The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As many of you may know years ago peoples class was the most important thing. But now does it matter wether your lower, working, middle or higher class?
I think no it doesn't
I think no it doesn't
its really a matter of opinion but i agree with you p.s. the U.S. guy
Dragonlance wrote:
> "Will and Harry would of never been able to
> go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they
> have
> every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act
> like that."
>
> Didn't you think that this sort of comment isn't going to get
> some sort of reponse! Why have they, Will and Harry as you call
> them, got any right to continually 'get r*t ar*ed' in public at
> the tax payers expense?
They have every right to, after all they are just 2 young men who want to have a good time when there young. Im sure you remember being young and free wanting to try everything. So yes i do think they should be allowed to get drunk and act completely 'r"tar"ed' as you put it. After all there is worst things they could be doing.
Also refering to the part where you were saying the ones who raped people and commited crime, that is the minority of celebrities and in fact most 'celebrities' would happily help a starving family and many do by going to the countries or just donating their money. We all know some celebrities like Garry Glitter take advantage of their possition but the majority of celebrities are kind natured and want to help. Ashame the media only concetrates on the negatives of life or we would all know who these caring celebrities are, dont you agree?
> "Will and Harry would of never been able to
> go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they
> have
> every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act
> like that."
>
> Didn't you think that this sort of comment isn't going to get
> some sort of reponse! Why have they, Will and Harry as you call
> them, got any right to continually 'get r*t ar*ed' in public at
> the tax payers expense?
They have every right to, after all they are just 2 young men who want to have a good time when there young. Im sure you remember being young and free wanting to try everything. So yes i do think they should be allowed to get drunk and act completely 'r"tar"ed' as you put it. After all there is worst things they could be doing.
Also refering to the part where you were saying the ones who raped people and commited crime, that is the minority of celebrities and in fact most 'celebrities' would happily help a starving family and many do by going to the countries or just donating their money. We all know some celebrities like Garry Glitter take advantage of their possition but the majority of celebrities are kind natured and want to help. Ashame the media only concetrates on the negatives of life or we would all know who these caring celebrities are, dont you agree?
lauraw93 wrote:
> Dragonlance wrote:
> Would you lauraw93 and Shepps 123 consider yourselves
> 'celebrities' because at least one of you is a forum regular?
>
> Yeah um i don't consider myself a celebrity and celebrities were
> an example. I do not mean people like amy whinehouse or Paris
> hilton, i mean the celebrities who have effected people. Maybe
> celebrities wern't the best example so how about i use the royal
> family as a example. Will and Harry would of never been able to
> go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they have
> every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act
> like that. So please do not make asumptions of what sort of
> person i am. I actually have a complete different opinions of
> celebrities today than thinking they should be worshipped. I
> would appreciate it if you do not asume what people are like and
> at least ask. Its called politeness.
I apologise to you, but the 'original statement' was posted and it didn't ask for a 'personal' directive. You have assumed that the post was directed at yourself...the post was an answer to a 'post'.
So...which 'celebrites' have affected people?
Some have 'raped' people, including royalty, some have 'committed crimes' , some are just total losers.
Which one's have 'affected' peoples' lives?
You quote :
"Will and Harry would of never been able to
> go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they have
> every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act
> like that."
Didn't you think that this sort of comment isn't going to get some sort of reponse! Why have they, Will and Harry as you call them, got any right to continually 'get r*t ar*ed' in public at the tax payers expense?
My son has just returned from 6 months in Afghanistan and is totally knackered - not out on the p*ss like some 'royals'. He is an unknown 'celebrity', by the way!
Who are you? A celebrity? An ordinary person? A forum poster...yeh, good luck in future posts...Take care, be yourself
> Dragonlance wrote:
> Would you lauraw93 and Shepps 123 consider yourselves
> 'celebrities' because at least one of you is a forum regular?
>
> Yeah um i don't consider myself a celebrity and celebrities were
> an example. I do not mean people like amy whinehouse or Paris
> hilton, i mean the celebrities who have effected people. Maybe
> celebrities wern't the best example so how about i use the royal
> family as a example. Will and Harry would of never been able to
> go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they have
> every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act
> like that. So please do not make asumptions of what sort of
> person i am. I actually have a complete different opinions of
> celebrities today than thinking they should be worshipped. I
> would appreciate it if you do not asume what people are like and
> at least ask. Its called politeness.
I apologise to you, but the 'original statement' was posted and it didn't ask for a 'personal' directive. You have assumed that the post was directed at yourself...the post was an answer to a 'post'.
So...which 'celebrites' have affected people?
Some have 'raped' people, including royalty, some have 'committed crimes' , some are just total losers.
Which one's have 'affected' peoples' lives?
You quote :
"Will and Harry would of never been able to
> go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they have
> every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act
> like that."
Didn't you think that this sort of comment isn't going to get some sort of reponse! Why have they, Will and Harry as you call them, got any right to continually 'get r*t ar*ed' in public at the tax payers expense?
My son has just returned from 6 months in Afghanistan and is totally knackered - not out on the p*ss like some 'royals'. He is an unknown 'celebrity', by the way!
Who are you? A celebrity? An ordinary person? A forum poster...yeh, good luck in future posts...Take care, be yourself
Dragonlance wrote:
> Would you lauraw93 and Shepps 123 consider yourselves
> 'celebrities' because at least one of you is a forum regular?
