Just what a thing to say !!!!

[bags]

I don't know it Topaz and I didn't say that, my post is based on assumptions made from what these members have posted themselves, they can always confirm or deny. PC:

Wasn't there a response from Tolly about your imagination is it mine or has it been removed ? :confused2:

:wonder2:

 

[bags]

As long as she doesn't say how awful it would be to have a normal loo then I'm very happy for her!

I like her as she's always cheerful and having a child with Downs must be difficult at times.

It was when the guy from the steam cleaner tsv yesterday was steaming around the base of the loo's and the mock up dirt came out.
She then said that's why I'm going though the expense/trouble of wall mounted loo's.

 

[Tolly]

We've now had two people storm in and defend Huntley to the hilt. Tolly is no surprise as he obviously works for QVC and charges in on his white horse everytime the fair damsel is crticised, although he also finds time to post criticism about IW whenever he can get the boot in, so blatant it's laughable.

BenFongTorres I suspect also has past connections with QVC and is quite entitled to his opinion (as we all are), but it's interesting that he raises the point of who Huntley, allegedly, might be dating at QVC?? If that is the case and it has been gleaned from inside information at Marco Polo House then it's no wonder the airhead thinks she's the bees knees, although shagging the boss doesn't demonstrate 'having made it' to me I'm afraid. Sometime these little titbits of info that these 'in the know' members drop on here can backfire and actually do the presenters' image more harm than good when posted on such a widely read public forum.....maybe something for the defenders of the faith to think about?? PC:

Wow! What an active imagination you have! As far as your assertions about me.....oh you are so wrong on so many levels. But to clear up the main ones...I am not, or ever have been employed by QVC. As for criticising IW...who doesn't! QVC is a much better company than IW, which is of course my personal opinion and one I believe shared by many.

Oh and BenFong Torres...Catherine's other half Steve is not the CEO of QVC.

 

[Shop Til I Drop]

I'm pretty sure that when Lotty Meyer worked on The Jewellery Channel she mentioned that (Catherine's) Steve was one of the cameramen there??

I could be wrong though, as that was a while ago.

 

[Pinkpussycat]

Wow! What an active imagination you have! As far as your assertions about me.....oh you are so wrong on so many levels. But to clear up the main ones...I am not, or ever have been employed by QVC. As for criticising IW...who doesn't! QVC is a much better company than IW, which is of course my personal opinion and one I believe shared by many.

Oh and BenFong Torres...Catherine's other half Steve is not the CEO of QVC.

Thankyou for clearing those points up then. I should think the CEO's wife (should he have one) is very relieved to read it too. PC:

 

[bags]

Wow! What an active imagination you have! As far as your assertions about me.....oh you are so wrong on so many levels. But to clear up the main ones...I am not, or ever have been employed by QVC. As for criticising IW...who doesn't! QVC is a much better company than IW, which is of course my personal opinion and one I believe shared by many.

Oh and BenFong Torres...Catherine's other half Steve is not the CEO of QVC.

Is he a short friendly guy I think I've seen him ?

:cool2:

 

[BenFongTorres]

BFT did you trade your sword in for a fancy flame thrower.:tongue2:

Yes Jasper, I find them much more effective

We've now had two people storm in and defend Huntley to the hilt. Tolly is no surprise as he obviously works for QVC and charges in on his white horse everytime the fair damsel is crticised, although he also finds time to post criticism about IW whenever he can get the boot in, so blatant it's laughable.

BenFongTorres I suspect also has past connections with QVC and is quite entitled to his opinion (as we all are), but it's interesting that he raises the point of who Huntley, allegedly, might be dating at QVC?? If that is the case and it has been gleaned from inside information at Marco Polo House then it's no wonder the airhead thinks she's the bees knees, although shagging the boss doesn't demonstrate 'having made it' to me I'm afraid. Sometime these little titbits of info that these 'in the know' members drop on here can backfire and actually do the presenters' image more harm than good when posted on such a widely read public forum.....maybe something for the defenders of the faith to think about?? PC:

Firstly PPC i'm female,I can guarantee you I have no connections to QVC or have ever stepped foot inside QVC towers,I once went to a New Year,New You event about 4 years ago but that's as "inside" as i'll ever get.
I've liked Catherine from her first moment on air,my defence of her is pure bias,nothing more,nothing less.I like her,full stop!

