People who are way overrated.

Lelantos

Grayditch wrote: »

keith16 wrote: »

Grayditch wrote: »

People don't over rate Messi. They do give him the highest accolade possible when they say he's the greatest footballer playing today...

Because he is.

I agree. He is definitely one of the best we'll ever see. I said that in my post but you've proven my point and felt the need to tell me again.

I don't need to be reminded about it every 5 seconds. It's the constant spunking adulation that annoys me. As another poster said about Bob Marley, I'm getting sick to death of him because of it.

I didn't prove your point at all. With respect, I think you need to recognise the difference between overrated and over lauded.


I'm not trying to be pedantic either, I've often told people to stop pi55ing in my ear about Messi.

When Messi does it on the international stage, then he can be talked about as the greatest, until then, nope, close but no ceegar!

narddog

Mozart. One or 2 good songs but no great albums, and he never cracked America.

DazMarz

Noel and Liam Gallagher. I just cannot get into their music. Don't know what it is about it, but I just don't find it moving or anything. It just leaves me cold and unfeeling. It can actually be annoying on a night to hear "Wonderwall" or "Don't Look Back In Anger" played ad nauseum.

Jimi Hendrix. His influence is undoubtable, no argument there. He was an amazing guitarist, no argument there. But the way some people talk about him, he was the only guitarist in history to matter. While he doubtless influenced them, he was overtaken and eclipsed by several followers who people don't respect as much (see: Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, Randy Rhoads, Yngwie Malmsteen, Adrian Vandenberg, John Sykes, et al). The main reason Hendrix is seen as so good is more for the influence he had rather than his playing. I have ultimate respect for him, but I don't think he is the be-all and end-all that some people think he was.

And also, anyone who's said Robbie Keane... where would the ROI team be without the 54 international goals he's scored? He's the highest scoring international footballer from the British Isles, recently having overtaken Bobby Charlton. I'll admit there are some games where he'd drive you demented by fluffing his lines, but as an out-and-out goalscorer, Ireland has not (and quite possibly will not) ever see the likes of him again. How many times has he pulled it out of the fire for Ireland? How many times has he come to the rescue when nobody else possibly could have done? Yeah, he's obviously past his best now, but even his goalscoring record at club level is very impressive. He is an experienced head and knows the game and can get into those positions where he'll lash a goal in and rescue the day, as he has done on countless occasions.

Lelantos

Paul Kimmage? A legend in his own mind.

areyawell

Daniel O Donnell
How do people listen to his filth. Its quite disgusting

WhatNowForUs?

Not overrated anymore but Berte Ahearn, Brian Cowan the bankers Seanie Fitz and his ilk along with the regulators.

Fromthetrees

Simon Cowell pisses on people's dreams from an elevated height at an over produced, over hyped karaoke contest and is paid millions to do it while being lauded as 'telling it like it is'.

He's just a troll, that's it.

Whippersnapper

My ex. :rolleyes:

Lelantos

Whippersnapper wrote: »

My ex. :rolleyes:

No, she's def not over rated 10/10

Napper Hawkins

DazMarz wrote: »

Jimi Hendrix. His influence is undoubtable, no argument there. He was an amazing guitarist, no argument there. But the way some people talk about him, he was the only guitarist in history to matter. While he doubtless influenced them, he was overtaken and eclipsed by several followers who people don't respect as much (see: Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, Randy Rhoads, Yngwie Malmsteen, Adrian Vandenberg, John Sykes, et al). The main reason Hendrix is seen as so good is more for the influence he had rather than his playing. I have ultimate respect for him, but I don't think he is the be-all and end-all that some people think he was.

Well that's probably a lot to do with them genuinely liking his music as well as revering his ability.

Those other guitarists you mentioned? Huge talent, no question, I have massive admiration for their ability and only wish I could play like them. But you couldn't pay me to listen to Steve Vai, Van Halen, Rhoads or Malmsteen. Far too cheesy imo. Don't know the other lads, will check them out.

flyswatter

The likes of Malmsteen might be better technically than Hendrix but Hendrix is the better artist.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

say_who_now? wrote: »

Well it's not much good discovering these things if you can't relate to people what you have discovered!

