Who could forget this hysterical, ribtickling dialogue?




Or this sidesplitting one?

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!!

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

What exactly was the problem with his family?

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

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.

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:

Ah I follow now:D


Cheers

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...

He could'nt afford the train fare ;)

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

: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.

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?

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...

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:)

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.

Great post Jack:thumbs:

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:

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

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

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

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.

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:

Can someone tell me what he was lied to about?