It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
I think if Katrien did reply, fans might have a bit more respect for her, I wonder how many fans emails she receives a day, and how many she replies too?
Let me guess the second part of the question first ;
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
English is not her first language though and the difference between weird and unusual is subtle and possibly not fully understood by someone who is not 100% fluent in the language.
She may have meant weird, but it is also entirely plausible she didn't mean it to be interpreted the way it has been.
Of course a follow up statement could clarify things, or maybe there is nothing to clarify.
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
English is not her first language though and the difference between weird and unusual is subtle and possibly not fully understood by someone who is not 100% fluent in the language.
She may have meant weird, but it is also entirely plausible she didn't mean it to be interpreted the way it has been.
Of course a follow up statement could clarify things, or maybe there is nothing to clarify.
She was educated to masters degree level at the University College London, she probably speaks better English than me.
But let's, for a second, consider you are correct and her English isn't up to grasping the subtle differences between "unusual" and "weird" (and I'm not convinced either of those words is appropriate) why on earth did she put herself in that position, where she was on stage in a filmed, broadcast interview being asked questions about her "customers" in a language she apparently isn't proficient in ?
She knew what she was saying, she chose that word because she was playing to the audience in front of her and she got caught. Do you think she would have dared used the word "weird" to make her point at that car crash of a fans q & a session ?
She knew what she was doing, she has done it before. She forgot that we might see it and she was having a moan at us. She likes to feel superior, we have seen it with interviews to the press. To be honest, the annoying thing for me is she knows so little about the game so the statements are coming from no basis. In terms of football knowledge she is about as inferior as you can get. Even if it were true that she has been totally misunderstood, why not correct and apologise? The message was that we have to know our place and her vision was this model that would have no attraction to any football fan. It would/will kill the club. We have to fight her and the owner, if he shares that vision with everything we have. If he doesn't share that vision, why has he not got rid of her?
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
Yes, she said "weird". I said that already. It's not offensive because she wasn't talking about supporters being "weird" or that fans have a "weird" attachment to the club. That's not even close to what she said.
Your suggestions for alternative words suggest that you don't understand the context in which she used the word "weird".
I've said already that she shouldn't have spoken at that point in the interview - she had already answered the question a while earlier. I've also said that she should take herself out of these situations where she thinks she has to talk about Charlton fans rather than talk to us. For those people who think she did it deliberately because she's some expert in scheming, I think it shows her up as a mediocre lawyer.
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
Yes, she said "weird". I said that already. It's not offensive because she wasn't talking about supporters being "weird" or that fans have a "weird" attachment to the club. That's not even close to what she said.
Your suggestions for alternative words suggest that you don't understand the context in which she used the word "weird".
I've said already that she shouldn't have spoken at that point in the interview - she had already answered the question a while earlier. I've also said that she should take herself out of these situations where she thinks she has to talk about Charlton fans rather than talk to us. For those people who think she did it deliberately because she's some expert in scheming, I think it shows her up as a mediocre lawyer.
But she didn't call fans "weird".
Fair enough, our interpretations are very different, enjoy your Friday night.
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
Yes, she said "weird". I said that already. It's not offensive because she wasn't talking about supporters being "weird" or that fans have a "weird" attachment to the club. That's not even close to what she said.
Your suggestions for alternative words suggest that you don't understand the context in which she used the word "weird".
I've said already that she shouldn't have spoken at that point in the interview - she had already answered the question a while earlier. I've also said that she should take herself out of these situations where she thinks she has to talk about Charlton fans rather than talk to us. For those people who think she did it deliberately because she's some expert in scheming, I think it shows her up as a mediocre lawyer.
But she didn't call fans "weird".
Fair enough, our interpretations are very different, enjoy your Friday night.
There could have been better analogies. She could have put on her best Swiss Tony voice and said 'watching a football club is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman.....'
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
Yes, she said "weird". I said that already. It's not offensive because she wasn't talking about supporters being "weird" or that fans have a "weird" attachment to the club. That's not even close to what she said.
Your suggestions for alternative words suggest that you don't understand the context in which she used the word "weird".
I've said already that she shouldn't have spoken at that point in the interview - she had already answered the question a while earlier. I've also said that she should take herself out of these situations where she thinks she has to talk about Charlton fans rather than talk to us. For those people who think she did it deliberately because she's some expert in scheming, I think it shows her up as a mediocre lawyer.
But she didn't call fans "weird".
EDIT: I have just watched it again, she said that it is weird that football fans complain to the club when they wouldn't complain to a restaurant or cinema. She is actually talking shit, people DO complain to the owners of restaurants or cinemas (in the latter case, not about the film, but they might do about stinking bogs or cold tea). Or they just don't go back, she should think herself lucky that her "customers" care enough to keep coming back, and for suggesting how they can improve their "product". There is an inference that fans are weird without a doubt though.
