[Samm]

Why do you keep manking threads about Luisa?

[Videostar]

Originally Posted by Sam <3

Why do you keep manking threads about Luisa?

This thread isn't about Luisa.

[Videostar]

[QUOTE=alex_front2;6662125]

Originally Posted by Videostar

I suspect it's white men pretending to be back/ women...

Oooook then, if that makes you feel better.

[Videostar]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Wow another Videostar thread about Linda, I Could Not Have Possibly Predicted This

And all of my Linda threads (not that there has been many) are relevant....so whats your point?

Do you go into all the many anti Jim threads and say similar things?

[Jack_]

Who gives a flying ****** about what some panellists on BOTS think of your favourite? And again, I say this as a fan of Jim

I literally couldn't care any less, I have plenty of favourite regular panellists whom sometimes don't always support the housemates I do, that doesn't mean I dislike them all of a sudden and start posting vitriolic hate on here...because...well, they're entitled not to like my favourites. I'll think they're stupid for not of course, but I don't really care, I can hardly change their opinion can I?

People get so wound up about such non-issues BOTS isn't biased, if the the majority of the panel and/or audience don't like your favourite, that's just the way it goes. They aren't selected because they dislike them, they aren't encouraged to dislike them. It's a debate show, that's the nature of it.

[Videostar]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Who gives a flying ****** about what some panellists on BOTS think of your favourite? And again, I say this as a fan of Jim

I literally couldn't care any less, I have plenty of favourite regular panellists whom sometimes don't always support the housemates I do, that doesn't mean I dislike them all of a sudden and start posting vitriolic hate on here...because...well, they're entitled not to like my favourites. I'll think they're stupid for not of course, but I don't really care, I can hardly change their opinion can I?

People get so wound up about such non-issues BOTS isn't biased, if the the majority of the panel and/or audience don't like your favourite, that's just the way it goes. They aren't selected because they dislike them, they aren't encouraged to dislike them. It's a debate show, that's the nature of it.

Yes but they are not being fair or indeed watching what really happened, surely they can't be that blind that they could see Linda as the innocent victim of evil Jim Davidson? surely they can't be that stupid...right?

I can accept differences of opinion but I can not and will not accept BB bias, and I have openly vented on this subject in the past when HM's I didn't like were clearly being trashed on that show.

[Jack_]

They can think whatever they want and quite frankly I don't see why anyone cares, as I've addressed in other threads any viewer that will let a presenter or spin-off show dictate what their opinions or who their favourites are shouldn't be let anywhere near a television

I'm not denying the actual show itself is biased - as in the producers - but then I've actively encouraged that before anyway (since the voters can't be trusted to keep the show interesting) and will continue to do so so long as it's for the right people. But the spin off show being biased? No, it's merely differing opinions - it's a debate show after all. The people that complain about it being biased only pick out the bits where their favourite is being criticised and omit any parts of the show where they're being praised, shown in a good light etc etc, they only see what they want to see

[Kizzy]

I thought the summation of the HMs were pretty accurate.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Videostar

Yes but they are not being fair or indeed watching what really happened, surely they can't be that blind that they could see Linda as the innocent victim of evil Jim Davidson? surely they can't be that stupid...right?

I can accept differences of opinion but I can not and will not accept BB bias, and I have openly vented on this subject in the past when HM's I didn't like were clearly being trashed on that show.

So because they don't agree with you and are expressing their opinions on a TALK SHOW there's BB bias?

[Videostar]

Originally Posted by Jack_

They can think whatever they want and quite frankly I don't see why anyone cares, as I've addressed in other threads any viewer that will let a presenter or spin-off show dictate what their opinions or who their favourites are shouldn't be let anywhere near a television



I'm not denying the actual show itself is biased - as in the producers - but then I've actively encouraged that before anyway (since the voters can't be trusted to keep the show interesting)

I agree with the first part of your post.

But why encourage a show that is biased? that show is meant to let the celeb panellists have their opinions and the studio audience but not the actual presenters and the professionals who are meant to be assessing the HM's behaviour and the events in the house in a fair minded and genuine way? no way was lastnights hero worship of Linda fair minded.

