Food Network's Robert Irvine fired

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Next thing we know it will be 60 Minutes fault Clemens was on the needle and lied to congress about it.

His lies could end up causing the business to lose money.

I'm not sure I follow, If a company didn't lose money, or somehow turned it around and made money off of Irvines lies then Irvines deceit would be OK?
 
Where did I ever say it would be OK Wart. My point is that it was not just a little white lie like some are saying.
 
Yes I saw the question mark Wart. I took your question as an implication as it was obvious by my statements that I did not think his lying was OK at all. You must have missed this part of my post...

GB said:
That is not right in any way shape or form.
 
Last edited:
They should give him another chance, I think.

Another chance ... based on what?

Of course we all have a different perspective, but for me, I really think he made a fool of the network execs. Very little Robert Irvine says is credible at this point, so I'm surprised the show hasn't been pulled. Think about how many aspiring chefs are watching, lots of them impressionable young kids. There are all kinds of talented people out there. Why promote lying and cheating by granting a second chance?

I just can't get behind him. The man completely misrepresented himself. He's a downright imposter. A second chance would not be a good business decision for the network and sponsors, in my VERY humble opinion. Integrity matters.
 
Lying is lying--there are no different colors, IMHO. He knew his stuff and should have used that knowledge to get the job and should not have lied. And you're right Corey, the network should have checked him out.

The thing I don't understand is why he kept lying. I can [not quite, but almost] understand him lying to get the job, but to keep lying to us on his show is something else. Neither was right of course, but most people who would lie to get a job wouldn't keep on at it, just so they wouldn't call attention to their lies. He definitely didn't play it very smart.

:)Barbara
 
I'm amused at his euphemisms. He's sorry to have "exagerated" his bio...hmmm, if he claimed to be the highest order of Knight and they don't know him from "Boo", is that really an "exageration" or a bald-faced lie? If he claimed to cook for Presidents and Royalty, and they've never heard of him, is that stretching the truth or flat out bull (edited for language)?

The guy's so crooked he poops (edited for language) spaghetti! I can't comprehend how anyone could spin his crap as anything less than fraud.

A man (or woman) has very little in this world beyond their word and the love of their family. I hope he has the latter, 'cause the former ain't worth spit.:mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lying is lying--there are no different colors, IMHO. He knew his stuff and should have used that knowledge to get the job and should not have lied. And you're right Corey, the network should have checked him out.

The thing I don't understand is why he kept lying. I can [not quite, but almost] understand him lying to get the job, but to keep lying to us on his show is something else. Neither was right of course, but most people who would lie to get a job wouldn't keep on at it, just so they wouldn't call attention to their lies. He definitely didn't play it very smart.

:)Barbara



I think this is what happens when someone makes up a 2nd lie to cover up the first lie.

And it goes on and on and on and on until they've told so many lies, that it'll take a crowbar to get them out of the long string of lies they told.

"We asked you if you really make a wedding cake for Princess Diana. You said yes and the lie detector determined that's a lie."

"We asked you if you've had many years of experience as a chef. You said yes and the lie detector determined that's a lie."

"And finally, we asked you if you lied on your resume. You said no, and the lie detector determined that a lie."
 
Last edited:
Well then, I think it's THEIR fault for not checking out his background first.
How is it their fault? What happened to personal responsibility Corey?Why should it be his employers fault that they trusted that he was telling the truth instead of his fault for deceiving them?
 
I'm going to side with GB in that regard. While FN's failure to check Irvine's history is somewhat irresponsible, it is not the company's fault that he lied. If I forget to lock my front door then I'm a moron, but that does not excuse someone from walking in and making her or himself at home.
 
How is it their fault? What happened to personal responsibility Corey?Why should it be his employers fault that they trusted that he was telling the truth instead of his fault for deceiving them?




Background check.

It might have been easier. Both him and the FN would have been spared the pain and aggony.
 
That does not answer my question though Corey. Why is it not his fault for lying? What happened to personal responsibility?

He was the one who was deceitful. Why is it someone else's fault and not his?
 
I never suggested that it WASN'T his fault for lying.

Yes, he got himself in some hot water. And yes, it was his responsibility to tell the truth.
 
Thanks, no problem.

One thing is for sure: If you don't cut the mustard with the FN, then you're out of there on roller skates.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom