David Not going to wrap party as a protest [Archive] - ThisisBigBrother.com

Angus

13-09-2010, 05:02 PM

Here's Dave's recent twitter:

@Joshlar_ Leave it out I was re-assured and told all was well and that I was being paranoid what was I to do?
4 minutes ago via web in reply to Joshlar_

Reply Retweet . @BubblyNatz i was assured all was o.k, what was I supposed to do accuse them of lying?
6 minutes ago via web in reply to BubblyNatz

Reply Retweet . Ran't over, Lol, Love you all and am full of Glory, Hopefully answered questions DAVEY KWOKETT
8 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . I love John he was given a 2 min call to Nathan to calm stuff down but I wasnt allowed a simple text to my family?? You figure it.
10 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . I'll be hooking up with all the guys as I'm able love them all, I asked serious questions regarding my families welfare, I wasn't given fact
12 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . I'm fine, I'm drunk just letting the guys on here who I love who are amazing know why I won't be going to see some great mates at the Wrap!
16 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . NO BItterness here though guys, I love Jesus and am fine I just don't like unfair balances, one gets a phone call I got lied to!
17 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . I love all the HM'S and am gutted I wont be there but feel I need to take a stand against what was in my opinion injustice, family First.
19 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . I knew my family were going through stuff and asked questions and was told all was fine, I then get out and find out I was right, sad really
20 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . @lonestar1968 I looked for it but couldnt find it, its some Dutch guy or something based in London, I think Soho but not sure DAVE
24 minutes ago via web in reply to lonestar1968

Reply Retweet . I don't want to go into stuff, I love all the team there but I did raise some concerns which wern't answered Lol, my family come first..Dave
25 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet .

Pretty disgusting behaviour by BB if it's true - seems they withheld some serious family news from Dave whilst he was in the house, which he has now had confirmed to him. Typical favouritism shown by BB by allowing JJ1 a phone call home, plus the phone call to Nathan, but Dave was not allowed any contact. I'm not a Dave fan, but I don't blame him being mad.

Lex

13-09-2010, 05:16 PM

Could'nt agree more Angus!...The BB bias in favour of 'Team JJJ', I find totally out of order, and against the spirit of the whole BB format!!
I too cannot claim to be a Dave-fan, but it seems that the man has a genuine grievance...and believe that this matter should not be swept under the carpet!.....But, I suspect that it WILL BE! :nono:

Jords

13-09-2010, 05:19 PM

Dont blame Dave, so pleased for him getting second place, espicially since BB obvs tried to get rid of him beforehand.

Angus

13-09-2010, 05:48 PM

Dont blame Dave, so pleased for him getting second place, espicially since BB obvs tried to get rid of him beforehand.

I agree, it must have really annoyed the producers having bent over backwards to lick JJ1's arse all those weeks, that it was Dave who finished in the final not their golden boy.

Jack_

13-09-2010, 06:27 PM

Fair points by Dave, I guess. Before he mentioned his 'family problems' I was just going to say that he's bitter, and that whilst John James felt threatened, Dave didn't - and so there was no need for him to receive any outside contact. But seeing as they have lied to him, then I support Dave.

I agree, it must have really annoyed the producers having bent over backwards to lick JJ1's arse all those weeks, that it was Dave who finished in the final not their golden boy.

I very, very much doubt they were bothered, to be quite honest. As long as they got a Josie win they were happy to ensure that the final four days of the last ever 'proper' series were the dullest ever. If they'd have wanted John James in the final, why on earth would they have made the decision [arguably one of the worst ever in reality TV] to stage a Quadruple Eviction with a Vote to Evict? It was series suicide.

DrunkerThanMoses

13-09-2010, 06:29 PM

Dave ahd the best editing out of them all? Why does he think bb are agaisnt him. Is it jsut the fact all the housemates now know what a selfishe two faced man he was they dont want to know him?

Niamh.

13-09-2010, 06:32 PM

I bet BB is devastated

Angus

13-09-2010, 06:35 PM

I bet BB is devastated

Lol! I bet they are:laugh2: I dislike Dave for all sorts of reasons, but the blatant favouritism shown to JJ&J must have grated on a lot of the HMs, not just Dave.

Niamh.

13-09-2010, 06:38 PM

Lol! I bet they are:laugh2: I dislike Dave for all sorts of reasons, but the blatant favouritism shown to JJ&J must have grated on a lot of the HMs, not just Dave.

probably but that's life isn't it. I mean going on BB is like getting a job, If you're better at that job or are making them more money then the bosses will do more to make sure you stay. C'est la vie!

fingers

13-09-2010, 06:41 PM

I suspect the YouTube fiasco has more to do with the "No Show" decision.

DrunkerThanMoses

13-09-2010, 06:44 PM

I suspect the YouTube fiasco has more to do with the "No Show" decision.

And the simple fact that nearly all the bb11 housemates are ignoring him as well :) Dont blame them

fingers

13-09-2010, 10:20 PM

And the simple fact that nearly all the bb11 housemates are ignoring him as well :) Dont blame them

Bet Pete the Plonker is distraught!

Jase.

13-09-2010, 11:38 PM

Who the ****** is Dave?

Shasown

14-09-2010, 12:13 AM

Yeah I think BB did shaft Mr Vaughan a bit, after reading how he got the sh**ty end of the stick I decided to show my solidarity with Dave and boycotted the wrap party myself.

Malza

14-09-2010, 01:33 AM

i still can't believe that someone really things Dave had a bad eding, he should kiss the producers feet every day for how they held their hand about him in the HL Shows.... Everyone watching the LF knew, what sort of person he really was.:yuk:

iRyan

14-09-2010, 01:37 AM

To be fair, contact with an ex-housemate is different than contact from the actual outside world. Dave is just a fat bitter old man.

I'll be hooking up with all the guys as I'm able love them all

WTF

slow&steady

14-09-2010, 01:41 AM

i still can't believe that someone really things Dave had a bad eding, he should kiss the producers feet every day for how they held their hand about him in the HL Shows.... :yuk:

Wha?? he was destroyed in the HL's edit every night!

"Everyone watching the LF knew, what sort of person he really was",bit of a sweeping statement that?! I Watched alot of the LF,and that's not what i came away with. but heh! it's all over now. and he came 2nd. good on him.

DrunkerThanMoses

14-09-2010, 09:35 AM

Wha?? he was destroyed in the HL's edit every night!

"Everyone watching the LF knew, what sort of person he really was",bit of a sweeping statement that?! I Watched alot of the LF,and that's not what i came away with. but heh! it's all over now. and he came 2nd. good on him.

But he was a two faced man who did nothing but bitch about others, and talk non stop about the money and the game. Just face it he had the best highlights out of them all, cant see why they pprotected him so much. If they actually showed the real dave he would of been out in any of the weeks he was up.

