I don't want to keep people like him in the house...He has issues, they are apparent.
Maybe the other HM's won't see it who knows?
I can see the type who burn ants with magnifying glasses, pull wings off flies and legs off spiders may want to keep this sort in ...but not me.

But here you are discussing them.

So you're suggesting that because some people like housemates that create discussion and debate, they are the same types of people that 'burn ants with magnifying glasses' and 'pull wings off flies and legs off spiders'. Honestly, I think that may be one of the most ridiculous things posted in the history of on-season.

It makes no sense to want housemates that are causing drama out. Like, just think it through...how can it make any sense? So we keep housemates that do nothing, and contribute sweet **** all to the show, leaving us with nothing to talk about and watch, yet get rid of those who are contributing to the show, sparking endless threads about them and giving us all things to watch and look forward to? Yes, that really does make sense.

Yes, to point in you in the direction of housemates who throughout their series caused very little discussion and debate. The only discussion people have of them now is how dull they were during their series.

I also think it speaks volumes that you chose to ignore the rest of my post, couldn't think of anything to respond with perhaps?

Rachel provoked a lot of debate. Plus, I never understood the whole "Rachel is boring" thing. Yes, we need villains, but we need good guys to balance it out. A house full of bad guys would also have people switching off.

Yeah, a lot of debate about whether she's the dullest hm ever or a close second place to hira :rolleyes:

I never found either dull. :)

So you're suggesting that because some people like housemates that create discussion and debate, they are the same types of people that 'burn ants with magnifying glasses' and 'pull wings off flies and legs off spiders'. Honestly, I think that may be one of the most ridiculous things posted in the history of on-season.

It makes no sense to want housemates that are causing drama out. Like, just think it through...how can it make any sense? So we keep housemates that do nothing, and contribute sweet **** all to the show, leaving us with nothing to talk about and watch, yet get rid of those who are contributing to the show, sparking endless threads about them and giving us all things to watch and look forward to? Yes, that really does make sense.

Really? the most ridiculous thing.....ok.
It makes no difference to me how much drama they cause...If they are not intelligent enough to keep their big fat mouth shut, and gob off at everyone about everything ..They deserve to go.
The ones who, lets not forget at less than a week in, have seemed quiet.....May change in time.
Think jack.... :)

dont feed him

The scrap metal dude was legendary tonight, TV Gold.

What this guy said:

:worship:

Yes really, please tell me why because I like entertaining housemates, that means I'm the type of person who harms animals? Bizarre.

Alright then, let's follow your logic. We evict all of the housemates that cause the drama, all of the ones who cause the arguments, all of the ones who create storylines - and then what are we left with? The ones who sit in the corner and have a nice tea and a biscuit. Now please, explain to me what discussion topics could arise on forums and spin-off shows from that? Please explain to me, because I'd love to know. I know it's only a few days in but quite clearly we should be aiming to keep the ones who are starting to create the discussions in. There's a difference between people and housemates, and we should be judging them as the latter considering this is an entertainment TV show. No one's saying Chris isn't a prat, because he is, no one's saying people like John James aren't complete pricks, but they make great TV, spark many debates, get many people talking, give us all something to watch - and in an entertainment TV show thus deserve to stay. To want them to be evicted is completely illogical.

Big Chris

Unfortunately it seems that is what its been reduced to is people that find watching idiots cause conflict entertaining.
The fanbase has evaporated over the last few years leaving nothing but casual viewers and people easily pleased.
Its a shame really.

Yes really, please tell me why because I like entertaining housemates, that means I'm the type of person who harms animals? Bizarre.

Alright then, let's follow your logic. We evict all of the housemates that cause the drama, all of the ones who cause the arguments, all of the ones who create storylines - and then what are we left with? The ones who sit in the corner and have a nice tea and a biscuit. Now please, explain to me what discussion topics could arise on forums and spin-off shows from that? Please explain to me, because I'd love to know. I know it's only a few days in but quite clearly we should be aiming to keep the ones who are starting to create the discussions in. There's a difference between people and housemates, and we should be judging them as the latter considering this is an entertainment TV show. No one's saying Chris isn't a prat, because he is, no one's saying people like John James aren't complete pricks, but they make great TV, spark many debates, get many people talking, give us all something to watch - and in an entertainment TV show thus deserve to stay. To want them to be evicted is completely illogical.

Dear me jack it was a metaphorical spider, calm down...
He had the potential to be a great HM he shot himself in the foot... And will be up for noms, a silly thing to do in the first week.
Stop saying illogical, you are not Spock of the starship enterprise.

That's odd...thought you didn't like metaphorical things eh? :xyxwave:

Please define then a 'great housemate'. Because up until tonight he hasn't really done anything that note worthy, or anything that's really caused much discussion. So please explain to me how he 'had the potential to be a good housemate', but now seemingly has thrown it all away? Because if anything it's the other way round to me.

Alright then, if it's not illogical, it's dumb, stupid, delusional, idiotic, moronic, laughable, whatever term you wish to use - the meaning is still there.

Where's his fanclub? I wanna join.

That's odd...thought you didn't like metaphorical things eh?

Please define then a 'great housemate'. Because up until tonight he hasn't really done anything that note worthy, or anything that's really caused much discussion. So please explain to me how he 'had the potential to be a good housemate', but now seemingly has thrown it all away? Because if anything it's the other way round to me.

Alright then, if it's not illogical, it's dumb, stupid, delusional, idiotic, moronic, laughable, whatever term you wish to use - the meaning is still there

Supposition...Again jack with the I thought/you thought...Just don't.
He was forming alliances (good)...Then alienated himself (bad)....Silly twonk...
THATS moronic! :D

Great housemate = Victor, science, makosi, grace, charley, Rex, Marcus, Freddie, Sam pepper, Aaron, Anton, the list goes on...

Basically people that are larger than life characters in the house that you either relate to, look up to, or utterly detest. People that get you talking, keep you entertained, make you go "WTF??!", crack you up, horrify you, or otherwise keep you coming back for more. AKA the antithesis of Rachel rice.

Not at all, I just could not be bothered.:xyxwave:

Well thats as good a reason as any :) haha