But your point was that Daneille was taking behind Helen's back on day one, spreading negativity. And the follow up to that point was that she befriended Ashleigh. Linking the two. Creating negativity, Daneille, Ashleigh and how it all began on day one.

I called you on that point and now you are talking about weeks later, fights and wallpaper.

How is correcting you on something that didn't happen irrelevant? Especially when you tried to link something that didn't happen to another HM?

It's suffocating isn't it?

Yes, it began on day 1. Key word "began". Danielle spread to Ashleigh who went from being fairly quiet amongst the louder housemates to feeding on Danielle's vitriol and becoming the two whinging pod dwellers.

But deny it all you wish.

It did happen. Re-watch any video from day 1 to Danielle's eviction and there isn't one containing her that isn't her being negative and spreading it.

Unless you're closer to the end of her time, in which case her game plan switches and she attempts some feeble catholic virgin showmance.

A flawed housemate is what we want

Miss Prissy knickers is the most boring bitch ever, and if she won, it would be worse than Rachel Rice winning cause at least when she won, there were no real competitors that deserved it. Thank God for Helen

HELEN TO WIN!

Let the crows have em... :hehe:

Or...after a couple of weeks of listening to fight after fight, fingerblasting conversations, Ashleigh and Daneille had enough.

It can be spun both ways.

Going back to my original point Danielle "had enough" on day 1. Negative from the start, thank you very much for bringing us full circle in this thread. Danielle was negative from the start due to no other housemate's actions or words. As she said on BOTS that was her game plan, to fake the offence and be against all the swearers and sex talk. All of which then resulted in her and Helen coming to blows, Helen's first argument, caused by Danielle bitching and Steven's stirring.

Her game plan failed horribly though as she couldn't keep the act up for more than a couple of hours at a time.

No it didn't.

There was no conversation on day one involving Daneille about Helen that was "creating negativity", as you claimed.

Now that's irrelevant.

You said it yourself:
Your main point was that Danielle and Ashleigh immediately created a divide.
Immediately. This never happened. Total fabrication.

You can talk about Ashleigh being wallpaper all you want. You can discuss how things developed, in your opinion, all you want. But you stated that YOUR MAIN POINT was that it started on day one. Within minutes.

The only negativity that started immediately was from Pauline and her reaction to the VT's and Helen's comments about Jale.

I have no interest in Daneille. What her "game plan" was means nothing to me. She was evicted. She's not in the running any more.

Your original point Danielle, your MAIN point to use your own words, was that Daneille started spreading negativity within minutes. This is completely wrong.

You have no interest in Danielle, despite starting a debate over my post about Danielle.

Ok love. :pat:

Really? Telling Matthew she felt something was off with two housemates within minutes isn't being negative? Ok then. :pat:

Your incorrect post about Daneille, Ashleigh and Helen. Yes.

Does the little smiley help with your lack of a point?

So did you look it up and realise that it had nothing to do with Helen or Ashleigh then? Or did you just reread what I posted earlier?

Did you understand the context of what she said? In relation to the conversation about how difficult it would to be in Pauline's position? Having to pick two people out? Did you spot how it was Matthew that asked the question, then had to ask it a couple more times before she responded. And how she admitted that it was a "sixth sense" gut instinct.

Cause if you did you'd realise she wasn't telling Matthew anything. And that your "MAIN POINT" is completely wrong.

If Ashleigh can be accused of game playing then so can Helen 'creating' this nicer side of her. Whether it's her real nature or not, the argumentative side of her is who she really is. It's a shame people have forgotten what she's really like

And around in circles she goes despite not being interested in discussing Danielle apparently.

Are you finished yet? Has the derailed train not hit a wall?

SHE brought it up my love. They were discussing Pauline having a tough decision and then she made a separate comment about knowing she would have problems with two housemates. Negativity, negativity, negativity.

You disagreed she was negative from the start and now finally admit it. Take your straw man home.

As opposed to real people having more than one side. She obviously isn't "just" argumentative.

Of course I'm going in circles, its what happens when you are debating with people who have fictitious points.

There was a whole running conversation, during which she was laughing, as was Matthew. It had nothing to do with Helen. It had nothing to do with Ashleigh. It had nothing to do with creating a divide.

But you will keep reiterating it, despite much worse examples of others on the opening nights, for your own reasons.

PS
Is your straw man related to your smilies? Do you feel like it adds to the point? Somehow makes a debate better? Or do they just come out when you are backtracking?

Hi again! Still continuing a conversation that 12 pages ago you said you had no interest in? :pat:

Says it all when you resort to talking about smilies. Bless.

There you go misunderstanding AGAIN. It wasn't about who was "worse" it was about Danielle's negativity from the start, then befriending Ashleigh and together causing a divide between themselves and the rest of the group. Fact.

But take comments and spiral them into something I didn't say. :pat: I'll leave you to it.

Of couse you didn't say it...

You just keep denying it and bringing out your smiles, but its there in Quotes.

You keep denying that other HMs said far worse on night one/two, claiming to be irrelevant in a conversation where you want to "prove" who created the negative feelings on day one.

And to top it all off you talk about me saying something 12 pages ago, in a 3 page thread, making things up again. But don't worry, a smilie face will make up for you inconsistencies. :joker:

I think it may have helped, but I've liked her all along.. so.

:facepalm: My god, how old are you?

I never denied anyone was worse, I said it's irrelevant because we're discussing the divide centring around Helen and Ashleigh, Danielle had a huge effect on Ashleigh as Danielle was negative from the start. I didn't say Ashleigh was negative from the start, she was wallpaper for 2 weeks.

This is the last I'll say on it as you seem determined to argue over the pettiest of things because you took a fit over what I said about Danielle (and then laughably stating you had no interest in Danielle when it was her that sparked your input).

I have no inconsistencies, hardly my problem that you choose to focus on smilies and other such diversionary tactics because you lack the logic to see Danielle's effect on Ashleigh.

Danielle was negative from day 1 and spread it around her group. The end.

The public can't help but always support the insecure 'victim' and that's the role Helen is playing atm

I suppose when in doubt, have a go at the poster. And call "the end".

This is a forum and people come here to debate. I disagree with your point, but I won't question you age, talk about you having fits over points, or tell a fellow board member that they are derailing an open conversation when they refute a point, or tell them to take their strawman home.

And that is "the end" from me.

I wouldn't say she's playing the victim, she seemed genuinely upset. Its just a question on whether her reasons for being upset take into account all she has done in the house.