Julesuk

14-09-2010, 09:35 AM

I suspect the YouTube fiasco has more to do with the "No Show" decision.

I think this also and this may be what Dave was on about his family getting stick over the You tuve vids etc that is not BB's fault and to be honest Dave should have thought about this before he went in the house.

fingers

14-09-2010, 10:14 AM

I think this also and this may be what Dave was on about his family getting stick over the You tuve vids etc that is not BB's fault and to be honest Dave should have thought about this before he went in the house.

Exactlly, and the "threats" made against his family were a direct result of HIM posting HIS vids on YouTube.

Shasown

14-09-2010, 01:47 PM

I wonder if Dave is planning to see the Pope while he is over here, will he be kneeling before Ol' Benny boy and kissing his ring?

rusticgal

14-09-2010, 02:03 PM

Dave is a twat.... maybe he should have given a little more thought about going on BB.Was he that stupid to think his appalling past behaviour would not catch up on him... that was all his own doing.
Dave is a VERY selfish guy... if things dont go right for him he will find someone else to blame. He is PATHETIC...

fingers

14-09-2010, 02:08 PM

I wonder if Dave is planning to see the Pope while he is over here, will he be kneeling before Ol' Benny boy and kissing his ring?

I wonder what Benjamin thinks of his "bosom buddy" now?? lol :devil:

fingers

14-09-2010, 02:20 PM

Who the ****** is Dave?

Oh, you remember, he's the one to whom GOD spoke and told him that HE (GOD) was opening up the Media i.e. the Big Brother House for him (St. Dave) to spread the GLORY - and maybe get another £100K to fund his globe trotting lifestyle.

Anyone fancy a Sloshfest??

DrunkerThanMoses

14-09-2010, 02:34 PM

I wonder what Benjamin thinks of his "bosom buddy" now?? lol :devil:

Ben willl need all the friends he can now, as only corin and andrew talked to him last night during the wrap party.

Maybe they saw videos of ben bitching about them all the time

fingers

14-09-2010, 02:44 PM

Oh, you remember, he's the one to whom GOD spoke and told him that HE (GOD) was opening up the Media i.e. the Big Brother House for him (St. Dave) to spread the GLORY - and maybe get another £100K to fund his globe trotting lifestyle.

Anyone fancy a Sloshfest??

Who could forget this hysterical, ribtickling dialogue?

eMTHGFg_8mY

Or this sidesplitting one?

KSbDsGSv7GI&feature=related

rosieb

14-09-2010, 02:45 PM

Was looking at the BB wrap party pics earlier and didn't even notice that Dave wasn't in any of them - clean forgot about him totally - just goes to show what an impact he made - always thought he was a bitter little man on the BB11 series and now having read his tweets it confirms it for me - the sore looser!!

Kazanne

14-09-2010, 03:42 PM

Ben willl need all the friends he can now, as only corin and andrew talked to him last night during the wrap party.

Maybe they saw videos of ben bitching about them all the time

Were you there?Ben needs none of them,lol,and maybe he is just selective who he talks too as Corin and Andrew were the best housemates other than Ben,whhy would anyone want to speak to the others?:conf:that is of course if your story is true

_Seth

14-09-2010, 03:47 PM

What exactly was the problem with his family?

I love how the idiot doesn't say. :rolleyes:

Jack_

14-09-2010, 03:55 PM

Were you there?Ben needs none of them,lol,and maybe he is just selective who he talks too as Corin and Andrew were the best housemates other than Ben

ROFL, Andrew? Andrew? One of the best housemates? Are you serious? Andrew was an irrelevant bore :joker:

Out of the entire cast, these were the best housemates: Sam, John James, Corin, Shabby, Govan, Ben, Rachael.

The rest, bar a few 'average' HM's, were out and out bores.

Visage

14-09-2010, 05:34 PM

I'm a little out of the loop, what happened with his family and youtube on the outside while he was in the house?

fingers

14-09-2010, 06:06 PM

I'm a little out of the loop, what happened with his family and youtube on the outside while he was in the house?

According to his mate, the one who constantly defended him on TiBB, his family were receiving threats because of his pathetic self-publicising Videos (the ones HE himself posted on YouTube) so much so, that they removed as many vids as they could but there are still many to be found! :joker:

Visage

14-09-2010, 07:31 PM

According to his mate, the one who constantly defended him on TiBB, his family were receiving threats because of his pathetic self-publicising Videos (the ones HE himself posted on YouTube) so much so, that they removed as many vids as they could but there are still many to be found! :joker:

Ah I follow now:D

Cheers

Kazanne

14-09-2010, 07:33 PM

ROFL, Andrew? Andrew? One of the best housemates? Are you serious? Andrew was an irrelevant bore :joker:

Out of the entire cast, these were the best housemates: Sam, John James, Corin, Shabby, Govan, Ben, Rachael.

The rest, bar a few 'average' HM's, were out and out bores.

YOUR opinion again NOT everyones,so please wind your neck in,we are ALL entitalled to have our favourites not just you.I disliked Govan and Crabby with a passion,so now what you going to do?:joker::joker::joker:

Jack_

14-09-2010, 08:06 PM

YOUR opinion again NOT everyones,so please wind your neck in,we are ALL entitalled to have our favourites not just you.I disliked Govan and Crabby with a passion,so now what you going to do?:joker::joker::joker:

Keyword again - disliked. You disliked them. But does that make them bad housemates? No. I loathed Bea from BB10, absolutely detested the vile cow - but there is no denying she was a good housemate. A vile person, but a good housemate. There is a difference, as I keep saying. And we should be judging them as housemates, not people.

I said at the beginning of BB11 that if Rachael, Govan, Shabby and even Sunshine left the series would seriously start to fall apart...and what happened? It practically did, only being held up by John James and later Sam, and to a lesser extent Corin. Ben had his parts too. If it had not have been for them the whole thing would've fallen apart - and no, that is not an opinion. It is fact. Please don't even try to deny that BB11 had arguably one of the worst casts ever - because it did. Had it not been for a select few people, that I have named, it would've been practically unwatchable.

Govan and John James gave us all something to watch, something to talk about. Housemates like Steve and Laura and in the past Hira and Rachel Rice do not. And this show thrives of discussion and debate. And all TV shows thrive off of something to watch...obviously. Because TV is about entertainment. And the likes of Andrew, do not offer entertainment. It's that simple.

Think of it this way:

What would a soap/drama be without it's main characters? What would a football team be without it's manager/coach?

It's the same thing with BB. The show is nothing without big characters. And who the 'big' characters are is not debatable.

It is fairly common sense too, if people just thought about it for a second...

It is this kind of mentality, of voting out the people you 'hate', i.e voting with hatred, rather than with logic, that has been a contributing factor as to why, currently, and as far as we are aware, we are no longer going to be watching Big Brother anymore.

And I hope you all realise that, because you call yourself Big Brother fans, but let's be honest, you're not really...

bigbrothermaniac008

14-09-2010, 08:31 PM

He could'nt afford the train fare ;)

calyman

14-09-2010, 09:09 PM

ROFL, Andrew? Andrew? One of the best housemates? Are you serious? Andrew was an irrelevant bore :joker:

Out of the entire cast, these were the best housemates: Sam, John James, Corin, Shabby, Govan, Ben, Rachael.

The rest, bar a few 'average' HM's, were out and out bores.

Apart from Ben, Corin and Sam, are you being serious???????? :conf:

Kazanne

14-09-2010, 09:10 PM

Keyword again - disliked. You disliked them. But does that make them bad housemates? No. I loathed Bea from BB10, absolutely detested the vile cow - but there is no denying she was a good housemate. A vile person, but a good housemate. There is a difference, as I keep saying. And we should be judging them as housemates, not people.

I said at the beginning of BB11 that if Rachael, Govan, Shabby and even Sunshine left the series would seriously start to fall apart...and what happened? It practically did, only being held up by John James and later Sam, and to a lesser extent Corin. Ben had his parts too. If it had not have been for them the whole thing would've fallen apart - and no, that is not an opinion. It is fact. Please don't even try to deny that BB11 had arguably one of the worst casts ever - because it did. Had it not been for a select few people, that I have named, it would've been practically unwatchable.

Govan and John James gave us all something to watch, something to talk about. Housemates like Steve and Laura and in the past Hira and Rachel Rice do not. And this show thrives of discussion and debate. And all TV shows thrive off of something to watch...obviously. Because TV is about entertainment. And the likes of Andrew, do not offer entertainment. It's that simple.

Think of it this way:

What would a soap/drama be without it's main characters? What would a football team be without it's manager/coach?

It's the same thing with BB. The show is nothing without big characters. And who the 'big' characters are is not debatable.

It is fairly common sense too, if people just thought about it for a second...

It is this kind of mentality, of voting out the people you 'hate', i.e voting with hatred, rather than with logic, that has been a contributing factor as to why, currently, and as far as we are aware, we are no longer going to be watching Big Brother anymore.

And I hope you all realise that, because you call yourself Big Brother fans, but let's be honest, you're not really...

:joker::joker::joker::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:G et a grip it's a TV show,NOT the end of the world,You obviously think 'nasty' people should be rewarded,I don't so tough titty.

Jack_

14-09-2010, 10:18 PM

Apart from Ben, Corin and Sam, are you being serious???????? :conf:

Yes...because they were the best housemates of BB11. Are you seriously suggesting John James wasn't one of the best housemates this year? He gave everyone something to talk about and watch, was a big character, and thus was one of the best housemates of BB11. Shabby was the same up until she left - and she created drama. Govan would've been the same had he left, a sh!t stirrer is always good. Rachael didn't last long enough unfortunately but her storyline with John James was just beginning to develop and would've been ****ing brilliant to watch.

Other than that...they were all pretty much bores.

:joker::joker::joker::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:G et a grip it's a TV show,NOT the end of the world,You obviously think 'nasty' people should be rewarded,I don't so tough titty.

What a coherent reply to my argument, as ever. It's nice to see your intelligence shining through as per usual, darling.

Just shows the massive flaws in your argument, really. Because I challenge every point you make and you return with ':sleep:'. Doesn't really justify your argument, does it? It just exposes it as being very weak...which of course we already knew. You could at least try, my darling.

And indeed it is a TV show. Correct. And so therefore it is not 'rewarding' anything. It is purely entertainment. It doesn't matter who wins, or who stays in. Because it's a gameshow. An entertainment show. And thus, the big characters should stay until the end, regardless of whether they are nice or not. As you have said, it's a TV show, and thus it is not 'rewarding' anything. Can't you see that?

Rob!

14-09-2010, 11:25 PM

I was never a massive fan of dave, and to be fair, John James had a phone call from Nathan because he was worried about getting **** kicked out of him...

Kazanne

15-09-2010, 07:38 AM

Yes...because they were the best housemates of BB11. Are you seriously suggesting John James wasn't one of the best housemates this year? He gave everyone something to talk about and watch, was a big character, and thus was one of the best housemates of BB11. Shabby was the same up until she left - and she created drama. Govan would've been the same had he left, a sh!t stirrer is always good. Rachael didn't last long enough unfortunately but her storyline with John James was just beginning to develop and would've been ****ing brilliant to watch.

Other than that...they were all pretty much bores.

What a coherent reply to my argument, as ever. It's nice to see your intelligence shining through as per usual, darling.

Just shows the massive flaws in your argument, really. Because I challenge every point you make and you return with ':sleep:'. Doesn't really justify your argument, does it? It just exposes it as being very weak...which of course we already knew. You could at least try, my darling.

And indeed it is a TV show. Correct. And so therefore it is not 'rewarding' anything. It is purely entertainment. It doesn't matter who wins, or who stays in. Because it's a gameshow. An entertainment show. And thus, the big characters should stay until the end, regardless of whether they are nice or not. As you have said, it's a TV show, and thus it is not 'rewarding' anything. Can't you see that?

Jack,you are boring,is that simple enough for you,I have better things to do than spend the day arguing with you,how terrible it must be for you that some of us have DIFFERENT opinions to you.but I will say ,you said yourself "It doesn't matter who wins" so why are you busting a blood vessel when'NICE' people win,a BIG character is not a nasty one,it is someone the majority of people LIKE!!!so in advance of your next sermon,have these(:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:)

DrunkerThanMoses

15-09-2010, 09:32 AM

I was never a massive fan of dave, and to be fair, John James had a phone call from Nathan because he was worried about getting **** kicked out of him...

Yeah but we dont know if Dave had any contact with the world? We didnt see everything and I would be suprised with how much the producers loved the guy.

Niamh.

15-09-2010, 09:38 AM

fingers

15-09-2010, 10:52 AM

Yeah but we dont know if Dave had any contact with the world? We didnt see everything and I would be suprised with how much the producers loved the guy.

After his mate claimed (on here) that he had been in touch with BB about St. Daves "Mental State" over his interpretation of his message from home, the 'Glory' seeker became, surprisingly, "not worried anymore", coincidence?:hugesmile:

Malza

15-09-2010, 02:13 PM

I think it is a fact, that he did a lot of ex-housemates a favor in not getting to the party.

As far as I know, most of them are more than happy to stay as far away from him as possible.
And I guess Dave knows that himself, so he spared himself the humiliating show of being ignored there, and instead claiming again, that HE is the victim

Kazanne

15-09-2010, 02:16 PM

DrunkerThanMoses

15-09-2010, 02:21 PM

Wonder if Dave is now wishing he had not done BB?

