View Full Version : [video] Charlie acting like a prat
Cybele
14-08-2009, 10:21 AM
I don't understand why anyone would find this funny. Yelling in a room where people are sleeping is just RUDE. And I am sure that if any one of us were in that room sleeping, we would be less than happy.
http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/video/8a235535957125f0652802d1701ef102/play.c4
edited to add: And I am sure if Freddie did that, Lisa and David wouldn't be laughing.
Vicky.
14-08-2009, 10:23 AM
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
sophie1955
14-08-2009, 10:25 AM
stupid prat, he wasn't even funny..
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
And that other funny time he tried on Siavashes stuff without asking and broke his mask. And that other funny time when he made Fred look a fool playing hide and seek. And that other funny time when he threw a water bomb on Angel who really wasnt in any mood for a joke...
markg30
14-08-2009, 10:35 AM
More cabaret from Charlie. I just don't find him an entertaining or a watchable person, he will be forgotten quickly after this programme as he has no original qualities. He might get up and dance in a few clubs in the pink triangle in Newcastle but thats about it. It does make me quite ashamed to be from the north.
InOne
14-08-2009, 10:38 AM
Charlie deserves aother beating on the outside woooohooo I bet he will get it as well
iamonfire
14-08-2009, 10:39 AM
This vid is funny, I like charlie, he has me in stitches sometimes, but he's not all good - he can take things too far and he winds people up - sometimes at the wrong time, sure most of its meant for fun, but stuff like "Freddy's in here laughing at you crying Bea" (not an accurate quote) naughty - he likes troube, he likes a scene, I don't always agree with the sides he takes and what he says, but on the whole I like him.
I hope Charlie don't win.
The_Long_Run
14-08-2009, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
Cybele
14-08-2009, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
To be fair, it was Rodrigo who poured the oil on the bed. However, he only did so AFTER Charlie poured water on his (and others) beds.
mizzy25
14-08-2009, 10:51 AM
i thought it was amusing. christ if marcus/siavash/halfwit had done it it wud have been hilarious. everyone says it will b boring without the 3 amigos but charlie is one of the biggest characters in there. halfwit is just a boring twerp.
Cybele
14-08-2009, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by mizzy25
i thought it was amusing. christ if marcus/siavash/halfwit had done it it would have been hilarious. everyone says it will b boring without the 3 amigos but charlie is one of the biggest characters in there. halfwit is just a boring twerp.
If Marcus/Siavash/Freddie had done it, Lisa and David would have been bitching to high heaven about how rude they were. The only reason they weren't is because it is Charlie.
And I wonder how amusing you find people who wake you by yelling in the middle of the night.
EmptySouls
14-08-2009, 11:20 AM
Am I missing something. How is this funny and worthy of a C4 clip?
Nothing personal against you Charlie, but I don't reckon the Edinburgh festival will be calling you.
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
In strict terms you are correct, in that Charlie did not pour oil on the bed, but considering what he actually did in that particular incident and in many others, I think your reaction is completely over the top.
brian3
14-08-2009, 11:33 AM
He really does think he is funny.
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
In strict terms you are correct, in that Charlie did not pour oil on the bed, but considering what he actually did in that particular incident and in many others, I think your reaction is completely over the top.
exactly BB22 and conveniently forgetting all the other shitty stuff hes done
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Cybele
Originally posted by mizzy25
i thought it was amusing. christ if marcus/siavash/halfwit had done it it would have been hilarious. everyone says it will b boring without the 3 amigos but charlie is one of the biggest characters in there. halfwit is just a boring twerp.
If Marcus/Siavash/Freddie had done it, Lisa and David would have been bitching to high heaven about how rude they were. The only reason they weren't is because it is Charlie.
And I wonder how amusing you find people who wake you by yelling in the middle of the night.
Spot on Cybele:thumbs: Same way as if Charlie had gone in to the diary room protesting about the alarms...only rodrigo would have had a go at him about it
The_Long_Run
14-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
In strict terms you are correct, in that Charlie did not pour oil on the bed, but considering what he actually did in that particular incident and in many others, I think your reaction is completely over the top.
Enlighten me, which part is over the top? I drew attention to a false suggestion. A bit of water splashed on a bed in a play fight and which will soon dry out is entirely different from the suggestion that he poured oil on a bed.
For your information hyperbole means "a rhetorical figure which produces a vivid impression by extravagant and obvious exaggeration". Now, correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that the suggestion that "he wound every single arguement in the house up" fits that definition exactly.
