|
|
Post by roger on May 9, 2007 19:55:40 GMT
Huh! And who is Chris Schulz to tell Hayley to "lighten up"? A journalist should stick to reporting the facts and refrain from offering inept advice.  Roger |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on May 9, 2007 21:24:27 GMT
Huh! And who is Chris Schulz to tell Hayley to "lighten up"? A journalist should stick to reporting the facts and refrain from offering inept advice.  Roger Who is he? He is a gossip writer doing his job....Some people may not approve of that job but it is nonetheless a fact that stories like have a market because the general public do like to gossip. Look - there isnt a management team in the world who would not understand that Hayley's WW interview would lead directly to derivative articles like this one. Since she did the article, I at least am going to operate on the assumption that this is more or less what they expected until there is a statement or some other event to the contrary. You have said that Hayley's dating status was her business, and as far as it goes I agree with that - until such an interview is given, and she chooses to answer the question. I am pretty sure they didnt tie her up and force the answers out of her by gunpoint.....She had the choice to not give the interview, and she had the choice not to answer the question. The moment she did that, the issue becomes public domain, twisted quotes and distortions and all. It is simply the way it works whether we like it or not. Just as an aside, you might have noticed the mention by Jill that Hayley had actually given a bad rep tabloid in the UK an interview which was never printed. Doesnt this suggest something in and of itself? Perhaps uniquely in the world right now, Hayley is an honest to God celebrity in New Zealand - and if she were there more, there would be much more coverage of this nature in much greater depth. This is the cost of celebrity. She is also now 20 years old - a big girl I think - who is more than capable of making such decisions, and dealing with the consequences. My adivice Roger? Lighten up!!!  Jon |
|
|
|
Post by graemek on May 9, 2007 21:29:11 GMT
Huh! And who is Chris Schulz to tell Hayley to "lighten up"? A journalist should stick to reporting the facts and refrain from offering inept advice. Roger Yes Roger. seconded..........makes me think of "Vanity Fair" from Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan. That is : 'come & join us in the muck.' Graeme PS If I may add my 2 cents worth, the writer needed a word beginning with T to go with Teen & the first one into his/her head was Temptress. End of thought process. |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on May 9, 2007 21:50:37 GMT
... Who is he? He is a gossip writer doing his job.... I don't diasagree with that, Jon, but I would add he's a snarky gossip writer with a predictably cliche take on a perfectly decent, fantastically talented young woman. Hayley & team will have a chuckle over this and then wonder why couldn't he have been a little more creative than "lighten up" (does it get any lamer?). |
|
|
|
Post by grant on May 9, 2007 22:37:46 GMT
Huh! And who is Chris Schulz to tell Hayley to "lighten up"? A journalist should stick to reporting the facts and refrain from offering inept advice. Roger I'm with you Roger!! Another know-it-all moron who thinks Hayley should join the masses and loose her individuality. Lighten up yourself Chris Schultz, you might learn something!! Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by Belinda on May 9, 2007 22:43:56 GMT
Hi Everyone, Talking of the the Womans Weekly. at first i thought what a cheek Hayley was not the main cover story. But it also is working in her favour that she isn't Shortland Street celebrates its 15th year on air and is a very popular program,so along with Hayley fans buying the magazine people have been buying the magazine because of that and its been selling out. i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifBelinda |
|
|
|
Post by grant on May 9, 2007 22:46:24 GMT
Hi Everyone, Talking of the the Womans Weekly. at first i thought what a cheek Hayley was not the main cover story. But it also is working in her favour that she isn't Shortland Street celebrates its 15th year on air and is a very popular program,so along with Hayley fans buying the magazine people have been buying the magazine because of that and its been selling out. i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifBelinda Excellent news Belinda. I hope the NZ Mag shop has kept a copy for me though!  Best wishes Grant |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,699
|
Post by Dave on May 9, 2007 22:49:42 GMT
Huh! And who is Chris Schulz to tell Hayley to "lighten up"? A journalist should stick to reporting the facts and refrain from offering inept advice. Roger Who is he? He is a gossip writer doing his job....Some people may not approve of that job but it is nonetheless a fact that stories like have a market because the general public do like to gossip. Look - there isnt a management team in the world who would not understand that Hayley's WW interview would lead directly to derivative articles like this one. Since she did the article, I at least am going to operate on the assumption that this is more or less what they expected until there is a statement or some other event to the contrary. You have said that Hayley's dating status was her business, and as far as it goes I agree with that - until such an interview is given, and she chooses to answer the question. I am pretty sure they didnt tie her up and force the answers out of her by gunpoint.....She had the choice to not give the interview, and she had the choice not to answer the