Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3792150)

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:

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792336)

Ah bless,someone agrees with you,

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792336)

Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent!

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792336)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792336)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792336)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792336)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792336)

: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:

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3792402)

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.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792430)

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;

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792430)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792430)

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

Originally Posted by fingers (Post 3792574)

Gone WAY off topic now!!

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses (Post 3792660)

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

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3792688)

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

Originally Posted by fingers (Post 3792698)

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

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses (Post 3792709)

:yuk:

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3792748)

Glory.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3792653)

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:

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792938)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792938)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792938)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3792938)

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

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3792746)

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.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3792748)

Glory.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3792746)

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.

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses (Post 3793215)

Oh a non live feeder viewer I see

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3791018)

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?

Originally Posted by headaball (Post 3793222)

I watched live feed regularly.

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

Originally Posted by headaball (Post 3793222)

I watched live feed regularly.

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

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3793539)

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.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3793539)

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.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3793539)

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

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3793539)

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

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3793539)

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

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3793694)

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.