|
||||||||
Ofcom are going to look into BGT scam, after 1,150 complaints |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
Given how obsessed and outraged you are by this I genuinely have absolutely no idea how you cope with day to day life.
I feel terribly sorry for your friends and family having to put up with this level of outrage and gigantic over reactions at the tiniest non event. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
My family and friends are honest people who also believe like a lot of the UK, this was a con.
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
|
Quote:
My family and friends are honest people who also believe like a lot of the UK, this was a con.
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
|
Quote:
My family and friends are honest people who also believe like a lot of the UK, this was a con.
Are you sure you don't want that dictionary? You seem to now be struggling with 'a lot'. Because there is no reality in which 1000 people is considered 'a lot of the U.K.' Or ever 'a lot' of the total 4.5 million people that voted. And to claim it 'a lot is nothing besides complete and utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
I think there's a high probability that you are the only person you know who shares your obsession, or your strange opinion.
It was as fake as they could make it and you defenders are hilarious and all just because of your obsession with a dog act. Fortunately there are laws in place to stop people getting con and saves us all from cover-up artists such as yourself. |
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
|
Quote:
What's your opinion of deliberately hiding the extra dog to mislead and con people then.
It was as fake as they could make it and you defenders are hilarious and all just because of your obsession with a dog act. Fortunately there are laws in place to stop people getting con and saves us all from cover-up artists such as yourself. The dog had a collar on with its name shown. The fact you claim you couldn't see it doesn't change the fact that the dog had a collar on with his name on. It also doesn't change the fact that when questioned Jules stated Chase performed the rope walk. Had the intention to deceive been there the dog wouldn't have had that collar on. Again you can spout your opinion as many time as you like. It's doesn't make it fact, or change the actual proven facts. How long shall we go around in this circle? Let's shorten it for the sake of speed. You'll reply with what is your opinion. Others will reply with actual facts proving you wrong. Facts which you'll ignore and continue to claim your opinion as fact. Rince and repeat. |
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
|
Quote:
What's your opinion of deliberately hiding the extra dog to mislead and con people then.
It was as fake as they could make it and you defenders are hilarious and all just because of your obsession with a dog act. Fortunately there are laws in place to stop people getting con and saves us all from cover-up artists such as yourself. I also find it ironic that you are complaining about others "obsession with a dog act" when your own posts seem so determined to eek out every last drop of well everything to do with it. Where is your passion over the fake crowd, during the audition phases? Where is it when the Magician (yes again) also didn't tell all the trades of his art? Where is it for acts miming? |
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
As I already posted. But you have ignored several times.
The dog had a collar on with its name shown. The fact you claim you couldn't see it doesn't change the fact that the dog had a collar on with his name on. It also doesn't change the fact that when questioned Jules stated Chase performed the rope walk. Had the intention to deceive been there the dog wouldn't have had that collar on. Again you can spout your opinion as many time as you like. It's doesn't make it fact, or change the actual proven facts. How long shall we go around in this circle? Let's shorten it for the sake of speed. You'll reply with what is your opinion. Others will reply with actual facts proving you wrong. Facts which you'll ignore and continue to claim your opinion as fact. Rince and repeat. |
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
|
Quote:
The coller was the get out clause, that sadly some have fallen for, but as pointed out it was not in any way visible from the fast moving dog on screen, as the only way to see it was the paper blowing a still up.
But those of us in the real world who comprehend the meaning of words realise putting a collar on a dog with his name on it shows zero intent to deceive. But please. Carry on ignoring any and every actual fact related to this and keep on with your vendetta. Ps. See you didn't define 'a lot of the U.K.' as asked. What a shock! |
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
Oh that's a new one.
But those of us in the real world who comprehend the meaning of words realise putting a collar on a dog with his name on it shows zero intent to deceive. But please. Carry on ignoring any and every actual fact related to this and keep on with your vendetta. Ps. See you didn't define 'a lot of the U.K.' as asked. What a shock! |
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
|
There is also the fact that despite Chase and Matisse being the same breed with the same colour markings they also have different types of markings.