If you look at Vicky's posts with respect to Charlie, you will very clearly note that she exhibits distinct choler towards him on occasion.
I contend that my post was in no way 'over the top'. It simply suggested a little temperance and truth in posts would not come amiss.
Vicky.
14-08-2009, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by NettoSuperstar!
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
And that other funny time he tried on Siavashes stuff without asking and broke his mask. And that other funny time when he made Fred look a fool playing hide and seek. And that other funny time when he threw a water bomb on Angel who really wasnt in any mood for a joke...
Ah yes, I forgot those other funny things he did.
He is a deserving winner :bigsmile:
Vicky.
14-08-2009, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
Oh god yea, it was rodrigo, honest mistake...
Chill
Water i should have said :conf2:
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
In strict terms you are correct, in that Charlie did not pour oil on the bed, but considering what he actually did in that particular incident and in many others, I think your reaction is completely over the top.
Enlighten me, which part is over the top? I drew attention to a false suggestion. A bit of water splashed on a bed in a play fight and which will soon dry out is entirely different from the suggestion that he poured oil on a bed.
For your information hyperbole means "a rhetorical figure which produces a vivid impression by extravagant and obvious exaggeration".
Thank you for the vocabulary lesson but they are not required.
Demonstrating why it is over the top is actually fairly straightforward.
If Person A makes an accusation about Housemate B, which while strictly not correct still bears some comparison to Housemate B's actual behaviour, whether at the time in question or at other times, then the most appropriate response is to calmly correct the error. The appropriate response is not to litter your post with capitalised words and needlessly emotive language.
I am afraid you have done yourself a disservice.
On a side note, there is an analogue to this point in British law on defamation, I think, which I could go into if you wish.
halfacrown
14-08-2009, 12:26 PM
Charlie's about as funny as herpes and twice as irritating.
LemonJam
14-08-2009, 12:34 PM
Now this is hypocrisy at its finest...
Marcus, Freddie and Siavash did a rebellion against Big Brother which ultimately the other HMs didn't like, but they're cool for doing that.
Charlie has a laugh which Freddie doesn't like but he's not allowed to do that is he?
Cor blimey.
Vicky.
14-08-2009, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by LemonJam
Now this is hypocrisy at its finest...
Marcus, Freddie and Siavash did a rebellion against Big Brother which ultimately the other HMs didn't like, but they're cool for doing that.
Charlie has a laugh which Freddie doesn't like but he's not allowed to do that is he?
Cor blimey.
Difference being, freddie marcus and siavash didnt go into the bedroom when people were sleeping and start yelling...
LemonJam
14-08-2009, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by LemonJam
Now this is hypocrisy at its finest...
Marcus, Freddie and Siavash did a rebellion against Big Brother which ultimately the other HMs didn't like, but they're cool for doing that.
Charlie has a laugh which Freddie doesn't like but he's not allowed to do that is he?
Cor blimey.
Difference being, freddie marcus and siavash didnt go into the bedroom when people were sleeping and start yelling...
I think selfishly rebelling which will lead to a punishment that'll effect the whole house is worse IMO.
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by LemonJam
Now this is hypocrisy at its finest...
Marcus, Freddie and Siavash did a rebellion against Big Brother which ultimately the other HMs didn't like, but they're cool for doing that.
Charlie has a laugh which Freddie doesn't like but he's not allowed to do that is he?
Cor blimey.
Everyone turned on Marcus Siavash and Fred (who didnt realise they would punish the whole house) but Charlie who wakes everyone up gets no such venom...thats the hypocrisy in the house we dont like
The_Long_Run
14-08-2009, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
In strict terms you are correct, in that Charlie did not pour oil on the bed, but considering what he actually did in that particular incident and in many others, I think your reaction is completely over the top.
Enlighten me, which part is over the top? I drew attention to a false suggestion. A bit of water splashed on a bed in a play fight and which will soon dry out is entirely different from the suggestion that he poured oil on a bed.
For your information hyperbole means "a rhetorical figure which produces a vivid impression by extravagant and obvious exaggeration".
Thank you for the vocabulary lesson but they are not required.
Demonstrating why it is over the top is actually fairly straightforward.
If Person A makes an accusation about Housemate B, which while strictly not correct still bears some comparison to Housemate B's actual behaviour, whether at the time in question or at other times, then the most appropriate response is to calmly correct the error. The appropriate response is not to litter your post with capitalised words and needlessly emotive language.
I am afraid you have done yourself a disservice.
On a side note, there is an analogue to this point in British law on defamation, I think, which I could go into if you wish.