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
Yes, she said "weird". I said that already. It's not offensive because she wasn't talking about supporters being "weird" or that fans have a "weird" attachment to the club. That's not even close to what she said.
Your suggestions for alternative words suggest that you don't understand the context in which she used the word "weird".
I've said already that she shouldn't have spoken at that point in the interview - she had already answered the question a while earlier. I've also said that she should take herself out of these situations where she thinks she has to talk about Charlton fans rather than talk to us. For those people who think she did it deliberately because she's some expert in scheming, I think it shows her up as a mediocre lawyer.
But she didn't call fans "weird".
EDIT: I have just watched it again, she said that it is weird that football fans complain to the club when they wouldn't complain to a restaurant or cinema. She is actually talking shit, people DO complain to the owners of restaurants or cinemas (in the latter case, not about the film, but they might do about stinking bogs or cold tea). Or they just don't go back, she should think herself lucky that her "customers" care enough to keep coming back, and for suggesting how they can improve their "product". There is an inference that fans are weird without a doubt though.
or about other cinema goers slurping their drink, crunching their nachos and munching their popcorn!! - STOP IT!
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
She wasnt dissociating them, she was trying to distinguish between the two but in a negative, disparaging way. She felt that having a different relationship with a football club than with that of a cinema or restaurant or feeling any ownership was "weird".
She was saying "they don't react like that in a restaurant or cinema, why do they react like that with poor me?" and asking rhetorically "Why do they feel a sense of ownership when they don't have equity?". That she doesn't understand the reasons for that is bad enough, that she says it in public and in such as way to curry favour with her audience is worse.
That's not what she said at all.
Yes it is - she literally used the word "weird" to describe football supporters attachment to the football club. She could have used any other word - "incredible", "amazing", "unbelievable", but she chose weird.
She used the word "weird", yes. She did not use it to describe football supporters or their attachment to the club.
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
But she didn't even say "unusual" she said "weird" you must surely understand the connotations, as she does, of choosing that word ?
Yes, she said "weird". I said that already. It's not offensive because she wasn't talking about supporters being "weird" or that fans have a "weird" attachment to the club. That's not even close to what she said.
Your suggestions for alternative words suggest that you don't understand the context in which she used the word "weird".
I've said already that she shouldn't have spoken at that point in the interview - she had already answered the question a while earlier. I've also said that she should take herself out of these situations where she thinks she has to talk about Charlton fans rather than talk to us. For those people who think she did it deliberately because she's some expert in scheming, I think it shows her up as a mediocre lawyer.
But she didn't call fans "weird".
EDIT: I have just watched it again, she said that it is weird that football fans complain to the club when they wouldn't complain to a restaurant or cinema. She is actually talking shit, people DO complain to the owners of restaurants or cinemas (in the latter case, not about the film, but they might do about stinking bogs or cold tea). Or they just don't go back, she should think herself lucky that her "customers" care enough to keep coming back, and for suggesting how they can improve their "product". There is an inference that fans are weird without a doubt though.
I'm sure she says "It's very weird because they (referring to Charlton fans) feel a sense of ownership". I'm not sure how that can be taken in any other way other than she think it's weird that we feel a sense of ownership over our club. But if we're just customers how can we "build a better tomorrow together" ? I don't see Cineworld or Pizza Express inviting their customers to have that impact on their future.
I'm sure she says "It's very weird because they (referring to Charlton fans) feel a sense of ownership". I'm not sure how that can be taken in any other way other than she think it's weird that we feel a sense of ownership over our club. But if we're just customers how can we "build a better tomorrow together" ? I don't see Cineworld or Pizza Express inviting their customers to have that impact on their future.
Because the PR and marketing department know that the irrational passion we have for the club is the way to hit home with us, even if that wretched woman doesn't.
Has anyone stuck a read receipt on their emails to see if she actually opens them or whether they are transferred straight to the trash folder?
Not sure we need a read receipt to know whether she reads them. Given her profile is now lower than a limbo dancer, would be interested to know if she even comes into the office any more.
I have written a similar themed email which I haven’t sent because it’s turned into a not so short story of my life supporting Charlton. But it is quite therapeutic. Yours is much more succinct, but probably won’t get read because our CEO has spent so much time reading our emails and internet shopping for sofa’s she can’t find time to meet with Peter Varney
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
I didn't read it that way, although as an apologist, you could pretend there was an unfortunate ambiguity. But it would not wash with me and many others.
If it had been me and I realised my words had been wrongly interpreted because there was an ambiguity I failed to anticipate, I would have made a fulsome apology for being careless and explained what I actually meant to say. If I didn't want to be called a liar, i would keep my mouth shut.
I interpreted her as saying that fans and cinema customers are no different so isn't the fans' behaviour weird.
You are saying she was not presuming analogy between the two groups, but trying to say the opposite, that fans are not the same as customers and behave differently as might be expected.
