[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

On that premise then Jack: you would regard Fred West as a celebrity then?

Yes. As odd, weird, or as sick as that may be, all famous killers or criminals can also be classed as celebrities as people know who they are. The McCann's are famous, as are the Fritzl's. Like I said, there's people that are celebrities for perhaps the wrong reasons (as is evidently the case with these people), but they are celebrities nonetheless, as people know who they are.

Originally Posted by Ammi

..not sure I agree, the word 'celebrity' would suggest they have a talent, ability, gift which is celebrated

That might well have been the case 20/30 years ago, but it definitely isn't anymore, and people that think it is really are living in the past. Back then there wasn't really any other way of becoming a celebrity unless you were talented (as far as I'm aware anyway), but now in the age of reality TV and the like, there are many other ways of becoming famous, well-known and a celebrity. Whether or not you agree with the fact that people with no talent warrant becoming celebrities is an entirely different matter, I guess that's something that comes down to personal opinion, but whether or not these people are celebrities is not something that can be disputed.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes. As odd, weird, or as sick as that may be, all famous killers or criminals can also be classed as celebrities as people know who they are. The McCann's are famous, as are the Fritzl's. Like I said, there's people that are celebrities for perhaps the wrong reasons (as is evidently the case with these people), but they are celebrities nonetheless, as people know who they are.



That might well have been the case 20/30 years ago, but it definitely isn't anymore, and people that think it is really are living in the past. Back then there wasn't really any other way of becoming a celebrity unless you were talented (as far as I'm aware anyway), but now in the age of reality TV and the like, there are many other ways of becoming famous, well-known and a celebrity. Whether or not you agree with the fact that people with no talent warrant becoming celebrities is an entirely different matter, I guess that's something that comes down to personal opinion, but whether or not these people are celebrities is not something that can be disputed.

You may class them as that. I don't. I regard them as infamous. Which is not the same as famous.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

You may class them as that. I don't. I regard them as infamous. Which is not the same as famous.

Actually, perhaps that is the correct term. But still, infamous means famous for the wrong reasons...so my point still stands.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Actually, perhaps that is the correct term. But still, infamous means famous for the wrong reasons...so my point still stands.

As does mine.

[Livia]

So, in summary... if you think you have to have some talent to be classed as a celebrity, otherwise you're just tabloid fodder for the rest of us to ridicule... and if you understand that there's a difference between famous and infamous... you're living in the past.

Okaaaaaaaay.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

As does mine.

Which is? I said in my post that it can be argued that many people are celebrities for the wrong reasons, you said that killers are infamous (i.e. famous for the wrong reasons, as the term suggests), so therefore that proves the point I originally made, does it not? You just worded it differently.

Originally Posted by Livia

So, in summary... if you think you have to have some talent to be classed as a celebrity, otherwise you're just tabloid fodder for the rest of us to ridicule... and if you understand that there's a difference between famous and infamous... you're living in the past.

Okaaaaaaaay.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at...

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Which is? I said in my post that it can be argued that many people are celebrities for the wrong reasons, you said that killers are infamous (i.e. famous for the wrong reasons, as the term suggests), so therefore that proves the point I originally made, does it not? You just worded it differently.

Nope, it means that whilst we both stand by our own views, we both disagree with what a true celebrity is.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Nope, it means that whilst we both stand by our own views, we both disagree with what a true celebrity is.

I'm sorry but the term celebrity has changed over time, and it's not something that can be disputed. You can argue that people shouldn't be celebrities if they don't have any talent, that's a personal opinion, but whether you like it or not they are still celebrities.

A large majority of people in this country will know who Frankie Cocozza is, therefore he is a famous celebrity. Famous for the wrong reasons perhaps, but he is still famous. I really am failing to understand how you can't grasp that?

It's easier to become a celebrity nowadays than it was 30 years ago...but that's an entirely different debate as I've already said.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I'm sorry but the term celebrity has changed over time, and it's not something that can be disputed. You can argue that people shouldn't be celebrities if they don't have any talent, that's a personal opinion, but whether you like it or not they are still celebrities.

A large majority of people in this country will know who Frankie Cocozza is, therefore he is a famous celebrity. Famous for the wrong reasons perhaps, but he is still famous. I really am failing to understand how you can't grasp that?

It's easier to become a celebrity nowadays than it was 30 years ago...but that's an entirely different debate as I've already said.

In your view and some others, but that is not a view or description that everyone agrees with.


I do not have to agree with how you (or anyone else) may view what is regarded as a celebrity.. Can't you grasp that? It really isn't a hard concept really. I don't share the view. Simple as that

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Not entirely sure what you're getting at...

That doesn't surprise me.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

That doesn't surprise me.

It's always amusing when people resort to insults when their arguments are failing and they've been proven wrong, left with nothing to say. You and Pyramid are prime examples of those types of people. Bless.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It's always amusing when people resort to insults when their arguments are failing and they've been proven wrong, left with nothing to say. You and Pyramid are prime examples of those types of people. Bless.

What's amusing is when I say something quite clear, something paraphrasing something you yourself said moments ago in a post, and in reply you post an emoticon and a little rant about what type of person I am. Like you would know.

Because I don't agree with you and you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean you have proven me wrong. And I would have plenty to say if the conversation wasn't so one-sided.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It's always amusing when people resort to insults when their arguments are failing and they've been proven wrong, left with nothing to say. You and Pyramid are prime examples of those types of people. Bless.

Like the one you tried earlier suggesting that people who suggested something against your own post were stupid to do so?

I don't like it when people say people like Frankie Cocozza aren't celebrities or whatever though, because they are, and to suggest they're not would be stupid.

Like your rudeness

I really am failing to understand how you can't grasp that?

Jords has explained it using other terminology - which makes the difference very clear.

Therefore criminals are famous (or infamous as its for wrong reasons) but are definitely not celebrities.