I dont know about you, but Im wishing he didnt :p

Malza

15-09-2010, 02:22 PM

Wonder if Dave is now wishing he had not done BB?

I think he still likes the "popularity" he got out of it.

He has his followers, which I guess are those people who like his sloshfests anyway. He might gets more donations from them, as they come across as totally brainwashed, really believing in saying Dave was badly treated in the house.

Dave loves the show, and he loves to be in the in the limelights, that's all he cares about. I think he's not regretting it.

Jack_

15-09-2010, 05:52 PM

Jack,you are boring,is that simple enough for you,I have better things to do than spend the day arguing with you,

LOL @ 'spend the day'. You're quite content with arguing with me for numerous, numerous posts. Infact, you're often quite content with starting the argument. But isn't it funny how when suddenly I make a lenthy post, justifying my side of the argument, challenging the points you make, you tell me that you 'can't be bothered arguing'. Sounds like you've run out of things to say to me. That I've proved you wrong. And you know I have. But you won't admit it, you'll just avoid the points I have made and divert it into some totally pointless exchange of smilies or similar, mostly on your part.

I mean, really? Is that the best you can do? Are you not going to at least even attempt to challenge my points? Or is it just all 'this is my opinion, but I'm not willing to justify it or back it up or challenge the points you make' with you? Is your argument really that weak? Deary me...

Buthow terrible it must be for you that some of us have DIFFERENT opinions to you.

But I've already told you, it's not an opinion. And I've told you why it's not an opinion. But instead of challenging these points that I make like any other person would do in a debate, becuase...you know...that is the idea of a debate, or are you just going to continue telling me 'it's MY opinion lOOL', with not justification or attempt at debate whatsoever? Tragic, really.

but I will say ,you said yourself "It doesn't matter who wins" so why are you busting a blood vessel when'NICE' people win

Indeed I did say that. But that was in reference to the fact you, strangely, think it is bad if 'nasty' people win, as it is 'rewarding' something. Because it doesn't matter...this is not 'real', it's TV. And thus, if a 'nasty' person wins, it is not rewarding anything. Because it's just TV.

I'm not 'busting a blood vessel' when 'nice' people win. Again, why to miss my entire point. I have no problem with 'nice' people winning. I was quite happy with Brian Dowling winning UBB, as he was one of my favourites. And he was nice. But why was I happy with that? Because he was entertaining. And a big character. So long as a big character, who is entertaining, and has given everyone something to watch and talk about...wins, then it does not matter whether they are 'nasty' or 'nice'. That's irrelevant. It's about how good they are as a housemate, not a person. If there was a nasty person, who added **** all to the show...then I would not want them to win. If there was a nice person, who added lots to the show...then I'd want them to win. What is so difficult for you to understand? It is pretty much common sense...

,a BIG character is not a nasty one,

Wrong again. It bares no relevance whether a housemate is nasty or nice. They are a big character if they give people lots of things to talk about, spark lots of discussion and debate, give us something to watch, are entertaining, have added to the show/house, etc etc. Housemates like Steve, Andrew and Laura are not big characters...and to pass them off as big characters is just plain stupid. Big characters are not debatable, they are not people's individual 'favourites'...they cannot be changed. The big characters are the big characters, regardless of whether they are your favourite or not.

it is someone the majority of people LIKE!!!

Wrong again. That is a 'favourite'. You know...like the Bookie's favourite to win. It is rarely the real big characters...they are usually the favourites to be evicted. Favourites are individual chocies [that, if people had any sense, would be the big characters]. Big characters are not choices, they are set in stone, and cannot be changed. Fact.

so in advance of your next sermon,have these(:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:)

That pretty much proves how weak your argument is. And how weak your debating skills are. Theoretically, I should be the one acting like you, considering I am [supposedly] younger. Says a lot really, doesn't it?

Great post Jack:thumbs:

Thanks. At least someone agrees.

It's like trying to get through a brick wall with some of these people though, I could say it a million times and I would never get through to them :joker:

_Seth

15-09-2010, 06:36 PM

Can someone tell me what he was lied to about?

Kazanne

15-09-2010, 07:18 PM

LOL @ 'spend the day'. You're quite content with arguing with me for numerous, numerous posts. Infact, you're often quite content with starting the argument. But isn't it funny how when suddenly I make a lenthy post, justifying my side of the argument, challenging the points you make, you tell me that you 'can't be bothered arguing'. Sounds like you've run out of things to say to me. That I've proved you wrong. And you know I have. But you won't admit it, you'll just avoid the points I have made and divert it into some totally pointless exchange of smilies or similar, mostly on your part.

I mean, really? Is that the best you can do? Are you not going to at least even attempt to challenge my points? Or is it just all 'this is my opinion, but I'm not willing to justify it or back it up or challenge the points you make' with you? Is your argument really that weak? Deary me...

But I've already told you, it's not an opinion. And I've told you why it's not an opinion. But instead of challenging these points that I make like any other person would do in a debate, becuase...you know...that is the idea of a debate, or are you just going to continue telling me 'it's MY opinion lOOL', with not justification or attempt at debate whatsoever? Tragic, really.

Indeed I did say that. But that was in reference to the fact you, strangely, think it is bad if 'nasty' people win, as it is 'rewarding' something. Because it doesn't matter...this is not 'real', it's TV. And thus, if a 'nasty' person wins, it is not rewarding anything. Because it's just TV.

I'm not 'busting a blood vessel' when 'nice' people win. Again, why to miss my entire point. I have no problem with 'nice' people winning. I was quite happy with Brian Dowling winning UBB, as he was one of my favourites. And he was nice. But why was I happy with that? Because he was entertaining. And a big character. So long as a big character, who is entertaining, and has given everyone something to watch and talk about...wins, then it does not matter whether they are 'nasty' or 'nice'. That's irrelevant. It's about how good they are as a housemate, not a person. If there was a nasty person, who added **** all to the show...then I would not want them to win. If there was a nice person, who added lots to the show...then I'd want them to win. What is so difficult for you to understand? It is pretty much common sense...

Wrong again. It bares no relevance whether a housemate is nasty or nice. They are a big character if they give people lots of things to talk about, spark lots of discussion and debate, give us something to watch, are entertaining, have added to the show/house, etc etc. Housemates like Steve, Andrew and Laura are not big characters...and to pass them off as big characters is just plain stupid. Big characters are not debatable, they are not people's individual 'favourites'...they cannot be changed. The big characters are the big characters, regardless of whether they are your favourite or not.

Wrong again. That is a 'favourite'. You know...like the Bookie's favourite to win. It is rarely the real big characters...they are usually the favourites to be evicted. Favourites are individual chocies [that, if people had any sense, would be the big characters]. Big characters are not choices, they are set in stone, and cannot be changed. Fact.