Yeah um i don't consider myself a celebrity and celebrities were an example. I do not mean people like amy whinehouse or Paris hilton, i mean the celebrities who have effected people. Maybe celebrities wern't the best example so how about i use the royal family as a example. Will and Harry would of never been able to go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they have every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act like that. So please do not make asumptions of what sort of person i am. I actually have a complete different opinions of celebrities today than thinking they should be worshipped. I would appreciate it if you do not asume what people are like and at least ask. Its called politeness.
> Would you lauraw93 and Shepps 123 consider yourselves
> 'celebrities' because at least one of you is a forum regular?
Yeah um i don't consider myself a celebrity and celebrities were an example. I do not mean people like amy whinehouse or Paris hilton, i mean the celebrities who have effected people. Maybe celebrities wern't the best example so how about i use the royal family as a example. Will and Harry would of never been able to go out and get drunk like they do (even though i think they have every right to) and only people who are 'lower class' would act like that. So please do not make asumptions of what sort of person i am. I actually have a complete different opinions of celebrities today than thinking they should be worshipped. I would appreciate it if you do not asume what people are like and at least ask. Its called politeness.
lauraw93 wrote:
> Shepps 123 wrote:
> Have you been watching that John Prescott class thing?
>
> yeah i have lol, but not just that, i was just talking to my mum
> about it and i wondered what everyone else thought. I don't think
> it does matter any more. Like the richer people, celebrities, act
> much worst than they would dared to years ago.
You tend to contradict yourself here...celebrities are people that you, the general public, have created. They haven't achieved anything except 'public acceptance' for whatever they have done.
Maybe something that you aspire to and haven't the balls to achieve, so you 'respect' them and then 'idolise' them and then perpetuate the 'myth' and create a 'celebrity'. (Take Big Brother here)
Personally, I regard every human being as being a 'celebrity'.
Most of us, on a daily basis, do incredible things without any recognition or labelling. Sometimes this really makes you pi**ed off.
But who cares?
You live your lives as you do, day in, day out. You marry, have kids, sort them out, have good and bad times, watch your kids grow, worry about their attitudes, their girl/boy friends, watch them make good/bad decisions etc etc - you shouldn't worry, why? Because they are 'celebrities'.
Get real, no one is any more 'special' than the next. Try telling me that someone who can 'act' poor for example, actually is 'poor' or whatever!
Would you lauraw93 and Shepps 123 consider yourselves 'celebrities' because at least one of you is a forum regular?
> Shepps 123 wrote:
> Have you been watching that John Prescott class thing?
>
> yeah i have lol, but not just that, i was just talking to my mum
> about it and i wondered what everyone else thought. I don't think
> it does matter any more. Like the richer people, celebrities, act
> much worst than they would dared to years ago.
You tend to contradict yourself here...celebrities are people that you, the general public, have created. They haven't achieved anything except 'public acceptance' for whatever they have done.
Maybe something that you aspire to and haven't the balls to achieve, so you 'respect' them and then 'idolise' them and then perpetuate the 'myth' and create a 'celebrity'. (Take Big Brother here)
Personally, I regard every human being as being a 'celebrity'.
Most of us, on a daily basis, do incredible things without any recognition or labelling. Sometimes this really makes you pi**ed off.
But who cares?
You live your lives as you do, day in, day out. You marry, have kids, sort them out, have good and bad times, watch your kids grow, worry about their attitudes, their girl/boy friends, watch them make good/bad decisions etc etc - you shouldn't worry, why? Because they are 'celebrities'.
Get real, no one is any more 'special' than the next. Try telling me that someone who can 'act' poor for example, actually is 'poor' or whatever!
Would you lauraw93 and Shepps 123 consider yourselves 'celebrities' because at least one of you is a forum regular?
Shepps 123 wrote:
> Have you been watching that John Prescott class thing?
yeah i have lol, but not just that, i was just talking to my mum about it and i wondered what everyone else thought. I don't think it does matter any more. Like the richer people, celebrities, act much worst than they would dared to years ago.
> Have you been watching that John Prescott class thing?
yeah i have lol, but not just that, i was just talking to my mum about it and i wondered what everyone else thought. I don't think it does matter any more. Like the richer people, celebrities, act much worst than they would dared to years ago.
What we can call 'class' these days is completely different to the original meaning and classification of different classes in the past. However, there will always be groups who act in a certain way and they're still classed with the old fashioned labels.
It's not so much about money as it is a certain set of people within these brackets. The poor become chavs the upper-middle class become Daily Mail readers and the upper class either 'fat cats' or something else.
As nothing is divided by class these days, the old version of class systems is meaningless today, but other systems just end up replacing them, but it's more about expectations than segregation. We expect Chav to be claiming benefit and wear certain clothes, we expect Daily Mail readers to be ranting about anything they don't understand and we expect Fat Cat's to only look out for themselves.
It's not so much about money as it is a certain set of people within these brackets. The poor become chavs the upper-middle class become Daily Mail readers and the upper class either 'fat cats' or something else.
As nothing is divided by class these days, the old version of class systems is meaningless today, but other systems just end up replacing them, but it's more about expectations than segregation. We expect Chav to be claiming benefit and wear certain clothes, we expect Daily Mail readers to be ranting about anything they don't understand and we expect Fat Cat's to only look out for themselves.
i think it still does. Except we associate them by how much of a bunch of (silly sausages) they really are. The rich are snooty and arrogant whilst most of the poor are chavs or unartiucate people most people will percieve them.
Have you been watching that John Prescott class thing?
As many of you may know years ago peoples class was the most important thing. But now does it matter wether your lower, working, middle or higher class?
I think no it doesn't
I think no it doesn't