question. The moment she did that, the issue becomes public domain, twisted quotes and distortions and all. It is simply the way it works whether we like it or not. Just as an aside, you might have noticed the mention by Jill that Hayley had actually given a bad rep tabloid in the UK an interview which was never printed. Doesnt this suggest something in and of itself? Perhaps uniquely in the world right now, Hayley is an honest to God celebrity in New Zealand - and if she were there more, there would be much more coverage of this nature in much greater depth. This is the cost of celebrity. She is also now 20 years old - a big girl I think - who is more than capable of making such decisions, and dealing with the consequences. My adivice Roger? Lighten up!!! Jon My goodness Jon, Haven't you made a mountain out of a molehill here, a couple of short and possibly light hearted remarks in and about a rather insignficant article? My advice? Lighten up a bit!  Cheers, Dave  |
|
|
|
Post by Eric on May 9, 2007 23:47:26 GMT
Huh! And who is Chris Schulz to tell Hayley to "lighten up"? A journalist should stick to reporting the facts and refrain from offering inept advice. Roger As Grant, Graeme, and Stephany would say, "GRRRR!" I wonder if Mr. Chris Schulz would like to join the forum...I think we could " lighten light him up" a bit!  :2fun: But it is refreshing to note that he was only able to dig up this "little bit" (nothing of significance, really!!!) for his "gossip story." You go, Hayley!!! i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif Hayley's list of eligible bachelor's now reads: ....(Page 684) #1,453,859 - Chris Schulz#1,453,860 - Eric  Sorry you are a moron, Mr. Schulz! But thank you!! i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifLove Always, Eric |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on May 10, 2007 1:56:34 GMT
Hi Dave, If you think that was intense you should see me when I am in a bad mood  Seriously though I dont think it was an over-reaction, because the WW article which started this isnt insignificant at all. This being said, I do wish to make clear that I was responding to Roger's post merely as the latest example of a whole string of posts that I find somewhat ummm......quixotic. It was not my intention to single him out, and if that impression was created, I do humbly apologize. The truth is that I had formed a tentative opinion of the direction that Hayley was going to try to take her career some months ago - and this was a part of the reason I elected to register here when I did. It may not be clearly known, but after Belinda, I think that Steve MacDonald and I are the only "original" fans active on this forum. In my case, this may actually be a part of the reason my viewpoint is different than the prevailing one. If it turns out that I am wrong, I am giving everyone permission to have a general laugh at my expense when the time comes. In fact, I have eaten crow so often in the past that I have developed a couple of pretty good recipes for preparing it. I am an analyst both by nature and by vocation - and I love a good debate. Some people might even say I am a master of that craft.... That and the fact that I am naturally obnoxious Jon - the lighter  |
|
|
|
Post by Eric on May 10, 2007 3:10:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on May 10, 2007 8:40:30 GMT
Huh! And who is Chris Schulz to tell Hayley to "lighten up"? A journalist should stick to reporting the facts and refrain from offering inept advice. Roger The point actually being that of course he didn't have any facts. Who could possibly be more 'lightened up' than Hayley as standard mode? Look at sources too, 'stuff.nz.co' This is a publication that needs to attract publicity hence the empti-headedness, bringing us back full cirxcle to our earlier thread about getting our own facts right before commenting, or repeating, regarding the 'Katherine huff' business. I acknowledge my guilt too. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on May 10, 2007 9:57:25 GMT
I do wish to make clear that I was responding to Roger's post merely as the latest example of a whole string of posts that I find somewhat ummm......quixotic. Jon, I fail to see how my comment could be perceived as quixotic, the dictionary definition of which is "impractically idealistic or fanciful". I resent the fact that a gossip writer can be paid for advising Hayley to "lighten up, sweetheart". More fool anyone who is foolish enough to pay money to read such trash. I did not question the fact that she had willingly given the interview or that the contents of the article are based on what she said. However, the remainder of your initial reply to my post suggests otherwise. Roger (who may not be quite the *original* fan that you claim to be but who has, nevertheless, been active on this forum approximately twenty times longer.) |
|
|
|
Post by grant on May 22, 2007 14:31:11 GMT
My copy of this magazine arrived this morning Grant |
|
|
|
Post by graemek on May 22, 2007 22:58:29 GMT
Our's is on order & despatched Grant.
I hummed & harred a bit & wrongly ordered the NZ version of the Australian Women's Weekly.
Thanks to Dori I checked up the true title : NZ Woman's Weekly.
And , as Stephany would say, VOILA !!!
Graeme
|
|
:2fun:
Sorry you are a moron, Mr. Schulz! But thank you!! 
Seriously though I dont think it was an over-reaction, because the WW article which started this isnt insignificant at all. This being said, I do wish to make clear that I was responding to Roger's post merely as the latest example of a whole string of posts that I find somewhat ummm......quixotic. It was not my intention to single him out, and if that impression was created, I do humbly apologize.
