becomes laughable. Clearly Mr. Cowell felt conned/Duped/Deceived by it and he didn't part with any money. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Simon Cowell: "I was frustrated because I didn't really know what I was judging until afterwards so I felt like a bit of an idiot."
So if he didn't know what he was judging then sure as hell the voters who parted with money didn't either and Mr Cowell was there live watching everything. So all this nonsense about seeing that it was another dog with all the camera edits becomes laughable. Clearly Mr. Cowell felt conned/Duped/Deceived by it and he didn't part with any money. 1. It's caused controvesy and therefore given the show more publicity. 2. It's probably resulted in him gaining more money from people desperate to interview him and the show being featured more (it is copyrighted). 3. Chase was a part of the act from the semi final. |
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Has this issue really affected you so dearly that you think taking someone's life is the same thing as training a dog to walk a tightrope on a talent show. It's actually very depressing you have compared the two.
People who go along with breaking the law are complicit in it. Whether murder or actively defrauding the public. Lots more debating could get done on DS if it wasn't for all this deliberate avoidance of the points raised. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
It was clearly a point of law. The fact that you didn't/don't see that is worrying.
People who go along with breaking the law are complicit in it. Whether murder or actively defrauding the public. Lots more debating could get done on DS if it wasn't for all this deliberate avoidance of the points raised. |
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Simon Cowell would be stupid to feel conned given that:
1. It's caused controvesy and therefore given the show more publicity. 2. It's probably resulted in him gaining more money from people desperate to interview him and the show being featured more (it is copyrighted). 3. Chase was a part of the act from the semi final. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Except Jules didn't break the law. If you took it to the police, they'd laugh at you and you'd be fined for wasting police time.
Sorry but it really is the only way to deal with your constant avoidance and acceptance of anything that doesn't meet with your opinion: And that includes reality. I have taken the rouble to set out what happens in law and how people that are complicit in that law break are also guilty and yet you dismiss that fact and reality and just state the opposite with nothing to back you up. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 727
|
Quote:
Simon Cowell: "I was frustrated because I didn't really know what I was judging until afterwards so I felt like a bit of an idiot."
So if he didn't know what he was judging then sure as hell the voters who parted with money didn't either and Mr Cowell was there live watching everything. So all this nonsense about seeing that it was another dog with all the camera edits becomes laughable. Clearly Mr. Cowell felt conned/Duped/Deceived by it and he didn't part with any money. You're either naïve or stupid. I can't decide which! He is an executive Producer and will have watched the rehearsals and known exactly what was going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
|
Hahahahaha saying someone else can't accept reality in the same sentence as saying the 'law' is opinion and not fact. Hahahahaha.
You couldn't make it up. I'm also highly amused that one of my posts was removed. I do wonder who complained about that hhmmm. First time I've had a post removed! Excellent! And yes, because Cowell isn't a media mogul who never lies to the press to make himself seem blameless and I honestly believe the shows executive producer didn't know there were three dogs in the final. And pigs fly, daily. Jules should have auditioned as a magician. Because hiding a dog the size of Chase from everyone involved. At all times besides when he was walking the ropes. Even whilst she was on stage is a far better trick then anything Jamie Raven managed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
|
Quote:
People who go along with breaking the law are complicit in it. Whether murder or actively defrauding the public. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
|
Quote:
It was clearly a point of law. The fact that you didn't/don't see that is worrying.
People who go along with breaking the law are complicit in it. Whether murder or actively defrauding the public. Lots more debating could get done on DS if it wasn't for all this deliberate avoidance of the points raised. At his point I'll have to assume you're a troll. Because likening a dog you didn't know was Chase (because you didn't see the collar he was clearly wearing) walking a tightrope to murder is nobodies idea of actual reality. Good trolling effort. You had us all going! |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
|
Quote:
Except Jules didn't break the law. If you took it to the police, they'd laugh at you and you'd be fined for wasting police time.
Operator; Please go ahead. Stay calm and tell us as much detail as you can. Caller; I voted for a dog.... Beep- your call has been disconnected. Please hang up. Beep- your call has been disconnected. Please hang up. Beep- your call has been disconnected. Please hang up. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
|
Quote:
Caller; I have an urgent crime to report
Operator; Please go ahead. Stay calm and tell us as much detail as you can. Caller; I voted for a dog.... Beep- your call has been disconnected. Please hang up. Beep- your call has been disconnected. Please hang up. Beep- your call has been disconnected. Please hang up. I 100% think OE should call the police right away and report this heinous crime against humanity. If that's not something they're prepared to do then I can only assume they don't actually believe what they're saying themselves. Either that or they're not a good, stand up citizen. Because good people report a crime if they see one. Call the police right away is my advice. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.




