Who or what exactly is being 'undermined'? There are several positive threads on this forum about Pete. Your opinion differs from the norm, which is fine. But isn't your solitary voice in the wilderness an attempt to undermine that? It's a theory worthy of consideration, at least.

I've hardly been here for a month or so. There wasn't exactly much of any real interest, unless you find Chantelle & Preston interesting of course, which I don't. But thanks for the heads up - illogical, poorly written attacks do thrill me so.

You seem to have a real problem with people who post coherently, Lance. Why does that bother you so?

how dare you insult anyone.pots and kettles my friend.
POTS AND KETTLES

Yes, Jo. You are fantastic.

'illogical, poorly written attacks do thrill me so' - Ah so that's why you love to hear the sound of your own voice!:wink:

My replies may not be to your 'oh so wonderful' standard but if it bothers you that much do not take the time to reply to my posts. Simple.:eureka:

I believe it was people like yourself that the 'Ignore' button was invented for.

That link I gave you, by the way, Jo, was a post by 'Ig'. Thought you may find it interesting that you're not the only extremely wonderful poster on here.

I repeat: if my "illogical, poorly written attacks" do not meet your superior standards, feel free to ignore them. It really won't do you any damage. Really.:spin2:

EDIT: Actually, Jo, from now on in I won't bother replying to you. It is obvious you get a kick out of getting a reaction from people. Get your kicks from somebody else, preferably on another forum, because I shalln't waste my time.:wavey:

You really do have quite a persecution complex Lance, which is rather sad. My post which you took exception to was perfectly rational, and simply focused on your post. There was nothing personal involved, and certainly nothing to warrant your overreaction, either.

I was actually referring to the link you posted. I can't be held responsible if you decide to misread a perfectly straightforward post.

Am I supposed to be upset here? I'd do the same, but I find your rather extreme am-dram responses quite interesting.

Now you've lost me. I read the post, but it was illogical and full of errors. So what's your point?

And I repeat: read things properly before you run around making inaccurate assumptions.

I get no 'kicks' out of anything, Lance. If I was posting in the manner you suggest, then why are there no warnings in my profile? I can see that you have a real problem with anyone that disagrees with you. Most people do, it's human nature. But you make things very personal indeed, which is really poor form for a mod. So I suggest if your problem really runs so deep, hit that little old 'Ignore' button.

^I'm a man of my word.
------------------------------------------------------

Pete has grown on me a bit since my initial post. I never really diliked him.. I just found that all that he was on screen for was his Tourettes.

But he is a genuine person, as a few people have already said on here. I still don't want to see him win but I'd rather he stayed longer than a few other housemates. I'd like to see how he is shown on the highlight shows in two or three weeks and see if there is still as much emphasis on his Tourettes.

Glyn to go.:sleep::laugh:

Hopefully now that Shahbaz is gone we will see more of all the HMs, and be able to form opinions of them rather than them all being in the sidelines.

A total word count of all Bonnie has said so far in the series would be interesting - it can't be much. [/quote]

I think it would be a lot higher than Glyn, George and Mikey. If you watch the live feed then you will realise she talks A LOT! And by saying 'A LOT' i'm not exagurating.

Everytime i watch the live feed, it's her that it's focused on a lot and she is talking a lot but for some reason they don't show it in the highlight shows which is annoying.