That pretty much proves how weak your argument is. And how weak your debating skills are. Theoretically, I should be the one acting like you, considering I am [supposedly] younger. Says a lot really, doesn't it?

Thanks. At least someone agrees.

It's like trying to get through a brick wall with some of these people though, I could say it a million times and I would never get through to them :joker:

Ah bless,someone agrees with you,Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent!THEN I might consider debating with you:joker::joker:You are clearly one of those people who always thinks they are right,so why bother debating at all,you can keep waffling on,and I will still disagree if I feel it necessary,and as I said it's all so boring this infatuation with BB and it's contestants.IT'S OVER,GONE,FINISHED.:joker:I have noticed you are very lucky you have me at the moment ,as not many answer you do they?:joker::joker::joker:

Jack_

15-09-2010, 07:46 PM

Ah bless,someone agrees with you,

Yep, it proves at least some people on this forum have a brain :whistle:

Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent!

ROFL, the definition of irony is right here :joker:

THEN I might consider debating with you:joker::joker:

Let's be honest here, you don't 'consider' anything...you just...don't have the ability to debate.

You are clearly one of those people who always thinks they are right,

Erm, doesn't everyone who is debating think their point is right? Go figure, love...

And I've told you why I'm right and you're wrong [translated: my side of the argument], you haven't. So thus I must be right. Or are you going to at least try to prove me wrong? Or not?

so why bother debating at all,you can keep waffling on,and i will still disagree.

Of course you'll still disagree, ROFL. That's obvious. You're clearly just playing devil's advocate :joker:

and as I said it's all so boring this infatuation with BB and it's contestants.IT'S OVER,GONE,FINISHED.

I'm quite aware. But is it an unwritten rule that no one is allowed to discuss Big Brother now that it's over? Quite hypocritical coming from you, as well, considering your quite strange obsession and hatred for John James. Then again you were exposed as a hypocrite the other day. So that doesn't come as a surprise, does it really? :joker:

:joker:I have noticed you are very lucky you have got me at the moment ,as not many answer you do they?:joker::joker::joker:

Some do, some don't. The ones that don't are like you...can't debate, really. I challenge their points, and they fail to challenge mine. Thus proving my point is right, basically. A bit like you've done. Then there's the ones that do...and for once you can engage in a bit of debate on this forum. You're a bit like flamingGalah! really. Post your 'opinion', and then toddle off. If someone dares to challenge it all you seem to be able to say is 'it's my opinion lOOOl KK!!!!!!!1111one'. Very, very odd.

Kazanne

15-09-2010, 08:02 PM

Yep, it proves at least some people on this forum have a brain :whistle:

ROFL, the definition of irony is right here :joker:

Let's be honest here, you don't 'consider' anything...you just...don't have the ability to debate.

Erm, doesn't everyone who is debating think their point is right? Go figure, love...

And I've told you why I'm right and you're wrong [translated: my side of the argument], you haven't. So thus I must be right. Or are you going to at least try to prove me wrong? Or not?

Of course you'll still disagree, ROFL. That's obvious. You're clearly just playing devil's advocate :joker:

I'm quite aware. But is it an unwritten rule that no one is allowed to discuss Big Brother now that it's over? Quite hypocritical coming from you, as well, considering your quite strange obsession and hatred for John James. Then again you were exposed as a hypocrite the other day. So that doesn't come as a surprise, does it really? :joker:

Some do, some don't. The ones that don't are like you...can't debate, really. I challenge their points, and they fail to challenge mine. Thus proving my point is right, basically. A bit like you've done. Then there's the ones that do...and for once you can engage in a bit of debate on this forum. You're a bit like flamingGalah! really. Post your 'opinion', and then toddle off. If someone dares to challenge it all you seem to be able to say is 'it's my opinion lOOOl KK!!!!!!!1111one'. Very, very odd.

You THINK you exposed me ,but failed to see that what Crabby said was totally different to what Davina said and Davina had the grace to
apologise,but I dont expect you to 'get' that,so think what you will,but I'm impressed; I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before,It is mind over matter. I don't mind, because you don't matter. now run along I am working here.:joker::joker::joker:

fingers

15-09-2010, 08:53 PM

Gone WAY off topic now!!

Jack_

15-09-2010, 09:16 PM

You THINK you exposed me ,but failed to see that what Crabby said was totally different to what Davina said and Davina had the grace to
apologise,but I dont expect you to 'get' that,so think what you will,but I'm impressed;

Oh look, you've yet again made the concious decision to only reply to a select part of my argument. Lost for words are we? :joker:

Anyway, it doesn't matter what Davina/John James said. They could both be 'considered' to be foul language. It's the principle, not the word. As for him not apologising...fair enough, you have a point, but what if he was under the impression that it would be edited out? I remember when Isaac from BB10 swore on BBLB last year he was under the impression that it would be edited out as that's what they do in America. Not that I expect you to consider that, though...your OTT hatred has no bounds...

I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before,It is mind over matter.

Me? Small minded? Wow, that's probably one of the most laughable things I've heard all week. I suggest you get to know me a little more before you make unfounded assumptions such as that one. Because it just shows you up, to be quite honest. If anything, you are the small-minded one.

I don't mind, because you don't matter. now run along I am working here.:joker::joker::joker:

Aw, look. Back to the old baiting again, are we? Have you really run out of things to say now? I really do pity you, it's laughable.

And you're a 'married mum of two kids'? And you bait people on internet forums? ROFL! :joker: :joker: :joker:

DrunkerThanMoses

15-09-2010, 09:19 PM

Gone WAY off topic now!!

Yeah I miss sating what a twat dave is :bawling:

fingers

15-09-2010, 09:21 PM

Yeah I miss sating what a twat dave is :bawling:

ME too, "t" and "y" are a bit close together, aint they? lol :devil:

MTVN

15-09-2010, 09:27 PM

Dave was a great housemate, my favourite from BB11 other than Ben

fingers

15-09-2010, 09:30 PM

You obviously have a soft spot for silver tongued Charlatans! lol

DrunkerThanMoses

15-09-2010, 09:32 PM

Dave was a great housemate, my favourite from BB11 other than Ben

:yuk:

MTVN

15-09-2010, 09:41 PM

You obviously have a soft spot for silver tongued Charlatans! lol

Nah, I really liked the guy, and his religious beliefs didnt factor when I formed my opinion on him. I liked him because he was funny, intelligent, perceptive and friendly, nothing to do with his religion.

MTVN

15-09-2010, 09:42 PM

:yuk:

Glory.

DrunkerThanMoses

15-09-2010, 09:43 PM

Glory.