Oh don't stop now, I'm agog! Please enlighten me, what is the analogue to this point in British Law. I should point out that there is no Brtish Law on defamation. Scottish Law and English Law are radically different in this matter.
Now look.... :laugh3::laugh3::laugh3: I post in good humour, drawing humorous attention to intemperance. You diagnose UPPER CASE as OTT. I don't, it simply adds tone to a post to show where stress should be placed when reading it. BB is a humorous, tongue in cheek production and violent dislike to any HM is, in my view, inappropriate.
LemonJam
14-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by NettoSuperstar!
Originally posted by LemonJam
Now this is hypocrisy at its finest...
Marcus, Freddie and Siavash did a rebellion against Big Brother which ultimately the other HMs didn't like, but they're cool for doing that.
Charlie has a laugh which Freddie doesn't like but he's not allowed to do that is he?
Cor blimey.
Everyone turned on Marcus Siavash and Fred (who didnt realise they would punish the whole house) but Charlie who wakes everyone up gets no such venom...thats the hypocrisy in the house we dont like
It's quite obvious that they would get punished; they were breaking the rules which always leads to getting punished.
The no venom bit I will agree with you on though, but I do think that punishing the whole house is worse than being loud at night.
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Someones got the theasaurus out lol
Cybele
14-08-2009, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
In strict terms you are correct, in that Charlie did not pour oil on the bed, but considering what he actually did in that particular incident and in many others, I think your reaction is completely over the top.
Enlighten me, which part is over the top? I drew attention to a false suggestion. A bit of water splashed on a bed in a play fight and which will soon dry out is entirely different from the suggestion that he poured oil on a bed.
For your information hyperbole means "a rhetorical figure which produces a vivid impression by extravagant and obvious exaggeration".
Thank you for the vocabulary lesson but they are not required.
Demonstrating why it is over the top is actually fairly straightforward.
If Person A makes an accusation about Housemate B, which while strictly not correct still bears some comparison to Housemate B's actual behaviour, whether at the time in question or at other times, then the most appropriate response is to calmly correct the error. The appropriate response is not to litter your post with capitalised words and needlessly emotive language.
I am afraid you have done yourself a disservice.
On a side note, there is an analogue to this point in British law on defamation, I think, which I could go into if you wish.
Oh don't stop now, I'm agog! Please enlighten me, what is the analogue to this point in British Law. I should point out that there is no Brtish Law on defamation. Scottish Law and English Law are radically different in this matter.
Now look.... :laugh3::laugh3::laugh3: I post in good humour, drawing humorous attention to intemperance. You diagnose UPPER CASE as OTT. I don't, it simply adds tone to a post to show where stress should be placed when reading it. BB is a humorous, tongue in cheek production and violent dislike to any HM is, in my view, inappropriate.
Oh my goodness are you a hypocrite! Yesterday you had the cheek to attack both my stated profession and education because I used capital letters when I pointed out that Charlie had lied. And today you defend them? You attack people who have a strong dislike for a housemate while you are an absolute rabid fan who attacks everyone who says anything against Charlie. Really, you are too much.
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by LemonJam
Originally posted by NettoSuperstar!
Originally posted by LemonJam
Now this is hypocrisy at its finest...
Marcus, Freddie and Siavash did a rebellion against Big Brother which ultimately the other HMs didn't like, but they're cool for doing that.
Charlie has a laugh which Freddie doesn't like but he's not allowed to do that is he?
Cor blimey.
Everyone turned on Marcus Siavash and Fred (who didnt realise they would punish the whole house) but Charlie who wakes everyone up gets no such venom...thats the hypocrisy in the house we dont like
It's quite obvious that they would get punished; they were breaking the rules which always leads to getting punished.
The no venom bit I will agree with you on though, but I do think that punishing the whole house is worse than being loud at night.
I dont think they realised til it was too late they would punish the whole house, they werent purposely being annoying to others but I take ya point. It just grates on me that whatever certain people do in the house it just gets laughed off, whilst others will get all guns blazing over very little
Cybele
14-08-2009, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by LemonJam
Now this is hypocrisy at its finest...
Marcus, Freddie and Siavash did a rebellion against Big Brother which ultimately the other HMs didn't like, but they're cool for doing that.
Charlie has a laugh which Freddie doesn't like but he's not allowed to do that is he?
Cor blimey.
Um... when did I say anything about Freddie not liking it? I was pointing it out because it was a very asinine thing to do. And that would be true regardless of who did it. Yelling while people is sleeping is just not cool. It is rude.