That's not the point I made earlier. I stated that Hawkings is overrated in terms of his scientific achievements and then Biggins twisted what I said. You don't have to tell the entire public what you have discovered in order to get your message across.

If you publish a scientific paper, it gets published (if you're lucky) in peer reviewed journal/magazines/gazettes, not in national newspapers. You're not obliged, nor need, to ring up your local news station to tell them about your discovery unless you feel it's absolutely necessary or you've discovered something absolutely revolutionary.

You simple publish a paper of your discovery, it gets peer reviewed sometimes others might repeat your experiment to make sure it works and once that is done it may be seen by the wider scientific community as valid and if the media gets whiff of it (as it's not just academics who can access peer reviewed journals) and think the public might find it interesting then it might get a mention in a newspaper. It certainly does not mean that what you discovered isn't useful, it just means that the media doesn't find it interesting enough, but most of the time the media is not a proper judge on these matters. You don't get the public to decide what the verdict is in a murder trial.

For instance, if you discovered, say, a way to make computer run faster, the chances of that being mentioned in a newspaper are less than, say, the discovery of an extra planet in the solar system.

In terms of usefulness, the former would arguably be more useful than the latter, but the more interesting in the eyes of the wider public would probably be the discovery of the new planet.

You can see, therefore, the subjectivity of usefulness. The newspaper might view the story about the extra planet as being more interesting and therefore satisfy their readers making it more useful for the newspaper as its more likely to keep them reading, while on the other hand a computer magazine/journal (which mightn't be read by as many people) might view the discovery of a new way to make computers run faster as being more interesting to their readers.

The point is, the media isn't the best gauge of what is actually useful. Therefore fame isn't the best gauge of actual contribution or of its usefulness thereof.

LincolnsBeard

Larianne wrote: »

Keira Knightley wears her costumes well but she's still a pain in the face to watch.

Blasphemy

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Scioch wrote: »

Hawking its an odd one. He's famous for his popularisation of science but he still held the lucasian chair and made a great contribution to science. He had his achievements and did his work and gained prominence in his field. Yes he's also popular for other reasons but every scientist who contributes isnt entitled to fame and best selling books. So didnt Hawking rob them of anything nor is he viewed as their better for his popular work.

He and Sagan are just more known for their popular work. Doesnt lessen their contributions or make them anything they are not either.

I didn't say that other scientists who contributed more to science are entitled to fame, but that Hawking's contribution to actual science as a whole rather than public discourse of science is less than many of his contemporaries.

Napper Hawkins

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

Blasphemy

I think she means her acting more than anything, she's gorgeous to look at alright but christ she's awful.

girl2

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I think she means her acting more than anything, she's gorgeous to look at alright but christ she's awful.

How she gorgeous to look at. Please!!! What is wrong with you????? :eek:

Napper Hawkins

girl2 wrote: »

How she gorgeous to look at. Please!!! What is wrong with you????? :eek:

I'm not sure but I think it's heterosexuality. Sorry about that!

girl2

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I'm not sure but I think it's heterosexuality. Sorry about that!

No. No no no. Cos she's like a boy! She's totally like a boy! That's not heterosexuality! Really!

So sorry

LincolnsBeard

girl2 wrote: »

How she gorgeous to look at. Please!!! What is wrong with you????? :eek:

You're a girl. You wouldn't understand.

Napper Hawkins

girl2 wrote: »

No. No no no. Cos she's like a boy! She's totally like a boy! That's not heterosexuality! Really!

So sorry

Yeah, someone put a bag over that young ones head, quick! :pac:

Larianne

I said Keira wears the costumes well (that green dress in Atonement was stunning) but I don't think much of her otherwise. Actually, I find her quite similar to Kristen Stewart, always has a face on her.

NegativeCreep

Eminem- One good album. After that, crap.
Metallica- Crap.
Ed Byrne- He's literally the least funny person on the planet.
Bill Hicks- He's intelligent and everything, I just don't find him funny in the slightest.