:yuk:

Kazanne

15-09-2010, 10:25 PM

Oh look, you've yet again made the concious decision to only reply to a select part of my argument. Lost for words are we? :joker:

Anyway, it doesn't matter what Davina/John James said. They could both be 'considered' to be foul language. It's the principle, not the word. As for him not apologising...fair enough, you have a point, but what if he was under the impression that it would be edited out? I remember when Isaac from BB10 swore on BBLB last year he was under the impression that it would be edited out as that's what they do in America. Not that I expect you to consider that, though...your OTT hatred has no bounds...

Me? Small minded? Wow, that's probably one of the most laughable things I've heard all week. I suggest you get to know me a little more before you make unfounded assumptions such as that one. Because it just shows you up, to be quite honest. If anything, you are the small-minded one.

Aw, look. Back to the old baiting again, are we? Have you really run out of things to say now? I really do pity you, it's laughable.

And you're a 'married mum of two kids'? And you bait people on internet forums? ROFL! :joker: :joker: :joker:

Baiting?:joker::joker::joker:Pot and kettle come to mind,hypocrite:joker::joker::joker::joker:I hear you were born on April 2 a day too late:xyxwave:i know you love this attention but,i am not feeding your silly little ego anymore,it's spoiling peoples threads,so go do your homework there's a good lad,you are now on ignore.:joker:

Jack_

15-09-2010, 10:39 PM

What a surprise...again, you've completely ignored my reply to your argument and instead chosen the bit you're going to reply to. Strangely enough it's the bit where you can bait me a bit more. Have you just...completely run out of things to say? Are you lost for words or something? Have I really challenged your point that much?

Baiting?:joker::joker::joker:Pot and kettle come to mind,hypocrite:joker::joker::joker::joker:

When have I baited other users?

I hear you were born on April 2 a day too late:xyxwave:

Wow...aren't you a comedy genius. That was...embarrassing.

i know you love this attention but,i am not feeding your silly little ego anymore,it's spoiling peoples threads,

I 'love the attention'? This coming from a 'married mum with two kids' who baits people who are [supposedly, hard to believe, isn't it?] younger than her on a Big Brother forum on the internet? I thought you couldn't top the 'small-minded' comment, but I think that did it. Laughable, laughable stuff. And embarrassing too :joker:

so go do your homework there's a good lad,you are now on ignore.:joker:

Surprise, surprise. More baiting. Haven't you got kids to be looking after? Or is baiting users on internet forums more important?

And wow, just when I thought you couldn't expose your arguments to be any more weaker than they already are...then you go and do that. Ignore - the classic case of 'oh, I know you're right, and I know you've proved me wrong. But I'm speechless. And don't know what else to say. So instead of attempting to prove my point [or 'opinion', as I keep calling it], I am just going to put you on my ignore list. As it's easier...and doesn't show me up to be someone that completely avoids the point, can't debate, and baits users on internet forums'.

I've had more intelligent conversation with an eight year old. Christ :joker:

Malza

15-09-2010, 11:37 PM

Nah, I really liked the guy, and his religious beliefs didnt factor when I formed my opinion on him. I liked him because he was funny, intelligent, perceptive and friendly, nothing to do with his religion.

Why do I think you have never watched BB on LF?

Malza

15-09-2010, 11:38 PM

Glory.

No. 1 in my "Worst word this year" ranking :yuk:

DrunkerThanMoses

16-09-2010, 12:00 AM

headaball

16-09-2010, 12:03 AM

Oh a non live feeder viewer I see

I watched live feed regularly.

Dave was ok. Mario was a cowardly creepy wee perv.

calyman

16-09-2010, 06:00 AM

Yes...because they were the best housemates of BB11. Are you seriously suggesting John James wasn't one of the best housemates this year? He gave everyone something to talk about and watch, was a big character, and thus was one of the best housemates of BB11. Shabby was the same up until she left - and she created drama. Govan would've been the same had he left, a sh!t stirrer is always good. Rachael didn't last long enough unfortunately but her storyline with John James was just beginning to develop and would've been ****ing brilliant to watch.

Other than that...they were all pretty much bores.

What a coherent reply to my argument, as ever. It's nice to see your intelligence shining through as per usual, darling.

Just shows the massive flaws in your argument, really. Because I challenge every point you make and you return with ':sleep:'. Doesn't really justify your argument, does it? It just exposes it as being very weak...which of course we already knew. You could at least try, my darling.

And indeed it is a TV show. Correct. And so therefore it is not 'rewarding' anything. It is purely entertainment. It doesn't matter who wins, or who stays in. Because it's a gameshow. An entertainment show. And thus, the big characters should stay until the end, regardless of whether they are nice or not. As you have said, it's a TV show, and thus it is not 'rewarding' anything. Can't you see that?

In your opinion they were the "best" housemates of bb11, in mine they were boorish, unpleasant, self regarding boring drones. They were voted off because most people thought likewise.

You need to realise that unpleasant, abusive and selfish behaviour does n ot mean entertainment. People like that is what turns so many viwers off from watching BB. As for crabby, he is a loathsome character who should never have came on the show in the first place.

Malza

16-09-2010, 08:56 AM

I watched live feed regularly.

Dave was ok. Mario was a cowardly creepy wee perv.

I see... backstabbing, bitching and bullying is ok then?
Hmm, seems we have different opinions about why we like people.

DrunkerThanMoses

16-09-2010, 11:41 AM

I watched live feed regularly.

Dave was ok. Mario was a cowardly creepy wee perv.

Oh telling someone there going to hell for swapping their face is okay by you, wow! :sleep:

Kazanne

16-09-2010, 12:20 PM

In your opinion they were the "best" housemates of bb11, in mine they were boorish, unpleasant, self regarding boring drones. They were voted off because most people thought likewise.

You need to realise that unpleasant, abusive and selfish behaviour does n ot mean entertainment. People like that is what turns so many viwers off from watching BB. As for crabby, he is a loathsome character who should never have came on the show in the first place.

My thoughts exactly,Calyman,I fail to see exactly how Crabby was entertaining,it certainly wasn't his personality or humour,most of the time he was putting people down unfairly,false,and a big head and I do dislike those sort of people.

Jack_

16-09-2010, 02:45 PM

In your opinion they were the "best" housemates of bb11, in mine they were boorish, unpleasant, self regarding boring drones. They were voted off because most people thought likewise.

Wrong. They were voted off because they dared to do something. It's the reason why Vote to Evict fails every time. If you do **** all, you stay. And if you do anything, you leave. Remember the Quadruple Eviction before the final? The one that left us with the dullest, most undeserving Big Brother finalists ever? Yes? That's because all the big characters left. And who the big characters are is not something that can be debated.

It is not an opinion. It is fact. I loathed Bea in BB10 but she was definitely one of the best housemates last year, alongside a few others.

You need to realise that unpleasant, abusive and selfish behaviour does n ot mean entertainment.