I mentioned Freddie because if he was the one doing the yelling nana impersonation while others were sleeping, David and Lisa would be complaining instead of laughing.
Caramel77
14-08-2009, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
He thinks he's such a joker... not.
On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:
The_Long_Run
14-08-2009, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Cybele
Oh my goodness are you a hypocrite! Yesterday you had the cheek to attack both my stated profession and education because I used capital letters when I pointed out that Charlie had lied. And today you defend them? You attack people who have a strong dislike for a housemate while you are an absolute rabid fan who attacks everyone who says anything against Charlie. Really, you are too much.
For the record, you didn't point out that Charlie had lied, you accused Charlie of lying.
When this forum maintains threads that start as the OP in this tread (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=117670)
does. Then I reserve the right to defend any HM when a slur is posted. There is a distinct difference between aplying emphasis through upper case in the flow of a sentence, and if you look at my use you will see that the capitalisation is not an attack in any way. Your use as a freestanding expletive (WHAT A LIAR! as I reacll) is completely different.
Stick to positive support, rather than gratuitous attacks on HMs. You will see that I have offered similar suppport to the housemate formerly known as Halfwit, to Bea, to Noirin when they have been gratuitously attacked.
Did your mother ever tell you, if you can't say somthing nice, say nothing?
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
No, I really DON'T remember the time he poured oil on someone's bed. And why don't I remember that, you may ask. Because it actually NEVER HAPPENED! Your perspective is skewed and is now exposed. Your hyperbole would be laughable, were it not so choleric.
In strict terms you are correct, in that Charlie did not pour oil on the bed, but considering what he actually did in that particular incident and in many others, I think your reaction is completely over the top.
Enlighten me, which part is over the top? I drew attention to a false suggestion. A bit of water splashed on a bed in a play fight and which will soon dry out is entirely different from the suggestion that he poured oil on a bed.
For your information hyperbole means "a rhetorical figure which produces a vivid impression by extravagant and obvious exaggeration".
Thank you for the vocabulary lesson but they are not required.
Demonstrating why it is over the top is actually fairly straightforward.
If Person A makes an accusation about Housemate B, which while strictly not correct still bears some comparison to Housemate B's actual behaviour, whether at the time in question or at other times, then the most appropriate response is to calmly correct the error. The appropriate response is not to litter your post with capitalised words and needlessly emotive language.
I am afraid you have done yourself a disservice.
On a side note, there is an analogue to this point in British law on defamation, I think, which I could go into if you wish.
Oh don't stop now, I'm agog! Please enlighten me, what is the analogue to this point in British Law. I should point out that there is no Brtish Law on defamation. Scottish Law and English Law are radically different in this matter.
Now look.... :laugh3::laugh3::laugh3: I post in good humour, drawing humorous attention to intemperance. You diagnose UPPER CASE as OTT. I don't, it simply adds tone to a post to show where stress should be placed when reading it. BB is a humorous, tongue in cheek production and violent dislike to any HM is, in my view, inappropriate.
English and Scottish law is sufficiently similar on the particular point in question for the description to hold, I think, although despite my knowledge of these matters from my past career I would be happy to be corrected on the point by an expert.
The analogue is as follows: in a defamation case, a person can only have been defamed if the words involved tended to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; so if someone has already been convicted or recognised to have behaved in a way equal to or worse than that contained within the words which the claim relates to then an action for defamation is unlikely to succeed. So, to illustrate, if a journalist were to write a story accusing Ronnie Biggs of robbing a jewellery store in 1962 it is unlikely that Mr Biggs would be able to succeed in an action for defamation, even if the story was completely untrue, since he is in fact a convicted robber and former fugitive from justice. The accusation would not further lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people.
I am sure the analogue is quite clear. I hope that helps.
On a further note, the capitalisation was merely a part of the over the top reaction I identified. I also mentioned your "emotive language".
On a final note, I would not say your posts in this thread have been in a particularly "good humour". You seem rather tetchy, actually.
Patricia4
14-08-2009, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Nebi
I hope Charlie don't win. Me too :thumbs:
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 01:03 PM
:laugh:
I am assuming that is an insult.
EDIT: The post this was in response to appears to have been deleted.
Cybele
14-08-2009, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by Cybele
Oh my goodness are you a hypocrite! Yesterday you had the cheek to attack both my stated profession and education because I used capital letters when I pointed out that Charlie had lied. And today you defend them? You attack people who have a strong dislike for a housemate while you are an absolute rabid fan who attacks everyone who says anything against Charlie. Really, you are too much.
