[Jules2]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

The wrap party was on the 14th, so the Star sat on this to print it yesterday. They were said to be fuming. Is the hear say or did it quote them? I am guessing the Star is a reputable mag in the UK.....

I cannot quote word for word as there are copyright laws. I daresay if you look for the piece on line you will find it and judge it for yourself. No matter who we like or understand, there are always others who will deny our own thoughts. It is up to everyone to make up their own minds tbh. I am only stating what was said.

I am not one for buying magazines tbh but I have noticed over the last years that they, along with the newspapers, do not follow BB as much as they used to. Bearing this in mind I do not find it unusual for them to sit on something which isnt such popular news as I am a Celebrity and the XFactor. They seem to be the two who are saturating the news.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

There was a statement I made at the beginning, no question. Then there was a question that could be answered by the poster. If it was a quote they will put these "" at the beginning and end of the quote. Then I followed up with another statement, again no question. So I asked one question and you qualify that as putting someone through the "3rd degree." I would disagree with you again as well as most posters on here.

And I suppose you are one of the ones that said Louise is thick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBfan6418
Don't care to talk to you at all much less one on one.

Thought you didn't care to talk to me?

You simply did not like the fact that I challenged you, and in a way in you could offer no reasonable reply.

You ask for info, and you were given it. When you were the info you requested, you then attempted to dismiss and/or question that - but are unable to disupute it with anything solid other than your own opinion - despite having been given info that has been published, where and when - rather than just another fm's opinion. If you were so keen to prove your own point, you would be doing your own homework.

Perhaps you have done your homework, and are unable to find something to back up your own thoughts - particularly when another fm has given you the info re the mag, what the comments were, the date of publication of said mag etc is.

As for Louise and her being thick: this thread is about Alex, her splitting the money (or not as the case may be), and some of the housemates reaction to that... and laterly, that being Jay and Louise. let's try to stay on topic eh.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Jules2

I cannot quote word for word as there are copyright laws. I daresay if you look for the piece on line you will find it and judge it for yourself. No matter who we like or understand, there are always others who will deny our own thoughts. It is up to everyone to make up their own minds tbh. I am only stating what was said.

I am not one for buying magazines tbh but I have noticed over the last years that they, along with the newspapers, do not follow BB as much as they used to. Bearing this in mind I do not find it unusual for them to sit on something which isnt such popular news as I am a Celebrity and the XFactor. They seem to be the two who are saturating the news.

I looked online and couldn't find it. I never asked for word for word. I was simply asking if it quoted them saying this or if the magazine was the one saying it. A lot of times they will run a quote and then add in what they want at the end (outside the quote) so people are fooled to believing it came from that person.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

What's funny is how you post comments off what you have heard instead of trying to find out facts. you have not even read the article yourself but have commented on it. Seeing how everything Jay does is scrutinized on this site I find it hard to believe a thread was not created yesterday with a picture of the article. So yes I will question it if I want to.

I personally wouldnt reproduce anything on a thread as I wouldnt want to find myself in trouble with copyright laws. Whilst we stand up for the ones we champion, we have to accept for each of them that things have been said, none of them are perfect. We ourselves cannot prove anything as we are only going by hearsay. We make up our own minds.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

I looked online and couldn't find it. I never asked for word for word. I was simply asking if it quoted them saying this or if the magazine was the one saying it. A lot of times they will run a quote and then add in what they want at the end (outside the quote) so people are fooled to believing it came from that person.

So you are basically saying that the fm in question is being dishonest and cannot be trusted? Surely that's a wee bit 'off'.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

So you are basically saying that the fm in question is being dishonest and cannot be trusted? Surely that's a wee bit 'off'.

Umm no I think he's asking for the source so he can clarify what was said for himself, it's a very reasonable request and I don't know why you have such an issue with it

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

There was a statement I made at the beginning, no question. Then there was a question that could be answered by the poster. If it was a quote they will put these "" at the beginning and end of the quote. Then I followed up with another statement, again no question. So I asked one question and you qualify that as putting someone through the "3rd degree." I would disagree with you again as well as most posters on here.

And I suppose you are one of the ones that said Louise is thick.

Ok folks, listen I dont mind being asked the question (what does fm stand for Pyramid please, so many different sayings I am just catching up on it all I think lol).