Did I say it did? There is nothing wrong with 'nice' housemates on Big Brother, so long as they actually do something. Or are you trying to tell me that housemates like Rachel Rice and Hira are better for the show than the likes of John James and Sam? Whether a housemate is 'nice' or not doesn't come into it. It's whether they have an impact on the house/show or not. If they don't, then they should leave. If they do, then they should stay. It really does not matter whether they are 'nasty' or 'nice. At the end of the day, we want something to watch and talk about - and we're not going to get that with housemates like Rachel and Hira.

People like that is what turns so many viwers off from watching BB.

Again - wrong. What turns viewers away is when there is nothing to watch, because the housemates all sit around getting along making small talk about tea and biscuits. It's no surprise that after the worst winner ever was crowned [Rachel Rice] the viewing figures begun to drop when BB10 started. It's also the same when the big characters leave each year.

Would people watch dramas/soaps if all the main/big characters left and the only ones left were the little extras? No, they wouldn't.

It's the same thing with Big Brother. The big characters leave, people switch off. I really fail to see what is so hard to understand about that...

As for crabby, he is a loathsome character who should never have came on the show in the first place.

Indeed he is a loathsome character, but he is a good housemate, who gave us lots of things to talk about during the summer and lots of things to watch during the summer, so therefore he is a big character. He also saved a very large chunk of BB11. It was on the edge of being practically unwatchable, as a result of the worst cast...possibly ever.

My thoughts exactly,Calyman,I fail to see exactly how Crabby was entertaining,it certainly wasn't his personality or humour,most of the time he was putting people down unfairly,false,and a big head and I do dislike those sort of people.

Yes - you disliked them, but that doesn't automatically make them bad housemates. Bad people yes, bad housemates, no.

As I have said, Bea was a vile, manipulative, conniving little cow - but there is no doubting the fact that she was a good housemate. It's simple really.

_Seth

16-09-2010, 02:51 PM

What was he actually lied to about?

ange7

16-09-2010, 03:00 PM

probably but that's life isn't it. I mean going on BB is like getting a job, If you're better at that job or are making them more money then the bosses will do more to make sure you stay. C'est la vie!

agree ... that's why their first response to the news was probably "Dave who?".

calyman

16-09-2010, 05:01 PM

My thoughts exactly,Calyman,I fail to see exactly how Crabby was entertaining,it certainly wasn't his personality or humour,most of the time he was putting people down unfairly,false,and a big head and I do dislike those sort of people.

I totally agree with you Kazanne, he is one of the worst creeps to have slimed his way onto BB. He is a moral coward and thoroughly deserved the ignominy caused by his craven fear of what Nathan might have said or done to him over his nasty remarks to Rachel. That just about sums up what crabby is about.

calyman

16-09-2010, 05:14 PM

Wrong. They were voted off because they dared to do something. It's the reason why Vote to Evict fails every time. If you do **** all, you stay. And if you do anything, you leave. Remember the Quadruple Eviction before the final? The one that left us with the dullest, most undeserving Big Brother finalists ever? Yes? That's because all the big characters left. And who the big characters are is not something that can be debated.

It is not an opinion. It is fact. I loathed Bea in BB10 but she was definitely one of the best housemates last year, alongside a few others.

Did I say it did? There is nothing wrong with 'nice' housemates on Big Brother, so long as they actually do something. Or are you trying to tell me that housemates like Rachel Rice and Hira are better for the show than the likes of John James and Sam? Whether a housemate is 'nice' or not doesn't come into it. It's whether they have an impact on the house/show or not. If they don't, then they should leave. If they do, then they should stay. It really does not matter whether they are 'nasty' or 'nice. At the end of the day, we want something to watch and talk about - and we're not going to get that with housemates like Rachel and Hira.

Again - wrong. What turns viewers away is when there is nothing to watch, because the housemates all sit around getting along making small talk about tea and biscuits. It's no surprise that after the worst winner ever was crowned [Rachel Rice] the viewing figures begun to drop when BB10 started. It's also the same when the big characters leave each year.

Would people watch dramas/soaps if all the main/big characters left and the only ones left were the little extras? No, they wouldn't.

It's the same thing with Big Brother. The big characters leave, people switch off. I really fail to see what is so hard to understand about that...

Indeed he is a loathsome character, but he is a good housemate, who gave us lots of things to talk about during the summer and lots of things to watch during the summer, so therefore he is a big character. He also saved a very large chunk of BB11. It was on the edge of being practically unwatchable, as a result of the worst cast...possibly ever.

Yes - you disliked them, but that doesn't automatically make them bad housemates. Bad people yes, bad housemates, no.

As I have said, Bea was a vile, manipulative, conniving little cow - but there is no doubting the fact that she was a good housemate. It's simple really.

You are only repeating yourself, repetition does not make for a succesful argument. To answer you, I must refer you to my earlier posts, because I don't like repeating myself.

As to Rachel Rice, I rooted for her throughout her time on BB9. She was repeatedly bullied and ridiculed by that cretin rex, yet Rachel held her dignity and self respect. She would not allow herself to descend to the level of nastiness evinced by rex. As a result, Rachel's innate decency, integrity and strength ensured she deservedly won the top prize.

This is also another example as to why boorishness, abuse, bullying, hypocrisy, nastieness and other such behaviours do not make for either a "good housemate" or any sort of entertainment. You mention Bea, she was so innately nasty, she got voted off, not because she was a "good housemate" but because she was such a rotten and twisted person.

Jack_

16-09-2010, 06:04 PM

You are only repeating yourself, repetition does not make for a succesful argument. To answer you, I must refer you to my earlier posts, because I don't like repeating myself.

I'm having to repeat myself because it seems so...difficult...to get through to you people. To most it would be pretty much common sense...

As to Rachel Rice, I rooted for her throughout her time on BB9.

Congratulations on being a contributing factor to Big Brother's axe, then.

She was repeatedly bullied and ridiculed by that cretin rex, yet Rachel held her dignity and self respect. She would not allow herself to descend to the level of nastiness evinced by rex.

Bullied? ROFL, far-fetched. At the end of the day, she was a total, utter bore. A complete waste of space. Added nothing to the house and nothing to the show. Had absolutely no impact whatsoever. She wasn't a good housemate, and she wasn't a big character. It's not debatable - it's the truth.

As a result, Rachel's innate decency, integrity and strength ensured she deservedly won the top prize.

Deservedly? You've got to be kidding me? So sitting around on your arse for 3 months adding absolutely **** all to an entertainment gameshow should be 'rewarded' [as some people seem to keep saying] in the form of £100,000, should it? It's not difficult - if you add nothing to the show, make no impact, spark no discussion and debate, you are a useless housemate and totally undeserving of a place in the house, let alone victory. She's a nice person, yes, I'm not going to dispute that. But she is an awful, awful housemate. And arguably the worst winner ever.