You say it's ok for the show to be biased because the voters can't be trusted to keep the show interesting, but most HM's that the biased BBBOTS show and the presenters tend to be liking and very much favouring are the boring HM's...Sam BB14, this celeb BB's Sam, Ollie and so on, but yes, it is upto the BB fans to be strong minded enough to not allow themselves to be suckered in by the bias, but that doesn't mean it's right for the producers to try and influence us.

[Videostar]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

So because they don't agree with you and are expressing their opinions on a TALK SHOW there's BB bias?

It's clear bias if they see everything as Linda good Jim bad, from what the overwhelming majority of people who watches this show (from all walks of life and background) is that Linda is bitter and went after Jim, even Colleen her sister openly admitted that was what Linda intended to do before going in.

Professionals on the Saturday night panel show are meant to be fair to what actually happens in the house and not demonise someone simply because of their gender or feminism or whatever their personal issues might be, and the Annie Lennox one said that she thought Linda (who was sat right next to her) should have won....that was just stupid and arse kissing.

[Seraphim]

Rachel Morris has already been on the show dissing Jim, in contrast to a previous psychologist who praised him. Asking her to appear with Linda in tonights show does point to a certain bias to me. They could have asked someone different entirely in order to present a fresh opinion and balance Linda's views.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Videostar

I agree with the first part of your post.

But why encourage a show that is biased? that show is meant to let the celeb panellists have their opinions and the studio audience but not the actual presenters and the professionals who are meant to be assessing the HM's behaviour and the events in the house in a fair minded and genuine way? no way was lastnights hero worship of Linda fair minded.

You say it's ok for the show to be biased because the voters can't be trusted to keep the show interesting, but most HM's that the biased BBBOTS show and the presenters tend to be liking and very much favouring are the boring HM's...Sam BB14, this celeb BB's Sam, Ollie and so on, but yes, it is upto the BB fans to be strong minded enough to not allow themselves to be suckered in by the bias, but that doesn't mean it's right for the producers to try and influence us.

You've completely misunderstood my post.

I said that the actual show itself, as in Big Brother, the main show, the production team of the main show - can be and have on occasion been biased, i.e engineered twists to keep certain housemates in (see: Speidi), but I actively encourage that because thus far it's been for housemates that are integral to a particular series, and the voters can't be trusted to keep them in. So long as that particular bias is towards the right housemates - I don't really mind.

I was on about the main show. BOTS itself is not biased, on that I disagree.

[Videostar]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You've completely misunderstood my post.

I said that the actual show itself, as in Big Brother, the main show, the production team of the main show - can be and have on occasion been biased, i.e engineered twists to keep certain housemates in (see: Speidi), but I actively encourage that because thus far it's been for housemates that are integral to a particular series, and the voters can't be trusted to keep them in. So long as that particular bias is towards the right housemates - I don't really mind.

I was on about the main show. BOTS itself is not biased, on that I disagree.

Well, I don't encourage bias in any form, it tries to sway the public opinion and voting, it's just wrong.

How you can seriously say that BOTS is not bias stuns me lol, but we'll have to disagree.

[Jack_]

The voting public don't have a clue and it should be scrapped anyway, so...if they're not capable of keeping the integral housemates around then I've no problem with the producers engineering twists and crap like that to keep them in. I don't believe they care who wins as someone else pointed out, but I think they want those who are causing the most drama to remain till the end (and why not, that makes perfect business sense)

Read my OP in the thread I created, it just isn't biased. People only think it's biased when it's their favourites being criticised. And again before someone inevitably pulls me up on this - I am a fan of Jim, I was a fan of Linda, I'm a fan of Luisa too...so it's not me taking sides. It just isn't biased, it's a debate show.

[Videostar]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Read my OP in the thread I created, it just isn't biased. People only think it's biased when it's their favourites being criticised. And again before someone inevitably pulls me up on this - I am a fan of Jim, I was a fan of Linda, I'm a fan of Luisa too...so it's not me taking sides. It just isn't biased, it's a debate show.

I said several times that I don't like bias for or against any HM, including negative things against a HM I dislike.

If I didn't notice bias for my favourite HM wouldn't it follow that I wouldn't notice bias against a HM I disliked? but I do notice it and it's always wrong, it does try to effect the voting, it's a form of cheating IMO.