Oh and Tolly thanks for clearing up the "Steve" issue,coz it kind of makes the whole "Diet Chef" thing a tiny bit more savoury in my mind now.

 

[bags]

I'm pretty sure that when Lotty Meyer worked on The Jewellery Channel she mentioned that (Catherine's) Steve was one of the cameramen there??

I could be wrong though, as that was a while ago.

She said recently he'd been working in Scotland and bought her something kitty wise cute but naff back.

 

[Pinkpussycat]

She said recently he'd been working in Scotland and bought her something kitty wise cute but naff back.

Shame. Obviously not good enough for her now she's made it. PC:

 

[bags]

Yes Jasper, I find them much more effective



Firstly PPC i'm female,I can guarantee you I have no connections to QVC or have ever stepped foot inside QVC towers,I once went to a New Year,New You event about 4 years ago but that's as "inside" as i'll ever get.
I've liked Catherine from her first moment on air,my defence of her is pure bias,nothing more,nothing less.I like her,full stop!

Oh and Tolly thanks for clearing up the "Steve" issue,coz it kind of makes the whole "Diet Chef" thing a tiny bit more savoury in my mind now.

You'll have witnessed the change in her then.

 

[bags]

Shame. Obviously not good enough for her now she's made it. PC:

Remember when she chatted on here ?

 

[BenFongTorres]

You'll have witnessed the change in her then.

Yep,i've witnessed the many physical changes and yes there probably have been personality changes,who doesn't evolve or devolve as the years go by?,however,I think the core of Catherine of is still the same,she is decent,caring,compotent etc and I never get the feeling that she's overly braggadocio,I think she mostly greatful to have landed such and easy well paid gig and I don't begrudge her that.

 

[norbitonite]

The reason I think the 'slave driver' phrase is in bad taste is this - the disparity between the drivers of the real slave trade and a make up artist asking the team to work hard is so vast that it trivialises the slave trade.

I know Julia didn't mean to offend and 'slave driver' is a common turn of phrase (if a little dated). This is not intended to slag off Julia.

Nevertheless, I would have thought that a flippant comparison to the slave trade is quite obviously in bad taste. I'm sure I am not the only person who thinks this.

This board was quick to pick Catherine up her poor taste remark, I just wondered if anyone else noticed Julia's?

My take on Julia's remark - and remarks of that ilk - is quite different.

If I may use a personal example; I have Jewish ancestors who had to flee the pogroms in Russia, and who died in the holocaust during WW2. Now if I hear, say, somebody referring to a traffic warden or a minor official as a 'little Hitler' or a 'Nazi', I don't take umbrage on my own behalf or on behalf of my late forefathers, I understand the phrase in its current vernacular usage. Furthermore, I actually think that these expressions keep the lessons of history alive in the popular consciousness. That is to say, if the history of the slave trade and the holocaust exist only in a very solemn context and within the classroom, they quickly become distant and lose their relevance. Whereas if expressions linked to them still exist in everyday speech, there are more opportunities for the lessons of history to be passed on and to be kept fresh.

I'm not sure I'm expressing it very well, but something like:

Mother and small child are watching Julia Roberts on QVC. Julia calls 'guest presenter a 'slave driver':

Child: "What's a slave driver, Mummy?"
Mother: "They were very bad men a long time ago who thought that they had the right to kidnap people from their homes and were very cruel to them and made them work very, very hard just because they had skin of a different colour to them."
C: "But why has that lady called the other lady a slave driver, Mummy, since she's not a nasty man like that?"
M: "Because nowadays we use it to mean anyone who is not very nice to the people who works for them and makes them work too hard. She was joking with the other lady to say that she made her staff work hard."

I really do see these expressions as very different from racial/religious epithets with which I have no truck at all.


ETA: Sorry, a bit off topic!

 

[bags]

Yep,i've witnessed the many physical changes and yes there probably have been personality changes,who doesn't evolve or devolve as the years go by?,however,I think the core of Catherine of is still the same,she is decent,caring,compotent etc and I never get the feeling that she's overly braggadocio,I think she mostly greatful to have landed such and easy well paid gig and I don't begrudge her that.