Try rephrasing what she said with the two intended meanings:-
1. Fans are no different to restaurant customers, isn't it weird they think they can complain to the owner when you only complain to the waitress in a restaurant. 2. Fans are very different to restaurant customers, isn't it weird that fans complain differently.
Your interpretation makes "isn't that weird" a complete nonsense statement, it is not "weird" to have fans and customers behave differently if the products are different.
I would not be surprised to see KM at some stage, when she emerges from the bunker, to play the victim and advance the same interpretation, but it would be a lie.
It still dumbfounds me that so much energy has gone into criticising Katrien's restaurant/cinema analogy, when it was clearly intended as a way to disassociate football fandom from other forms of custom in the first place.
I didn't read it that way, although as an apologist, you could pretend there was an unfortunate ambiguity. But it would not wash with me and many others.
If it had been me and I realised my words had been wrongly interpreted because there was an ambiguity I failed to anticipate, I would have made a fulsome apology for being careless and explained what I actually meant to say. If I didn't want to be called a liar, i would keep my mouth shut.
I interpreted her as saying that fans and cinema customers are no different so isn't the fans' behaviour weird.
You are saying she was not presuming analogy between the two groups, but trying to say the opposite, that fans are not the same as customers and behave differently as might be expected.
Try rephrasing what she said with the two intended meanings:-
1. Fans are no different to restaurant customers, isn't it weird they think they can complain to the owner when you only complain to the waitress in a restaurant. 2. Fans are very different to restaurant customers, isn't it weird that fans complain differently.
Your interpretation makes "isn't that weird" a complete nonsense statement, it is not "weird" to have fans and customers behave differently if the products are different.
I would not be surprised to see KM at some stage, when she emerges from the bunker, to play the victim and advance the same interpretation, but it would be a lie.
All down to Google translate again. She was in Ireland after all.
As a CustomerI haven't been to the Restaurant for 2 years, ever since my favourite French dish was removed from the Menu in Jan 14. If it wasn't obvious then to the well meaning fans it must be now. All the clues were there from the beginning. What club would sell their leading goalscorer and Talisman when they are in a relegation scrap. I deduced the owner hadn't a clue about English footy. The other thing we kept hearing was how interested Duchbag was in investing in the Academy. That got me thinking why would he want to pump money into the Training ground yet sell the leading goalscorer as soon as he could. Does he want us to become a Nursery club for other clubs I was thinking. Strange decisions from the start from our owner. Unfortunately all my worst fears have been realised. Shame it took others so long to realise. I can also assure you all this, and that is, the only way to get Duchbag out is by Boycotting and very aggressive protests.
Comments
First part;
Your suggested words would not have been appropriate given the context in which she used "weird". In fact, it would have been worse if she had chosen any of them. "Unusual" would have been a more appropriate word given the context.
She may have meant weird, but it is also entirely plausible she didn't mean it to be interpreted the way it has been.
Of course a follow up statement could clarify things, or maybe there is nothing to clarify.
But let's, for a second, consider you are correct and her English isn't up to grasping the subtle differences between "unusual" and "weird" (and I'm not convinced either of those words is appropriate) why on earth did she put herself in that position, where she was on stage in a filmed, broadcast interview being asked questions about her "customers" in a language she apparently isn't proficient in ?
She knew what she was saying, she chose that word because she was playing to the audience in front of her and she got caught. Do you think she would have dared used the word "weird" to make her point at that car crash of a fans q & a session ?
Your suggestions for alternative words suggest that you don't understand the context in which she used the word "weird".
I've said already that she shouldn't have spoken at that point in the interview - she had already answered the question a while earlier. I've also said that she should take herself out of these situations where she thinks she has to talk about Charlton fans rather than talk to us. For those people who think she did it deliberately because she's some expert in scheming, I think it shows her up as a mediocre lawyer.
But she didn't call fans "weird".
She could have put on her best Swiss Tony voice and said 'watching a football club is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman.....'
If it had been me and I realised my words had been wrongly interpreted because there was an ambiguity I failed to anticipate, I would have made a fulsome apology for being careless and explained what I actually meant to say. If I didn't want to be called a liar, i would keep my mouth shut.
I interpreted her as saying that fans and cinema customers are no different so isn't the fans' behaviour weird.
You are saying she was not presuming analogy between the two groups, but trying to say the opposite, that fans are not the same as customers and behave differently as might be expected.
Try rephrasing what she said with the two intended meanings:-
1. Fans are no different to restaurant customers, isn't it weird they think they can complain to the owner when you only complain to the waitress in a restaurant.
2. Fans are very different to restaurant customers, isn't it weird that fans complain differently.
Your interpretation makes "isn't that weird" a complete nonsense statement, it is not "weird" to have fans and customers behave differently if the products are different.
I would not be surprised to see KM at some stage, when she emerges from the bunker, to play the victim and advance the same interpretation, but it would be a lie.