Now I have had a look for the Star magazine 28/11/2011, I havent got time to go right into it but I would confirm that I did find the Star 21/11/2011 on line a few days ago. I wanted to confirm an interview with Aaron and Faye, was pleased that I found it. Bearing this in mind I have no doubt that the 28th will be there at some time or another. Am never sure how these things work tbh.

I have had another look at my own magazine and the piece says "according to our source........". We therefore have to ask ourselves where did the source get it from? I am well aware of how things can be misinterpreted but my main point in putting this forward, was to do with the issue of the money and the fact that for Jay to get all he thinks he is due, the first part of the agreement has to be resolved. Until this is done then there is no reason at all why the second part should be undertaken. Bearing all of this in mind, perhaps it is better that they all keep to their own little bits of money. I would think that each of them will have gained far more outside of the house than in it.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Jules2

Imo he would be upset about Alex not sharing the money because if Alex doesnt keep her side of the bargain then imo Aaron shouldnt neither. Aaron should have the greater amount as he won . In theory Jay would have done better to offer Aaron the 5, thus leaving Aaron's balance to be claimed from Alex. Louise should then have claimed her balance from Alex. It all rests on Alex if Jay has already shared with Louise. The first part needed to be taken up before the second part was undertaken, thus Jay has now lost out and this is possibly why he would be upset at Alex not sharing. It is said in the magazines that Louise and Jay are upset?

Originally Posted by Jules2

It did say in the magazine that they were annoyed because they had spent the money on them. Who knows eh!

I'll try this one last time. Both of your posts said "It." Who is it? Did the mag quote Jay or Louise saying they were annoyed / upset because they had spent money on them? All it takes is a yes or no answer. No copyright laws will be broken by answering.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Jules2

Ok folks, listen I dont mind being asked the question (what does fm stand for Pyramid please, so many different sayings I am just catching up on it all I think lol).

Now I have had a look for the Star magazine 28/11/2011, I havent got time to go right into it but I would confirm that I did find the Star 21/11/2011 on line a few days ago. I wanted to confirm an interview with Aaron and Faye, was pleased that I found it. Bearing this in mind I have no doubt that the 28th will be there at some time or another. Am never sure how these things work tbh.

I have had another look at my own magazine and the piece says "according to our source........". We therefore have to ask ourselves where did the source get it from? I am well aware of how things can be misinterpreted but my main point in putting this forward, was to do with the issue of the money and the fact that for Jay to get all he thinks he is due, the first part of the agreement has to be resolved. Until this is done then there is no reason at all why the second part should be undertaken. Bearing all of this in mind, perhaps it is better that they all keep to their own little bits of money. I would think that each of them will have gained far more outside of the house than in it.

Exactly what I thought. Thanks.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

I'll try this one last time. Both of your posts said "It." Who is it? Did the mag quote Jay or Louise saying they were annoyed / upset because they had spent money on them? All it takes is a yes or no answer. No copyright laws will be broken by answering.

I would not refer to a person as "it", my words clearly say "it is said in the magazines" I would confirm though that I have only read the Star.

Star obviously had their source at the presentation and it would have been their job to interview the HMs. The magazine was just the third party, I would say that being a popular magazine they have their reputation to uphold and would take all precautions not to print things which arent true.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Umm no I think he's asking for the source so he can clarify what was said for himself, it's a very reasonable request and I don't know why you have such an issue with it

I have as much issue with it as that same poster has with doubting another fm - which is equally as reasonable.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

That comes as absolutely no surprise.

There was both Jay and Louise banging on and on while they were in the house that they both bought the gifts because they wanted to, and in Louise's case: she actually said verbatim, "You don't give to receive but..."

The gifts were purchased as leverage to ensure that Alex would play ball as far as I am concerned. Having read what you've just written, it makes me all the happier that Alex appears to have dissied them - if that's what they've admitted in the mag. Proves that the birthday gifts weren't bought because they wanted to ... they bought because they wanted to ensure some form of payback, and now they didn't get that financial payback, they are annoyed.

If the gifts were bought out of sheer desire with no strings; they would have no reason to feel annoyed - nor would they feel the need to refer to the money they spent on the birthday gifts at all.