For the record, you didn't point out that Charlie had lied, you accused Charlie of lying.
When this forum maintains threads that start as the OP in this tread (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=117670)
does. Then I reserve the right to defend any HM when a slur is posted. There is a distinct difference between aplying emphasis through upper case in the flow of a sentence, and if you look at my use you will see that the capitalisation is not an attack in any way. Your use as a freestanding expletive (WHAT A LIAR! as I reacll) is completely different.
Stick to positive support, rather than gratuitous attacks on HMs. You will see that I have offered similar suppport to the housemate formerly known as Halfwit, to Bea, to Noirin when they have been gratuitously attacked.
Did your mother ever tell you, if you can't say somthing nice, say nothing?
Yes and I will say it again because the footage from Big Brother has proved it:
CHARLIE IS A LIAR. Wait... maybe that wasn't over the top enough, how about this?
CHARLIE IS A LIAR! <--- see? I added an exclamation point! Hmm... but that isn't quite over the top enough yet. Let me try again:
CHARLIE IS A LIAR
Ah yes... much better. My only regret is that I don't know how to make it blink. And for the record, I backed up my assertion that Charlie is a liar with specific instances in which he lied. I'm sorry that you disagree that Charlie is a liar and don't like it when people say that Charlie is a liar but everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. If you are still curious, I first suspected that Charlie is a liar when he said he had seen Kenneth's letter from Karly even when there was no letter. Since then I have been paying attention and have seen several instances which have also shown that Charlie is a liar.
Now as far as you are concerned, you repeatedly attack people on this forum. Even if I had never seen your rants on this forum, your karma rating along would give me a clue that you don't play well with others. So before you question what my mother did or did not teach me, perhaps you should examine your own methods of communication.
Vicky.
14-08-2009, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Caramel77
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
He thinks he's such a joker... not.
On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:
lol I know :tongue:
And to clarify...he didnt throw oil on a bed, that was rodrigo, I got mixed up. A certain poster took massive offense at an honest mistake and this is what has set the huge arguement off :rolleyes:
Cybele
14-08-2009, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by Caramel77
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
He thinks he's such a joker... not.
On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:
lol I know :tongue:
And to clarify...he didnt throw oil on a bed, that was rodrigo, I got mixed up. A certain poster took massive offense at an honest mistake and this is what has set the huge arguement off :rolleyes:
In fairness to you, it never takes much to set that person off. :wink:
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by Caramel77
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
He thinks he's such a joker... not.
On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:
lol I know :tongue:
And to clarify...he didnt throw oil on a bed, that was rodrigo, I got mixed up. A certain poster took massive offense at an honest mistake and this is what has set the huge arguement off :rolleyes:
It was more the nature of the post in response than the taking of offence, but yeah. :tongue:
28thapril
14-08-2009, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by BB22
I am assuming that is an insult.
No thats what i think of Charlie
Lightening the mood a little:colour:
Originally posted by 28thapril
Originally posted by BB22
I am assuming that is an insult.
No thats what i think of Charlie
Lightening the mood a little:colour:
I see. Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify that. :wink:
28thapril
14-08-2009, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by BB22
Originally posted by 28thapril
Originally posted by BB22
I am assuming that is an insult.
No thats what i think of Charlie
Lightening the mood a little:colour:
I see. Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify that. :wink:
No probs:kiss:
ross-oaft
14-08-2009, 01:28 PM
Lighten up a bit, he's only having a laugh.
noirin4eva
14-08-2009, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by Caramel77
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
He thinks he's such a joker... not.
On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:
lol I know :tongue:
And to clarify...he didnt throw oil on a bed, that was rodrigo, I got mixed up. A certain poster took massive offense at an honest mistake and this is what has set the huge arguement off :rolleyes:
I think what The_Long_Run is getting angry about is the fact you jump on Charlies back when he annoys people in a bedroom for awhile, but when Marcus Siavash and Freddie act like twats for 3 days everybody think its hilarious.
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 01:31 PM
The_Long_Run didnt mention Marcus Fred and The Vash
Vicky.
14-08-2009, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by noirin4eva
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by Caramel77
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
He thinks he's such a joker... not.
On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:
lol I know :tongue:
And to clarify...he didnt throw oil on a bed, that was rodrigo, I got mixed up. A certain poster took massive offense at an honest mistake and this is what has set the huge arguement off :rolleyes:
I think what The_Long_Run is getting angry about is the fact you jump on Charlies back when he annoys people in a bedroom for awhile, but when Marcus Siavash and Freddie act like twats for 3 days everybody think its hilarious.