That's all I can think of now but I know there's loads more

Scioch

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I didn't say that other scientists who contributed more to science are entitled to fame, but that Hawking's contribution to actual science as a whole rather than public discourse of science is less than many of his contemporaries.

But his fame isnt based on his contribution to science. His standing in regards his peers in the scientific community is. Are you saying he is over rated in the scientific community because of his public image ?

Or that his public image is over flattering ? Because to me his public image is of a scientist and very intelligent man. Most people dont know his contributions to science they just see him as public commentator on various things and a scientist who's held in very high regard by his peers. Which is true considering his position in Cambridge for so long.

Invincible

Wayne Rooney

girl2

Larianne wrote: »

I said Keira wears the costumes well (that green dress in Atonement was stunning) but I don't think much of her otherwise. Actually, I find her quite similar to Kristen Stewart, always has a face on her.

Yes yes yes. See. Not nice.

And furthermore, she has a body of a teenage boy…

http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Am+I+the+only+one+who+thinks+Keira+Knightley+has+_c365989017cf190b73503aaf957a1678.jpg

(hope that link works)

Not a fabulous female body…not a decent boob in sight

say_who_now?

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

That's not the point I made earlier. I stated that Hawkings is overrated in terms of his scientific achievements and then Biggins twisted what I said. You don't have to tell the entire public what you have discovered in order to get your message across.

If you publish a scientific paper, it gets published (if you're lucky) in peer reviewed journal/magazines/gazettes, not in national newspapers. You're not obliged, nor need, to ring up your local news station to tell them about your discovery unless you feel it's absolutely necessary or you've discovered something absolutely revolutionary.

You simple publish a paper of your discovery, it gets peer reviewed sometimes others might repeat your experiment to make sure it works and once that is done it may be seen by the wider scientific community as valid and if the media gets whiff of it (as it's not just academics who can access peer reviewed journals) and think the public might find it interesting then it might get a mention in a newspaper. It certainly does not mean that what you discovered isn't useful, it just means that the media doesn't find it interesting enough, but most of the time the media is not a proper judge on these matters. You don't get the public to decide what the verdict is in a murder trial.

For instance, if you discovered, say, a way to make computer run faster, the chances of that being mentioned in a newspaper are less than, say, the discovery of an extra planet in the solar system.

In terms of usefulness, the former would arguably be more useful than the latter, but the more interesting in the eyes of the wider public would probably be the discovery of the new planet.

You can see, therefore, the subjectivity of usefulness. The newspaper might view the story about the extra planet as being more interesting and therefore satisfy their readers making it more useful for the newspaper as its more likely to keep them reading, while on the other hand a computer magazine/journal (which mightn't be read by as many people) might view the discovery of a new way to make computers run faster as being more interesting to their readers.

The point is, the media isn't the best gauge of what is actually useful. Therefore fame isn't the best gauge of actual contribution or of its usefulness thereof.

You kind of lost me, but I think I was able to wrap my head around what you were saying- "celebrity scientists" perhaps? Those who know how to tap into the public consciousness so to speak and are able to explain their ideas in terms that the average layman would understand as well as his or her scientific peers, so by your example would I be right in thinking you mean that while Stephen Hawkings theories are notable, there are many scientists whose work goes un-noticed because they would not be seen by the general media as "important" as when Stephen Hawking speaks? In that sense then certainly he is over-rated, but that's just because he knows how to work the media.

It's the same way (if I may borrow your computer analogy), Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs never had an original idea in their lives, so they were massively over-rated in terms of their actual contributions to the world of computers, but the reason you heard so much about them in particular and not the hundreds of researchers and computer programmers that brought their ideas to fruition, is because both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates knew how to market themselves and their vision, to make their vision accessible to a wider audience, the same way Stephen Hawking does.

Certainly they are over-rated, but without them, the average person would not have the understanding of the world around them, or the understanding of computers that we do today, so while their contributions to their actual fields may be of less value than those around them, their contribution to the average person's understanding of these fields should not be under-rated either.