Originally Posted by Jules2

I would not refer to a person as "it", my words clearly say "it is said in the magazines" I would confirm though that I have only read the Star.

Star obviously had their source at the presentation and it would have been their job to interview the HMs. The magazine was just the third party, I would say that being a popular magazine they have their reputation to uphold and would take all precautions not to print things which arent true.

You also never corrected Pyramid as she took it that they(Jay & Lou) were quoted in the magazine.

The "source" could have been any number of people. For that matter it could have been Aaron. We know he is definitely not trustworthy. It also takes the focus off him for not sharing.

Don't be so naive Jules. Popular magazines publish plenty of stories that are not true. It's all about money. There might be more fact checking the bigger the story but this story would not be one of those cases.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

You also never corrected Pyramid as she took it that they(Jay & Lou) were quoted in the magazine.

The "source" could have been any number of people. For that matter it could have been Aaron. We know he is definitely not trustworthy. It also takes the focus off him for not sharing.

Don't be so naive Jules. Popular magazines publish plenty of stories that are not true. It's all about money. There might be more fact checking the bigger the story but this story would not be one of those cases.

Just to help you out a wee bit. I've highlighted one very small, but very important word in my post which you just quoted - that invalidates your need for anyone to correct me.

if that's what they've admitted in the mag.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Just to help you out a wee bit. I've highlighted one very small, but very important word in my post which you just quoted - that invalidates your need for anyone to correct me.

Pyramid off topic but that cat is hilarious

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

You also never corrected Pyramid as she took it that they(Jay & Lou) were quoted in the magazine.

The "source" could have been any number of people. For that matter it could have been Aaron. We know he is definitely not trustworthy. It also takes the focus off him for not sharing.

Don't be so naive Jules. Popular magazines publish plenty of stories that are not true. It's all about money. There might be more fact checking the bigger the story but this story would not be one of those cases.

Oh for goodness sake, you are just picking for the sake of it. You had already told Pyramid that it was between yourself and myself so why would I correct Pyramid if I wasnt talking to him/her?

I am not interested tbh it matters not to me whether it is fact or not. I can promise you that I am definitely not naive, a newspaper and magazine have reporters, they are employed to cover the stories of the day. Now there are other bits to the magazine which are very interesting and which may give bulk to the words themselves. I have no intention of going into anything any further.

As regards Aaron, you seem so sure that he is untrustworthy, that is just your opinion and smells of sourgrapes, many would disagree on good authority. It seems to me that you have twisted this thread back to Aaron when it was mainly to do with Alex. I brought in the issue as to why Jay could be annoyed at Alex. I was debating without accusation.

I cannot help wondering why it is so important to you to dispute the piece, why do you have to prove something which none of us can prove. We can only state fact and the fact is, it was said and printed, the quote pieces were mine as I was quoting from the magazine.

I think the naievity may be yours tbh, it is obvious that the magazine as a whole, is the third party and they would definitely employ reporters. If they print negative things then they are open to prosecution.

Surely we all accept that the HMs are/were not perfect?

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by kazanne

Pyramid off topic but that cat is hilarious

I agree Kazanne, along with the name it makes me wonder if Pyramid has an interest in the ancient Egyptians and alike, I know I am.

[jo1791]

Tbf, I've read numourous articles (specifically re BB) in different 'mags, online and off' that all have an element of truth to them but have been twisted around and turned upside down so much, it is untrue. Of course you would have had to have watched the HLs to realise this. I

t wouldn't surprise me at all if this has been blown out of all proportion!!!

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Jules2

Oh for goodness sake, you are just picking for the sake of it. You had already told Pyramid that it was between yourself and myself so why would I correct Pyramid if I wasnt talking to him/her?

I am not interested tbh it matters not to me whether it is fact or not. I can promise you that I am definitely not naive, a newspaper and magazine have reporters, they are employed to cover the stories of the day. Now there are other bits to the magazine which are very interesting and which may give bulk to the words themselves. I have no intention of going into anything any further.

As regards Aaron, you seem so sure that he is untrustworthy, that is just your opinion and smells of sourgrapes, many would disagree on good authority. It seems to me that you have twisted this thread back to Aaron when it was mainly to do with Alex. I brought in the issue as to why Jay could be annoyed at Alex. I was debating without accusation.