As for voting being scrapped, well that's just crazy, our BB would turn into the awful American version, and then im afraid im done with this show...if you leave the voting off of a HM to the other HM's all the big personalities would be gone by week 3, all the play nice and quiet ones would be left in the final.

[reece(:]

Your post above is void since the American format is light years ahead of ours.

[dyfed]

Well bots and the panel were so up linda's ass last night,yes a very balanced show,not....

[Northern Monkey]

I did'nt see it but most people won't let it sway them,People have there own opinions,They will probably just think it's a bunch of silly clueless women talking bollocks.Jim is'nt gonna win anyay.I think third is his best hope and i don't think that will change tbh.

[smudgie]

They can only say it as they see it.

I should imagine the panel was chosen before they knew who would be evicted.

Had Jim been evicted then no doubt the conversation would have been more about Linda, if Lee had been evicted then they would have discussed Casey etc.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by Nemo123

Outdated. OK. But he's very much up to date with his chauvinism, and homophobia. And homophobia, like calling Brian Dowling a shirtlifer, usually causes a storm. Did cause a storm. Ollie is suppressing his feelings, but not as much as Jim.

I'm gay & I don't find Jim offensive at all... So he used the term 'shirtlifter', so what?? Many of my friends call my all sorts of things that I wouldn't even write on here, it doesn't make them homophobic & it doesn't insult me, I find it funny... If Brian Dowling is so sensitive that he was in floods of tears at being called that, then I suggest he get out of his own arse & live in the real world, where people don't pussy foot around & get offended by someone sneezing! And for the record Jim isn't homophobic, there is a difference in making fun of people & hating them... People cannot say anything today without someone being offended & it's pathetic.

[delta]

Originally Posted by Videostar

They are meant to be fair and balanced but we know the guests on tonights show will crawl up Linda's ample backside and blame everything on Jim.

Yeah and in doing so, did what they told Linda she shouldn't have been doing. thick or what?

It didn't go un-noticed by the viewers at home and that show just galvenised more support for Jim.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

I'm gay & I don't find Jim offensive at all... So he used the term 'shirtlifter', so what?? Many of my friends call my all sorts of things that I wouldn't even write on here, it doesn't make them homophobic & it doesn't insult me, I find it funny... If Brian Dowling is so sensitive that he was in floods of tears at being called that, then I suggest he get out of his own arse & live in the real world, where people don't pussy foot around & get offended by someone sneezing! And for the record Jim isn't homophobic, there is a difference in making fun of people & hating them... People cannot say anything today without someone being offended & it's pathetic.

I couldn't agree more... as is usual for me with Galah's posts. Have you seen the sh1t I take on here for being Jewish? It's hilarious and meant in fun. The only time I've ever taken exception to it has been when those people really meant it as an insult, and that's really, really rare. Like you say, there's a massive difference between hating people and making fun of them. It appears some people can't grasp that and are getting outraged on other people's behalf.

[Jack_]

Just because some people may be strong enough to cope with derogatory insults being flung at them, and may have a good enough relationship with a certain person to understand what's a joke and what isn't - it doesn't mean that everyone else is the same. Would you tell a 13 year old boy struggling with their sexuality to 'get over it' if they were upset at someone calling them a 'shirtlifter'? It's all about context, and I'm afraid not everyone is mentally strong enough to deal with that - and saying 'well they're going to have to be' is such a cop out since that can't just happen overnight.

Once again I say this as a fan of Jim - because no doubt someone will point out I'm only criticising him because I dislike him.

Originally Posted by reece(:

Your post above is void since the American format is light years ahead of ours.

Is the correct answer.

Whilst yes, under that format the bigger characters may still go - at least it's a level playing field and they have lost out through their own poor gameplay. Trusting the viewers with the decisions barely ever works, since they are incapable of thinking logically, and it almost always ruins the series. It's time to scrap it and either decide evictees based on social media mentions (guaranteed to get rid of the dispensable characters) or just take on the US format.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by reece(:

Your post above is void since the American format is light years ahead of ours.

Grass is greener tbh because Americans say the same about the British version