David Attenborough would be another example of one who has not contributed much in the field of research into animal and plant life on earth, but he has contributed much to the average person's understanding of the world around them. This is an example of how one could over-rate him on one level, but equally under-rate him on another level.

Napper Hawkins

I'm seeing Bill Hicks pop up here a lot and I'd like to address it. He wasn't a comedian and he would have told you that himself.

He was a social commentator (and a damn fine one) who just happened to express his ideas in a funny way.

He couldn't care less if he made you laugh, as long as he made you think.

Napper Hawkins

girl2 wrote: »

Yes yes yes. See. Not nice.

And furthermore, she has a body of a teenage boy…

http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Am+I+the+only+one+who+thinks+Keira+Knightley+has+_c365989017cf190b73503aaf957a1678.jpg

(hope that link works)

Not a fabulous female body…not a decent boob in sight

What makes you think I give a toss about boob size? It's the woman that's attached to them that's important. Small or big, they're all boobs. And awesome.

Your link doesn't work.

keith16

keith16 wrote: »

I agree. He is definitely one of the best we'll ever see. I said that in my post but you've proven my point and felt the need to tell me again.

I don't need to be reminded about it every 5 seconds. It's the constant spunking adulation that annoys me. As another poster said about Bob Marley, I'm getting sick to death of him because of it.

Thats because everytime we think we've seen Messi do it all he does something else incredible. He is phenomenal ..1....2....3....4...5 seconds Phenomenal i tell ya

girl2

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

What makes you think I give a toss about boob size? Small or big, they're all boobs. And awesome.

Your link doesn't work.

Ah botheration. Anyway, buddy, we'll agree to disagree on this one. And the general consensus is that keira is a boy with no boobs

NegativeCreep

girl2 wrote: »

Ah botheration. Anyway, buddy, we'll agree to disagree on this one. And the general consensus is that keira is a boy with no boobs

Perhaps that's the general consensus amongst jealous girls

girl2

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Perhaps that's the general consensus amongst jealous girls

Jealous…pffft! Not a bit actually…I just think our society of young people with these notions (leading to all sorts of eating disorders) that they need to look like that is ridiculous. I don't like her…I think her figure is a joke…and I really thought men were all about the fabulous curvaceous bodies that looked like real women (with fabulous breasts )

Napper Hawkins

girl2 wrote: »

Ah botheration. Anyway, buddy, we'll agree to disagree on this one. And the general consensus is that keira is a boy with no boobs

Are you a straight female? Because if you are, your opinion doesn't matter one jot when it comes to what straight men find attractive.

I think Ryan Gosling looks like the gayest guy in the world, but plenty of women I know think he's gorgeous. So I say nothing.

girl2

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Are you a straight female? Because if you are, your opinion doesn't matter one jot when it comes to what straight men find attractive.

I think Ryan Gosling looks like the gayest guy in the world, but plenty of women I know think he's gorgeous. So I say nothing.

Yes, I'm very much straight. And FYI…I'm totally with you on the Ryan gosling thing!!!

NegativeCreep

girl2 wrote: »

Jealous…pffft! Not a bit actually…I just think our society of young people with these notions (leading to all sorts of eating disorders) that they need to look like that is ridiculous. I don't like her…I think her figure is a joke…and I really thought men were all about the fabulous curvaceous bodies that looked like real women (with fabulous breasts )

I must say that I prefer skinny girls. as skinny as possible without looking anorexic is perfect imo Boobs are important but curves are overrated I think :pac:

ChunkyLover54

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I'm seeing Bill Hicks pop up here a lot and I'd like to address it. He wasn't a comedian and he would have told you that himself.

He was a social commentator (and a damn fine one) who just happened to express his ideas in a funny way.

He couldn't care less if he made you laugh, as long as he made you think.

I thought he was funny enough but he is definitely overrated

Napper Hawkins

ChunkyLover54 wrote: »

I thought he was funny enough but he is definitely overrated

In what way?

say_who_now?

NegativeCreep wrote: »

I must say that I prefer skinny girls. as skinny as possible without looking anorexic is perfect imo Boobs are important but curves are overratedI think :pac:

I had to laugh when I read this, and the next poster was ChunkyLover!