I cannot help wondering why it is so important to you to dispute the piece, why do you have to prove something which none of us can prove. We can only state fact and the fact is, it was said and printed, the quote pieces were mine as I was quoting from the magazine.

I think the naievity may be yours tbh, it is obvious that the magazine as a whole, is the third party and they would definitely employ reporters. If they print negative things then they are open to prosecution.

Surely we all accept that the HMs are/were not perfect?

According to Pyramid when you post something on here you are talking to all FM's. So i guess you should have PM'd the person you were talking to. You should have corrected her because you two were having a discussion about it.

Of course it doesn't matter to you whether its fact or not. Just throw what you can out there and see what sticks. Don't get pissed when you get called out on it.

Not picking for the sake of it at all. My original question was, was it hearsay or did they quote Jay and Louise? You and pyramid decided to go off topic for a while before you answered the question. This whole thing could have been covered in a few simple posts.

untrustworthy - not worthy of trust or belief; "an untrustworthy person"
Aaron made a deal and shook on it. He has not paid up so he is untrustworthy. Simple as. Same for Alex.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by jo1791

Tbf, I've read numourous articles (specifically re BB) in different 'mags, online and off' that all have an element of truth to them but have been twisted around and turned upside down so much, it is untrue. Of course you would have had to have watched the HLs to realise this. I

t wouldn't surprise me at all if this has been blown out of all proportion!!!

If one feels that Jo then it is up to the person who is emphatically trying to disprove it, to find out for oneself. As I have said we can only surmise none of us can truly give the truth unless we were there.

The piece in question consists of 17 lines with 5 words at the most in each sentence. It is boxed in with a photograph of Alex and Tom. The words themselves are very explicit. Now there are also 5 other boxed pieces, a piece with Aaron and Faye in, now I know for a fact that the words are true. A piece with Maisie and Aden in, now we all know that Rebecca and Aden have split, it was said that Rebecca isnt interested in being involved in the show, truth. A lovely picture of Maisie and Heaven with a description of what they supped on lol.

A piece about Jay and Louise saying how they are still going strong but also commenting on the fact that Louise shunned the girls. If I had to make a conclusion from these pieces I would say that Louise and Jay didnt make good impressions of themselves, but that is my take on it. If anyone is interested then it is up to them to find out for themselves The last piece was one of Anton being evicted from the party LOL I have read bits of this in other places, had to laugh

Every other thing was in order so it would seem strange that just one piece would be an exageration.

I know what you are saying, many so called celebrities say "I didnt say that" but time will tell. Not much point in buying the magazines though if we cannot believe at least the basis of it and I would say that there was a very good basis. If it were myself and it was wrong, I would be denying it, havent seen anything so far........watch this space

Mind you it is all in the past and whatever deed has been undertaken, it is just that undertaken, done and hopefully dusted.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

According to Pyramid when you post something on here you are talking to all FM's. So i guess you should have PM'd the person you were talking to. You should have corrected her because you two were having a discussion about it.

Of course it doesn't matter to you whether its fact or not. Just throw what you can out there and see what sticks. Don't get pissed when you get called out on it.

Not picking for the sake of it at all. My original question was, was it hearsay or did they quote Jay and Louise? You and pyramid decided to go off topic for a while before you answered the question. This whole thing could have been covered in a few simple posts.

untrustworthy - not worthy of trust or belief; "an untrustworthy person"
Aaron made a deal and shook on it. He has not paid up so he is untrustworthy. Simple as. Same for Alex.

Oh dear if you say so, I gave you the answer in the beginning STAR 28/11/2011, I also pointed out that I found the 21/11/2011 edition. How can any of us be sure that none of them have paid up? I constantly say we are only surmising. What more do you want? Shall I get the gallows out

If you look back I believe you will see that Pyramid put forward a post and I moreorless disagreed with his/her conclusion and I put forward my point. This is called debate.

My points are not jumped on they were basically just one post of fact and I certainly have not been caught out, that is such a childish statement imo. Pyramid hasnt jumped on my posts even though I put forward another view, the only person who has is your goodself. You must have your reasons and I work under the fact that everyone is entitled to their views I therefore give mine on this understanding. I like a good debate and not one of people just jumping and trying to prove points which none of us can at this stage, unless of course one wants to take it further with the magazine itself. To me it isnt important either way. There is nothing to prove so far as I am concerned so go in peace.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kazanne

Pyramid off topic but that cat is hilarious

I love it - it's ...errr...uplifting

*groan*

Originally Posted by Jules2

Oh for goodness sake, you are just picking for the sake of it. You had already told Pyramid that it was between yourself and myself so why would I correct Pyramid if I wasnt talking to him/her?

tee hee....... touche!