This is also another example as to why boorishness, abuse, bullying, hypocrisy, nastieness and other such behaviours do not make for either a "good housemate" or any sort of entertainment.

It does if they spark discussion, debate, have an impact on the house/show and give us something to talk about. That is a big character and a good housemate. Housemates that give us **** all to talk about like Laura, Steve, Hira etc are not good housemates nor are they big characters. It's really, really not difficult to understand. As I have already said, to most it is common sense. Just...think about it. Big Brother is an entertainment gameshow. Housemates like Laura, Steve, Hira, Rachel etc don't offer entertainment, spark discussion, debate, give us something to watch...I could go on. There is nothing difficult to understand...

You mention Bea, she was so innately nasty, she got voted off, not because she was a "good housemate" but because she was such a rotten and twisted person.

I'm quite aware of that. But again, keyword - person. A nasty person. There is a difference between a person and a housemate. And they should be judged accordingly. Sadly, you are, she was evicted because she was a 'rotten and twisted person'. But this is where the voting public have always gone wrong...they have voted with hatred, rather than with logic. And thus they have killed the show year on year. Some of them also go on to later complain it's 'boring', when they're responsible. Laughable really. And it's also partly the reason why, as far as we're all currently aware, we're no longer going to be watching Big Brother.

_Seth

16-09-2010, 06:24 PM

What was he lied to about? :(

Raph

16-09-2010, 06:26 PM

Rachel Rice was the best winner ever. :D

Kazanne

16-09-2010, 06:30 PM

What was he lied to about? :(

I think it may be the claim that he made saying he could cure cancer,I may be wrong ,if so I am sure someone will say.:xyxwave:

MTVN

16-09-2010, 06:34 PM

Why do I think you have never watched BB on LF?

Oh a non live feeder viewer I see

Ah, the old "you dont watch LF so cant have an opinion" argument.

No, I admit that I had neither the time nor inclination to spend my day watching the live feed, other than when it was on E4, and when I did see it I still liked him.

There we are then, we dont all share the same opinion on housemates, shocking isn't it?

MTVN

16-09-2010, 06:36 PM

What was he lied to about? :(

When he went on about how he was worried his family wasnt ok after seeing his message from home, Big Brother apparently told him that everything was fine.

It's supposedly transpired that they weren't fine, although why exactly I'm not sure. I know that some pretty disgusting comments were left on some of his Youtube videos and some threats made to his family so it could be about that?

_Seth

16-09-2010, 06:37 PM

Well it's not that bad then.

F,ucking LOL @ how no-one knows what this lie is about. :laugh:

calyman

16-09-2010, 09:49 PM

I'm having to repeat myself because it seems so...difficult...to get through to you people. To most it would be pretty much common sense...

Congratulations on being a contributing factor to Big Brother's axe, then.

Bullied? ROFL, far-fetched. At the end of the day, she was a total, utter bore. A complete waste of space. Added nothing to the house and nothing to the show. Had absolutely no impact whatsoever. She wasn't a good housemate, and she wasn't a big character. It's not debatable - it's the truth.

Deservedly? You've got to be kidding me? So sitting around on your arse for 3 months adding absolutely **** all to an entertainment gameshow should be 'rewarded' [as some people seem to keep saying] in the form of £100,000, should it? It's not difficult - if you add nothing to the show, make no impact, spark no discussion and debate, you are a useless housemate and totally undeserving of a place in the house, let alone victory. She's a nice person, yes, I'm not going to dispute that. But she is an awful, awful housemate. And arguably the worst winner ever.

It does if they spark discussion, debate, have an impact on the house/show and give us something to talk about. That is a big character and a good housemate. Housemates that give us **** all to talk about like Laura, Steve, Hira etc are not good housemates nor are they big characters. It's really, really not difficult to understand. As I have already said, to most it is common sense. Just...think about it. Big Brother is an entertainment gameshow. Housemates like Laura, Steve, Hira, Rachel etc don't offer entertainment, spark discussion, debate, give us something to watch...I could go on. There is nothing difficult to understand...

I'm quite aware of that. But again, keyword - person. A nasty person. There is a difference between a person and a housemate. And they should be judged accordingly. Sadly, you are, she was evicted because she was a 'rotten and twisted person'. But this is where the voting public have always gone wrong...they have voted with hatred, rather than with logic. And thus they have killed the show year on year. Some of them also go on to later complain it's 'boring', when they're responsible. Laughable really. And it's also partly the reason why, as far as we're all currently aware, we're no longer going to be watching Big Brother.

There's the rub as to why we will never see eye to eye on this. You see such dirty rotten behaviour as entertaining; whereas I think it's degrading and dehumanising both to the contestants and to the viewers. It's car crash TV, I do not find that in any way entertaining, instead, I think it's sad that the "bread and circuses" philosophy is what passes for "cutting edge" TV.

I am interested in people dealing with things, not people "losing it", but people dealing with situations in a reasoned and appropriate manner. Rachel Rice amd Bea are two sides of two very different coins. Bea is instantly identified with the "Jeremy Kyle" generation, while Rachel is a real person who showed humour, integrity, decency, strength and carried herself with a sense of pride and honesty. I admire her, I respect her, I am glad I could see her on BB. Bea, was none of those things, she was a fake "Cruella", of no real condequence whatsoever. You found her "entertaining", I found her boring and tedious, she and people like her don't get voted off soon enough. The real and interesting housemates are the ones who I can relate to, not fakes and wannabees, they are forgotten about so quickly.

BB_Eye

16-09-2010, 10:01 PM

There's the rub as to why we will never see eye to eye on this. You see such dirty rotten behaviour as entertaining; whereas I think it's degrading and dehumanising both to the contestants and to the viewers. It's car crash TV, I do not find that in any way entertaining, instead, I think it's sad that the "bread and circuses" philosophy is what passes for "cutting edge" TV.

I am interested in people dealing with things, not people "losing it", but people dealing with situations in a reasoned and appropriate manner. Rachel Rice amd Bea are two sides of two very different coins. Bea is instantly identified with the "Jeremy Kyle" generation, while Rachel is a real person who showed humour, integrity, decency, strength and carried herself with a sense of pride and honesty. I admire her, I respect her, I am glad I could see her on BB. Bea, was none of those things, she was a fake "Cruella", of no real condequence whatsoever. You found her "entertaining", I found her boring and tedious, she and people like her don't get voted off soon enough. The real and interesting housemates are the ones who I can relate to, not fakes and wannabees, they are forgotten about so quickly.
I understand why you might think it is degrading and dehumanising. There is probably more than a grain of truth to it. But can you honestly sit here and say you would be watching the show if people like Makosi, Bea, Shabby and Sam weren't there and everybody was as nice and laid back as Rachel?

Once again, there is a case to be made for not excusing their behaviour in any form, but surely if that was how you felt, you would stop watching the show altogether in the name of decency.