The only way you can say it was deliberately misleading is if Jules imported a similar looking dog (Matisse and Chase are both hers) and had his markings altered to compare to Matisse. |
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
|
Quote:
So did you see the coller name on the night..
Once again. The fact it was there shows there was no intent to deceive. I repeat. If they had wanted us to think it was Matisse the collar wouldn't have been there. Jules wouldn't have mentioned it on TV next morning and we'd all be non the wiser. I fail to see why you're finding that so hard to grasp. |
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
What's your opinion of deliberately hiding the extra dog to mislead and con people then.
It was as fake as they could make it and you defenders are hilarious and all just because of your obsession with a dog act. Fortunately there are laws in place to stop people getting con and saves us all from cover-up artists such as yourself. The idea that anyone was "conned" is the product either of woolly minds or of bad losers' revenge fantasies. Either way, it should be treated with the contempt it deserves. |
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,487
|
Why was there NO mention of Chase in the final, especially when he carried out the most difficult part of the act ?
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
I will shut up if anyone can show again like the semi, she brought out the extra dog.. But it was Hidden from the public and not mentioned!
Normal people don't think that way. A normal thought process wouldn't include the paranoid thought process "oh, people might see fraud in this if they're super-over-sensitive". No, a normal thought process would be that they're putting on a show and that they want it to tell a smooth unbroken story. You don't fold public paranoia and potential persecution into planning an act. And... I see all the ranting here has gotten the BGT forum banished off the front forum page and now it's only a subforum. Good job!
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
Why was there NO mention of Chase in the final, especially when he carried out the most difficult part of the act ?
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
And... I see all the ranting here has gotten the BGT forum banished off the front forum page and now it's only a subforum. Good job!
![]() Anyway there are other clues as to why it wasn't deliberate deception imho. Not only were the collars different but Matisse and Chase are not identical just a close likeness. For a deliberate deception to have taken place one would have had to tint the fur of one or both animals. Also the timing between the disappearance of one animal and the appearance of the other was a bit quick, I did actually think that on the night. To be totally convincing bigger time lapses would need to have taken place. I think the swiftness of these actions further shows what a very tight time schedule they were on (the whole programme) and so the editing/production team would have been keen to cut out or leave out what they believed to be relatively unimportant. Stage direction would likely have been very strict and tight with little or no time for spontaneous deviations. |
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
I think the swiftness of these actions further shows what a very tight time schedule they were on (the whole programme) and so the editing/production team would have been keen to cut out or leave out what they believed to be relatively unimportant. Stage direction would likely have been very strict and tight with little or no time for spontaneous deviations.
And again, add the filter that a SANE non-paranoid contestant (as well as a sane non-paranoid show crew) would have NO reason to assume the dog swap would be an issue anyone would care about. Every time our local rabble-rousers scream and yell it's about how they "intended to pull the wool over people's eyes" or some similar phrase. No. Sure they didn't put a disclaimer or overtly say the dogs were switched. But why would anyone think they HAD to? Again, as I have before, I return to the example of the mixed media performances. Do they step up to a microphone after and point out exactly which bits were pre-recorded (and thus shouldn't be judged as part of their "live act"? Of course they don't! Are they defrauding people by not doing so? I don't see anyone claiming they are. This is the same in spirit as that. But try to get Old Cranypants and that other guy to acknowledge that. |
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Another time, another place..
Posts: 24,629
|
Quote:
If you could have shown a single scrap of actual proof that Jules set out to hide the dog then you would have done so by now.