:rolleyes:
Charlie is a prick.
I like the other three, yet I still said they were wrong for losing the others the food. So if that is indeed why OP took offence, then there was no need for it. But he didnt mention it, so I doubt thats it.
Nowt to do with you anyways.
Personally, I wouldn't get too worked up over Charlie's behaviour. I didn't think it was very funny but that is not because I thought he was committing some terrible offence.
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 01:34 PM
True hes just a prat and theyve all got double standards in there
noirin4eva
14-08-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by noirin4eva
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by Caramel77
Originally posted by VickyJ
Charlie being a prat? Never!!!
This is funtime charlie, everything he does is for a laugh :spin2:
Remember that really fun time he poured oil on someones bed? And that other funny time he went for Rodrigo? And that other time he wound every single arguement in the house up and sat back smirking?
Its a laugh :laugh:
He thinks he's such a joker... not.
On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:
lol I know :tongue:
And to clarify...he didnt throw oil on a bed, that was rodrigo, I got mixed up. A certain poster took massive offense at an honest mistake and this is what has set the huge arguement off :rolleyes:
I think what The_Long_Run is getting angry about is the fact you jump on Charlies back when he annoys people in a bedroom for awhile, but when Marcus Siavash and Freddie act like twats for 3 days everybody think its hilarious.
:rolleyes:
Charlie is a prick.
I like the other three, yet I still said they were wrong for losing the others the food. So if that is indeed why OP took offence, then there was no need for it. But he didnt mention it, so I doubt thats it.
Nowt to do with you anyways.
Hmmm nowt to do with me? i made a huge mistake in thinking we were on a public forum then, sorry for the inconvenience your highness
Cybele
14-08-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by ross-oaft
Lighten up a bit, he's only having a laugh.
And it would be funny if he did it at a different time. Or even if he did it while keeping his voice low. But he decided to do it while others were asleep which is really disrespectful and rude. Or do you laugh every time someone yells and wakes you in the middle of the night?
The_Long_Run
14-08-2009, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by BB22
English and Scottish law is sufficiently similar on the particular point in question for the description to hold, I think, although despite my knowledge of these matters from my past career I would be happy to be corrected on the point by an expert.
The analogue is as follows: in a defamation case, a person can only have been defamed if the words involved tended to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; so if someone has already been convicted or recognised to have behaved in a way equal to or worse than that contained within the words which the claim relates to then an action for defamation is unlikely to succeed. So, to illustrate, if a journalist were to write a story accusing Ronnie Biggs of robbing a jewellery store in 1962 it is unlikely that Mr Biggs would be able to succeed in an action for defamation, even if the story was completely untrue, since he is in fact a convicted robber and former fugitive from justice. The accusation would not further lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people.
I am sure the analogue is quite clear. I hope that helps.
On a further note, the capitalisation was merely a part of the over the top reaction I identified. I also mentioned your "emotive language".
On a final note, I would not say your posts in this thread have been in a particularly "good humour". You seem rather tetchy, actually.
I see no supportive analogy in your explanation. Charlie has been playful with the intention of amusing, sometimes without adequate forethought. In my humble right thinking opinion no right thinking person would accuse him of malice in these actions. The pouring of oil on someone's bed is a malicious act, even if done in pique.
If charlie were found to have done that, it would surprise me and lower him in the estimation of this right thinking member of society. I note that Vicky withdrew the claim and I respect her for responding appropriately in making that correction.
My original post appears to have been taken in good part by Vicky with my self parodying use of vaulting vocabulary, which was intended to make a nodding reference to Bea's 'blinding HMs wih science' language. Other people put in their two penn'orth and pereptuated this highly amusing and in place enlightening exchange. I defend robustly, don't apologise for that and will continue to challenge profane posts.
BB is a pantomime. "oh yes he did, oh no he didn't, oh yes he did....." Charlie did not pour oil on anyone's bed. Oh no he didn't.... NOW is the time to laugh, if you will excuse the capitals.
Charlie is a scamp, not a villain.
Vicky.
14-08-2009, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by noirin4eva
Hmmm nowt to do with me? i made a huge mistake in thinking we were on a public forum then, sorry for the inconvenience your highness
Is there any need? :rolleyes:
I just dont see why you felt the need to get involved...The_long_run is more than capable of speaking for themselves, plus I feel you have the reason he kicked off totally wrong, so its just adding fuel to the fire.