Originally Posted by Jules2

I agree Kazanne, along with the name it makes me wonder if Pyramid has an interest in the ancient Egyptians and alike, I know I am.

I do indeed Jules. Fascinating.

Originally Posted by jo1791

Tbf, I've read numourous articles (specifically re BB) in different 'mags, online and off' that all have an element of truth to them but have been twisted around and turned upside down so much, it is untrue. Of course you would have had to have watched the HLs to realise this. I

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this has been blown out of all proportion!!!

I'd say that was most probably theeeeee phrase that most applies to this entire thing!

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

According to Pyramid when you post something on here you are talking to all FM's. So i guess you should have PM'd the person you were talking to. You should have corrected her because you two were having a discussion about it.

.

No need for Jules to correct me on anything - I used the word 'if'. And seeing as I'm happy posting on this thread in full view for anyone to read my comments and quote them - as is I very much presume Jules is: since we appear to not desire a one to one, nor do we appear to be wishing only address certain members in particular: a PM one to one session is not required.

I'm still glad that it's rankled Jay though. He's a fine one to talk about anyone going back on a deal - both and Louise - if they'd not have done the dirty on the birthday gifts: they'd still have that £1k between them......

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by jo1791

Tbf, I've read numourous articles (specifically re BB) in different 'mags, online and off' that all have an element of truth to them but have been twisted around and turned upside down so much, it is untrue. Of course you would have had to have watched the HLs to realise this. I

t wouldn't surprise me at all if this has been blown out of all proportion!!!

Going back to your words Jo, I used to get annoyed at the highlights because they were definitely taken out of context at times. I used to watch the live feed and I was so angry at the injustices done in the HLs. I know newspaper resources would print something and make a meal of it, many a time it was totally out of context but if they were only watching the HLs then BB was to blame. I also think that with the sideshows they are told what to say tbh. I may be wrong though. I think also that a lot of reporters dont really watch the show properly.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I love it - it's ...errr...uplifting

*groan*



tee hee....... touche!



I do indeed Jules. Fascinating.



I'd say that was most probably theeeeee phrase that most applies to this entire thing!



No need for Jules to correct me on anything - I used the word 'if'. And seeing as I'm happy posting on this thread in full view for anyone to read my comments and quote them - as is I very much presume Jules is: since we appear to not desire a one to one, nor do we appear to be wishing only address certain members in particular: a PM one to one session is not required.

I'm still glad that it's rankled Jay though. He's a fine one to talk about anyone going back on a deal - both and Louise - if they'd not have done the dirty on the birthday gifts: they'd still have that £1k between them......

Off topic once again Pyramid, but have you read any of the Earths Chronicles, quite an eye opener and I would say in view of todays scientists and archaeologists, quite plausible. Reading deep things makes all the silliness of reality shows quite minimal, on the other hand though it is nice just to have a little rest and to join in the satisfaction of standing up for ones champion

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jules2

Off topic once again Pyramid, but have you read any of the Earths Chronicles, quite an eye opener and I would say in view of todays scientists and archaeologists, quite plausible. Reading deep things makes all the silliness of reality shows quite minimal, on the other hand though it is nice just to have a little rest and to join in the satisfaction of standing up for ones champion

I haven't Jules, I may order it though as I do like to read - the amount of documentaries I watched on Ancient Egypt are countless - and I do have some 'musings' as to whether there is some connection from the galaxies beyond- (thinking about other countries that build pyramids too so long ago).

You are right, makes all this stuff seem so utterly banal such as BB and all the resultant 'ifs/but/maybes/ ...which of course it is, but I agree.......having that bit of daftness in life is needed - for us to be debating till the cows come home about something none of us actually know about 100% - we all must be mad as hatters.

[jo1791]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

No need for Jules to correct me on anything - I used the word 'if'.

And yet when I used the words 'even if' it didn't qualify