All you have is your opinion. Which is shown to be wrong by facts. Fact. The dog had a collar with his name on (saying, well I couldn't see it doesn't change this fact - he still had a collar on). He would not have if anyone wanted his identity as Chase hidden. Fact. The first time Jules was asked about the rope trick she said Chase did it. Had she wanted this hidden. She wouldn't have done that. Fact. The finale received a total of 1150 complaints. Fact. 200 of those complaints were about the female judges dresses. Which means less than 950 were about Jules (Jamie received complaints too but I don't know how many). Fact. Jules won by a margin of 90k. So if all of those people who have complained had voted differently then Jules would still have won. If 10x the amount who complained had voted differently. Jules would still have won. Those are facts. Undeniable facts. Not my opinion. Facts. Based on actual events and numbers. Real actual fact. You can dress you opinion up all you want and repeat it until you are blue in the face. But that's all it is. Your opinion. It is not a fact that Jules tried to hide Chase and you don't have one single solitary piece of factual evidence to show that she did. Why? Because there is non. But as I've said previously, you will carry on dressing up your opinion as fact and the diatribe will continue because facts aren't what you're interested in. Taking any and all opportunities to snipe at Jules is all you're interested in. So please feel free to carry on. Quote:
I will shut up if anyone can show again like the semi, she brought out the extra dog.. But it was Hidden from the public and not mentioned!
Quote:
What's your opinion of deliberately hiding the extra dog to mislead and con people then.
It was as fake as they could make it and you defenders are hilarious and all just because of your obsession with a dog act. Fortunately there are laws in place to stop people getting con and saves us all from cover-up artists such as yourself. Quote:
The coller was the get out clause, that sadly some have fallen for, but as pointed out it was not in any way visible from the fast moving dog on screen, as the only way to see it was the paper blowing a still up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
See a sane and informed discussion of how stage direction actually works and how that affects performers isn't going to wash with the insanity of the same one or two posters who just keep repeating the same two or three sentence objections over and over and ignore any counter-arguments or logic that doesn't suit them. They'll just act like they never saw your post.
And again, add the filter that a SANE non-paranoid contestant (as well as a sane non-paranoid show crew) would have NO reason to assume the dog swap would be an issue anyone would care about. Every time our local rabble-rousers scream and yell it's about how they "intended to pull the wool over people's eyes" or some similar phrase. No. Sure they didn't put a disclaimer or overtly say the dogs were switched. But why would anyone think they HAD to? Again, as I have before, I return to the example of the mixed media performances. Do they step up to a microphone after and point out exactly which bits were pre-recorded (and thus shouldn't be judged as part of their "live act"? Of course they don't! Are they defrauding people by not doing so? I don't see anyone claiming they are. This is the same in spirit as that. But try to get Old Cranypants and that other guy to acknowledge that. |
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
Yeah it's one of those situations where they didn't or couldn't predict what the public reaction (or some of the public) would be. Whilst in retrospect it may have been wiser to bring out Chase at the end it was much too sloppy with too many clues to be a nefarious act of deception.
Okay, if people don't like the mixed media pre-recorded example lets go back to magic. Lets use a trick everyone in the world knows how it's done, because it's been revealed in dozens of "how it's done" segments (done by magicians themselves, since they know the trick is long "cooked") I mean does anyone really care that when you saw a person in half that maybe (in the version of the trick that's been outted--but there are others that haven't been) an unnamed person who isn't credited might be part of the trick too? Is that cheating too, since you don't walk onstage afterwards and introduce the second person? |
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
I wouldn't even call it "sloppy". As far as I can see they had no reason to even BEGIN to think anyone would object. There was no sane or rationale context for them to believe anyone would care, since it was just standard stagecraft. They neither tried to hide which dog did the trick NOR tried to draw attention to it, because logically to them it was irrelevant--the dog was playing a role in a story and the standin dog was playing the same role for one scene.
Okay, if people don't like the mixed media pre-recorded example lets go back to magic. Lets use a trick everyone in the world knows how it's done, because it's been revealed in dozens of "how it's done" segments (done by magicians themselves, since they know the trick is long "cooked") I mean does anyone really care that when you saw a person in half that maybe (in the version of the trick that's been outted--but there are others that haven't been) an unnamed person who isn't credited might be part of the trick too? Is that cheating too, since you don't walk onstage afterwards and introduce the second person? |
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
This was not a 'magic trick' we voted on one dog doing a show, and how talented it was, other wise we looking at the old travelling circus acts with dogs, silly little simple tricks that we clap out of kindness, but not really much of a trick.
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
By "we" do you mean yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
|
Quote:
What about those who have been banging on and on about this for what feel like months? . |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34.



.