It is the fact that i said charlie threw oil on a bed, when it was infact water. I apologised anyway, once I realised what I had said.
NettoSuperstar!
14-08-2009, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
English and Scottish law is sufficiently similar on the particular point in question for the description to hold, I think, although despite my knowledge of these matters from my past career I would be happy to be corrected on the point by an expert.
The analogue is as follows: in a defamation case, a person can only have been defamed if the words involved tended to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; so if someone has already been convicted or recognised to have behaved in a way equal to or worse than that contained within the words which the claim relates to then an action for defamation is unlikely to succeed. So, to illustrate, if a journalist were to write a story accusing Ronnie Biggs of robbing a jewellery store in 1962 it is unlikely that Mr Biggs would be able to succeed in an action for defamation, even if the story was completely untrue, since he is in fact a convicted robber and former fugitive from justice. The accusation would not further lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people.
I am sure the analogue is quite clear. I hope that helps.
On a further note, the capitalisation was merely a part of the over the top reaction I identified. I also mentioned your "emotive language".
On a final note, I would not say your posts in this thread have been in a particularly "good humour". You seem rather tetchy, actually.
I see no supportive analogy in your explanation. Charlie has been playful with the intention of amusing, sometimes without adequate forethought. In my humble right thinking opinion no right thinking person would accuse him of malice in these actions. The pouring of oil on someone's bed is a malicious act, even if done in pique.
If charlie were found to have done that, it would surprise me and lower him in the estimation of this right thinking member of society. I note that Vicky withdrew the claim and I respect her for responding appropriately in making that correction.
My original post appears to have been taken in good part by Vicky with my self parodying use of vaulting vocabulary, which was intended to make a nodding reference to Bea's 'blinding HMs wih science' language. Other people put in their two penn'orth and pereptuated this highly amusing and in place enlightening exchange. I defend robustly, don't apologise for that and will continue to challenge profane posts.
BB is a pantomime. "oh yes he did, oh no he didn't, oh yes he did....." Charlie did not pour oil on anyone's bed. Oh no he didn't.... NOW is the time to laugh, if you will excuse the capitals.
Charlie is a scamp, not a villain.
Oh yes such a lovable scamp...throwing water bombs on the freaks, humiliating people with his pranks, damaging peoples property with no thought, snidely reporting back to Lisa HQ what other people have been saying...
ross-oaft
14-08-2009, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Cybele
Originally posted by ross-oaft
Lighten up a bit, he's only having a laugh.
And it would be funny if he did it at a different time. Or even if he did it while keeping his voice low. But he decided to do it while others were asleep which is really disrespectful and rude. Or do you laugh every time someone yells and wakes you in the middle of the night?
I don't see why its bothering you, it's not like your in the house. Charlie is just trying to bring a bit of fun to the house. It's better than watching Freddie throw another panic attack or watching Marcus sit on that chair and pick his nose until five in the morning. No wonder the show can get quite boring when even the fans dont want any fun. It wasn't even that late.
noirin4eva
14-08-2009, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by VickyJ
Originally posted by noirin4eva
Hmmm nowt to do with me? i made a huge mistake in thinking we were on a public forum then, sorry for the inconvenience your highness
Is there any need? :rolleyes:
I just dont see why you felt the need to get involved...The_long_run is more than capable of speaking for themselves, plus I feel you have the reason he kicked off totally wrong, so its just adding fuel to the fire.
It is the fact that i said charlie threw oil on a bed, when it was infact water. I apologised anyway, once I realised what I had said.
No its just people trying to sound intelligent by putting other people down is very frustrating and wreaks of Sir Halfwit.
28thapril
14-08-2009, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
English and Scottish law is sufficiently similar on the particular point in question for the description to hold, I think, although despite my knowledge of these matters from my past career I would be happy to be corrected on the point by an expert.
The analogue is as follows: in a defamation case, a person can only have been defamed if the words involved tended to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; so if someone has already been convicted or recognised to have behaved in a way equal to or worse than that contained within the words which the claim relates to then an action for defamation is unlikely to succeed. So, to illustrate, if a journalist were to write a story accusing Ronnie Biggs of robbing a jewellery store in 1962 it is unlikely that Mr Biggs would be able to succeed in an action for defamation, even if the story was completely untrue, since he is in fact a convicted robber and former fugitive from justice. The accusation would not further lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people.
I am sure the analogue is quite clear. I hope that helps.
On a further note, the capitalisation was merely a part of the over the top reaction I identified. I also mentioned your "emotive language".
