Oscar Pistorius. Who he?

[trillery]

max_tranmere wrote:

> Everyone knows who Bolt is


Even you! !shocked!

[Sam Slater]

You didn't answer my question: if you have to be a 'household name' to get lots of press attention, how does one deserve enough press attention to become a household name?

And Pistorius isn't a 'nobody'. He's only a 'nobody' to you because you're not interested in sport. This is about your ignorance, not the fact he's getting news coverage he "doesn't deserve" as you so stupidly put it.

I'm not saying other similar crimes are less or more important, but despite what you claim, I'd say a large portion of the public of the planet know who Oscar Pistorius is, or at least know 'Blade Runner', or 'that guy who got to the Olympics semi-finals who had no legs'. That will always make the news.

What is telling is that over the years you've given us a running commentary on the various plot lines in Eastenders, yet you don't know who the fastest man on the planet is with no legs. Find more interests.

[max_tranmere]

You didn't seem to read my answer. Something like the Fred West affair involved a nobody but it got vast coverage because what he did was an evil and significant act. Just like any other non-entity that commits multiple murders. Another example of this is Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, he was a nobody but it got massive coverage because of the evil-ness and scale of what he did.

If the bladerunner was somewhat famous, very very famous, or not famous at all, him murdering someone ought to be covered, but sometimes these things barely are. I said just now about two serious incidents in South Africa which the correspondent on Channel 4 news (who is from there) said she was somewhat puzzled at the lack of coverage those things have got and how there is saturation coverage of this guy bumping off his missus.

So a nobody would get coverage (usually anyway) for a bad act, someone well known would get more coverage, a mega mega star would warrant saturation worldwide coverage. This guy is known, he isn't as big a star as some of the examples of people I've given to justify this sort of coverage.

And lastly: who the fuck are you to tell me to go and "Find more interests"? I will have as many or as few interests in my life as I like - unless I have to run it by you first of course. Perhaps I should email you with a list of the interests I have in my life and ask if you approve. If you don't then maybe I should alter my life to suit your expectations and demands. I mean, who the fuck are you? My fucking dad?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You didn't seem to read my answer. Something like the Fred West affair involved a nobody but it got vast coverage because what he did was an evil and significant act. [/quote]

I did, and my question wasn't about the Wests, you thick cunt. You said Pistorius 'didn't deserve' the media coverage because he wasn't a household name. I'm merely asking how anyone becomes a household name in the first place if not being a household name denies you media coverage? By your logic everyone is locked out unless you yourself have heard of them. Muhammed Ali is a household name. Why do people outside an interest in boxing know who Muhammed Ali is? Is it because he was mouthy, cheeky and had character to go with it, which the general media picked up on? Of course, according to you he didn't deserve the coverage he was getting at the time because a) he'd not killed anyone or done anything else heinous enough to get public attention, and b) he wasn't in Eastenders.

Like I said: you're talking out of your arse and most of what you say on here is a running commentary of your spontaneous feelings that have no real thought behind them. None of your stances on anything have any real logic behind them and it's all very haphazard and jumpled. You also fail to comprehend the simplest of explanations even when somebody takes the time out to repeatedly tell you. I was going to say 'childlike' but even a 5 year old girl can tell you the logic behind her favourite doll: "I like it's curly hair!". You're incapable of that, yet you have much more information at your disposal, which makes me worry: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[quote]And lastly: who the fuck are you to tell me to go and "Find more interests"?[/quote]

More advice than an order, Max. And who the fuck are you to decide who is and isn't deserving of press attention? Go watch your silly soaps and leave the news-reading to the grown-ups.

Fucks sake......

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Everyone knows who Bolt is, he really became a household name.[/quote]

How did he become a household name, Max?

[Cuntybollocks]

That was a fucking quality post!!!!

[max_tranmere]

For all the people who have taken an interest in Oscar Pistorius's life since this story broke, it has just come up on Yahoo that he has been bailed. No doubt the millions and millions of people across the world, who started following this man and his life 7 days ago, will be glad.

[Bob Singleton]

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]You didn't seem to read my answer. Something like the
> Fred West affair involved a nobody but it got vast coverage
> because what he did was an evil and significant act. [/quote]
>
> I did, and my question wasn't about the Wests, you thick cunt.
> You said Pistorius 'didn't deserve' the media coverage because
> he wasn't a household name. I'm merely asking how anyone
> becomes a household name in the first place if not being a
> household name denies you media coverage? By your logic
> everyone is locked out unless you yourself have heard of them.
> Muhammed Ali is a household name. Why do people outside an
> interest in boxing know who Muhammed Ali is? Is it because he
> was mouthy, cheeky and had character to go with it, which the
> general media picked up on? Of course, according to you he
> didn't deserve the coverage he was getting at the time because
> a) he'd not killed anyone or done anything else heinous enough
> to get public attention, and b) he wasn't in Eastenders.
>
> Like I said: you're talking out of your arse and most of what
> you say on here is a running commentary of your spontaneous
> feelings that have no real thought behind them. None of your
> stances on anything have any real logic behind them and it's
> all very haphazard and jumpled. You also fail to comprehend the
> simplest of explanations even when somebody takes the time out
> to repeatedly tell you. I was going to say 'childlike' but even
> a 5 year old girl can tell you the logic behind her favourite
> doll: "I like it's curly hair!". You're incapable of that, yet
> you have much more information at your disposal, which makes me
> worry: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
> [quote]And lastly: who the fuck are you to tell me to go and
> "Find more interests"?[/quote]
>
> More advice than an order, Max. And who the fuck are you to
> decide who is and isn't deserving of press attention? Go watch
> your silly soaps and leave the news-reading to the grown-ups.
>
> Fucks sake......
>
>


Sam, you may remember in the run up to the last general election max_tranmere making ridiculous assertions about what if there was a hung parliament, would Brown and Cameron share No 10? I tried to explain to him how our unwritten constitution worked, but he continued to take no notice and post his brainless thoughts on the subject. In the end, I got so frustrated by his stupidity I did resort to language I don't often use.

He is the lowest form of moron... a moron with a keyboard, access to the internet and the belief that everything he says is important yet unwilling to accept that most people know far more about things than he does, so dismisses what they say if they don't tally with his own belief system.

Best to ignore him and hope that he dies a slow and horrible death... soon.

[andy at handiwork]

Why assume that?

[Cuntybollocks]

I agree with everything you say Bob, apart from the slow horrible death thing. That comment is just grim to say the least. You should be ashamed of yourself.