Well if that's what makes her content and very happy you can wish her all the the best from me.

:flower:

 

[Jasper]

Shame. Obviously not good enough for her now she's made it. PC:

<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img

 

[Tolly]

In reply to your posts to me...

I agree Sue!

Bags: Yes he is smaller in height than Catherine and is in fact probably the guy you are thinking of. Has very short dark hair and does attend quite a few of the events with her I believe.

BenFongTorres: Your quite welcome.

Can I ask those of you who so clearly passionately dislike a presenter, demonstrator etc. Please think before you post. You might think it's only free speech on a free forum.....but if you over step the line and it becomes defamation of character or libelous you might not be the one who "pays" for it...but your "free speech" and the way you post your opinion could cost Graham a lot including this forum. He would be liable and would be the one sued for libelous material appearing here.

There was another consumer forum where people went on the rant about an electrical product. The company took the owner of the forum to court over it. Something I am sure none of us would ever want Graham to have to go through.

So please, think before you make your remarks after all, we should be grateful to Graham for giving us the forum and therefore not abuse it. Freedom of speech is one thing, defamation of character is another and it's a very fine line between them! This is why I "pulled my head in" over commenting about IW and because IW angered me so much I no longer bother watching. After all, I certainly wouldn't want Graham to have to pay for my stupid wording, made in the heat of the moment. Who would?

 

[bags]

In reply to your posts to me...

I agree Sue!

Bags: Yes he is smaller in height than Catherine and is in fact probably the guy you are thinking of. Has very short dark hair and does attend quite a few of the events with her I believe.

BenFongTorres: Your quite welcome.

Can I ask those of you who so clearly passionately dislike a presenter, demonstrator etc. Please think before you post. You might think it's only free speech on a free forum.....but if you over step the line and it becomes defamation of character or libelous you might not be the one who "pays" for it...but your "free speech" and the way you post your opinion could cost Graham a lot including this forum. He would be liable and would be the one sued for libelous material appearing here.

There was another consumer forum where people went on the rant about an electrical product. The company took the owner of the forum to court over it. Something I am sure none of us would ever want Graham to have to go through.

So please, think before you make your remarks after all, we should be grateful to Graham for giving us the forum and therefore not abuse it. Freedom of speech is one thing, defamation of character is another and it's a very fine line between them! This is why I "pulled my head in" over commenting about IW and because IW angered me so much I no longer bother watching. After all, I certainly wouldn't want Graham to have to pay for my stupid wording, made in the heat of the moment. Who would?

Are you meaning Catherine's Steve as I was meaning CEO ?

 

[Tolly]

Sorry Bags I misunderstood you. Yes I meant Catherine's Steve.

 

[BenFongTorres]

Well if that's what makes her content and very happy you can wish her all the the best from me.

:flower:

Yes,next time I see her,which will be on the 32nd of November i'll be sure to pass on your good wishes.

 

[Kitee]

In reply to your posts to me...

I agree Sue!

Bags: Yes he is smaller in height than Catherine and is in fact probably the guy you are thinking of. Has very short dark hair and does attend quite a few of the events with her I believe.

BenFongTorres: Your quite welcome.

Can I ask those of you who so clearly passionately dislike a presenter, demonstrator etc. Please think before you post. You might think it's only free speech on a free forum.....but if you over step the line and it becomes defamation of character or libelous you might not be the one who "pays" for it...but your "free speech" and the way you post your opinion could cost Graham a lot including this forum. He would be liable and would be the one sued for libelous material appearing here.

There was another consumer forum where people went on the rant about an electrical product. The company took the owner of the forum to court over it. Something I am sure none of us would ever want Graham to have to go through.

So please, think before you make your remarks after all, we should be grateful to Graham for giving us the forum and therefore not abuse it. Freedom of speech is one thing, defamation of character is another and it's a very fine line between them! This is why I "pulled my head in" over commenting about IW and because IW angered me so much I no longer bother watching. After all, I certainly wouldn't want Graham to have to pay for my stupid wording, made in the heat of the moment. Who would?

It's not libelous to express a personal opinion about a presenter. I'm sure if anyone sees a post that oversteps the mark, or is in contravention of the T's & C's they will alert it and it can then be dealt with by a moderator.