As an aside, I can see where you're coming from. I can appreciate Mila Kunis as one of the sexiest, most incredibly beautiful girls I've ever seen (someone else will inevitably disagree and say she is over-rated! ), but I'd break the poor girl in half! I'd prefer a girl like Scarlett Rouge... and that's not a name you should google in work!

ChunkyLover54

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

In what way?

I don't think he was as great a comedian as (what I perceive as) his huge cult following suggests.

karl_m

1,Georgia Salpa has weird facial features and no arse. She is only a midsection.

2, Curves are not over-rated, they are simply beautiful. Keira Knightley has the body of an adolescent boy.

3, I'm straight, but Ryan Gosling is a lash, and a very good actor. No shame in admiring good looks.

karl_m

say_who_now? wrote: »

I had to laugh when I read this, and the next poster was ChunkyLover!

As an aside, I can see where you're coming from. I can appreciate Mila Kunis as one of the sexiest, most incredibly beautiful girls I've ever seen (someone else will inevitably disagree and say she is over-rated! ), but I'd break the poor girl in half! I'd prefer a girl like Scarlett Rouge... and that's not a name you should google in work!

Dirty boy, I should have known that be a BBW pornstar.

narddog

I always thought Bill Connolly was overrated. Robin Williams also. Screaming at the top of your voice and throwing mad shapes does not constitute funny. Some great one liners, but gets a bit old after a while.

Yer man Michelangelo is a bit overrated too. I had a mate get him to paint his gable end. He ****ed up but his ceiling looks great now.

Stoner

Seinfeld.

Da Shins Kelly

Kanye West. The dude's talented, but let's not lose the run of ourselves here.

BadCompany

Lelantos wrote: »

I dunno, Alicia Keys is hyped up because she's one of the few African American women who can play an instrument.

Am I really going to be the first to call you up over this comment!? Even if you said "famous" African American women (which you didn't, but I will assume that this is what you meant) this is bordering on quite offensive in my opinion! Ever hear of Nina Simone? I think you could have as much trouble coming up with a list of great famous white women that play musical instruments, it's the "women" part that may give a small bit of trouble purely because the music industry is still so male-dominated to this day, I really don't see why you had to make a point of saying "African American" women. For the record I am not a massive Keys fan but I didn't appreciate your comment, I find it a bit ignorant if I'm honest, though I'd be happy to hear your counter-argument if you have one, perhaps I've mis-understood your original post.

and also

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Well that's probably a lot to do with them genuinely liking his music as well as revering his ability.

Those other guitarists you mentioned? Huge talent, no question, I have massive admiration for their ability and only wish I could play like them. But you couldn't pay me to listen to Steve Vai, Van Halen, Rhoads or Malmsteen. Far too cheesy imo. Don't know the other lads, will check them out.

if Van Halen are too cheesy for ya, I don't wanna be your friend anyway bro!:D

Napper Hawkins

BadCompany wrote: »

if Van Halen are too cheesy for ya, I don't wanna be your friend anyway bro!:D

Ha yeah, each to their own I suppose!

Napper Hawkins

karl_m wrote: »

1,Georgia Salpa has weird facial features and no arse. She is only a midsection.

2, Curves are not over-rated, they are simply beautiful. Keira Knightley has the body of an adolescent boy.

3, I'm straight, but Ryan Gosling is a lash, and a very good actor. No shame in admiring good looks.

1. Personal opinion. Still way above average and you're in the minority if you think otherwise.

2. Love curves and again, personal opinion.

3. When did I say he wasn't good looking? I said he was gay (stereotypically, I know there are plenty of gay guys who don't fit the stereotype) looking. Which is perfectly fine if that's what you're into.

TAlderson

Jesus. Great guy, I'm sure; just a bit over-hyped nowadays.

Sofaspud

Heath Ledger's Joker.

He acted it well and everything, but people go on about it as if it was the best thing that's ever happened to cinema, and I don't think that would at all be the case if he were still alive.

dave3004

Stoner wrote: »

Seinfeld.

This might be insubordination but ......

GTFO !