On a final note, I would not say your posts in this thread have been in a particularly "good humour". You seem rather tetchy, actually.
I see no supportive analogy in your explanation. Charlie has been playful with the intention of amusing, sometimes without adequate forethought. In my humble right thinking opinion no right thinking person would accuse him of malice in these actions. The pouring of oil on someone's bed is a malicious act, even if done in pique.
If charlie were found to have done that, it would surprise me and lower him in the estimation of this right thinking member of society. I note that Vicky withdrew the claim and I respect her for responding appropriately in making that correction.
My original post appears to have been taken in good part by Vicky with my self parodying use of vaulting vocabulary, which was intended to make a nodding reference to Bea's 'blinding HMs wih science' language. Other people put in their two penn'orth and pereptuated this highly amusing and in place enlightening exchange. I defend robustly, don't apologise for that and will continue to challenge profane posts.
BB is a pantomime. "oh yes he did, oh no he didn't, oh yes he did....." Charlie did not pour oil on anyone's bed. Oh no he didn't.... NOW is the time to laugh, if you will excuse the capitals.
Charlie is a scamp, not a villain.
No not a propper villian Hasn't got it in him
Panto villian
Not a scamp he would have to be 6 or under to be that:banana::banana:
Originally posted by The_Long_Run
Originally posted by BB22
English and Scottish law is sufficiently similar on the particular point in question for the description to hold, I think, although despite my knowledge of these matters from my past career I would be happy to be corrected on the point by an expert.
The analogue is as follows: in a defamation case, a person can only have been defamed if the words involved tended to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; so if someone has already been convicted or recognised to have behaved in a way equal to or worse than that contained within the words which the claim relates to then an action for defamation is unlikely to succeed. So, to illustrate, if a journalist were to write a story accusing Ronnie Biggs of robbing a jewellery store in 1962 it is unlikely that Mr Biggs would be able to succeed in an action for defamation, even if the story was completely untrue, since he is in fact a convicted robber and former fugitive from justice. The accusation would not further lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people.
I am sure the analogue is quite clear. I hope that helps.
On a further note, the capitalisation was merely a part of the over the top reaction I identified. I also mentioned your "emotive language".
On a final note, I would not say your posts in this thread have been in a particularly "good humour". You seem rather tetchy, actually.
I see no supportive analogy in your explanation. Charlie has been playful with the intention of amusing, sometimes without adequate forethought. In my humble right thinking opinion no right thinking person would accuse him of malice in these actions. The pouring of oil on someone's bed is a malicious act, even if done in pique.
If charlie were found to have done that, it would surprise me and lower him in the estimation of this right thinking member of society. I note that Vicky withdrew the claim and I respect her for responding appropriately in making that correction.
My original post appears to have been taken in good part by Vicky with my self parodying use of vaulting vocabulary, which was intended to make a nodding reference to Bea's 'blinding HMs wih science' language. Other people put in their two penn'orth and pereptuated this highly amusing and in place enlightening exchange. I defend robustly, don't apologise for that and will continue to challenge profane posts.
BB is a pantomime. "oh yes he did, oh no he didn't, oh yes he did....." Charlie did not pour oil on anyone's bed. Oh no he didn't.... NOW is the time to laugh, if you will excuse the capitals.
Charlie is a scamp, not a villain.
I disagree with your first paragraph but have no quarrel with anything else in your post.
For the record, while I have my own opinions about Charlie and his behaviour nothing I have written in this thread was in any way a judgement on Charlie's behaviour, nor did I indicate that he acted with "malice". Such matters are unrelated to the specific technical points I was making.
Having invested far too much energy in this thread already, I am content to leave it at that. :tongue:
Cybele
14-08-2009, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by ross-oaft
Originally posted by Cybele
Originally posted by ross-oaft
Lighten up a bit, he's only having a laugh.
And it would be funny if he did it at a different time. Or even if he did it while keeping his voice low. But he decided to do it while others were asleep which is really disrespectful and rude. Or do you laugh every time someone yells and wakes you in the middle of the night?
I don't see why its bothering you, it's not like your in the house. Charlie is just trying to bring a bit of fun to the house. It's better than watching Freddie throw another panic attack or watching Marcus sit on that chair and pick his nose until five in the morning. No wonder the show can get quite boring when even the fans dont want any fun. It wasn't even that late.
I shouldn't think it is rude because it isn't happening in my house? That makes no sense. If something is rude, it is rude. I wouldn't condone a person kicking a dog even if it wasn't my dog, either.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.