Originally Posted by Phlip (Post 3794228)

What was he lied to about? :(

Originally Posted by Malza (Post 3793163)

Why do I think you have never watched BB on LF?

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses (Post 3793215)

Oh a non live feeder viewer I see

Originally Posted by Phlip (Post 3794228)

What was he lied to about? :(

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3794199)

I'm having to repeat myself because it seems so...difficult...to get through to you people. To most it would be pretty much common sense...



Congratulations on being a contributing factor to Big Brother's axe, then.



Bullied? ROFL, far-fetched. At the end of the day, she was a total, utter bore. A complete waste of space. Added nothing to the house and nothing to the show. Had absolutely no impact whatsoever. She wasn't a good housemate, and she wasn't a big character. It's not debatable - it's the truth.



Deservedly? You've got to be kidding me? So sitting around on your arse for 3 months adding absolutely **** all to an entertainment gameshow should be 'rewarded' [as some people seem to keep saying] in the form of £100,000, should it? It's not difficult - if you add nothing to the show, make no impact, spark no discussion and debate, you are a useless housemate and totally undeserving of a place in the house, let alone victory. She's a nice person, yes, I'm not going to dispute that. But she is an awful, awful housemate. And arguably the worst winner ever.



It does if they spark discussion, debate, have an impact on the house/show and give us something to talk about. That is a big character and a good housemate. Housemates that give us **** all to talk about like Laura, Steve, Hira etc are not good housemates nor are they big characters. It's really, really not difficult to understand. As I have already said, to most it is common sense. Just...think about it. Big Brother is an entertainment gameshow. Housemates like Laura, Steve, Hira, Rachel etc don't offer entertainment, spark discussion, debate, give us something to watch...I could go on. There is nothing difficult to understand...



I'm quite aware of that. But again, keyword - person. A nasty person. There is a difference between a person and a housemate. And they should be judged accordingly. Sadly, you are, she was evicted because she was a 'rotten and twisted person'. But this is where the voting public have always gone wrong...they have voted with hatred, rather than with logic. And thus they have killed the show year on year. Some of them also go on to later complain it's 'boring', when they're responsible. Laughable really. And it's also partly the reason why, as far as we're all currently aware, we're no longer going to be watching Big Brother.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3794532)

There's the rub as to why we will never see eye to eye on this. You see such dirty rotten behaviour as entertaining; whereas I think it's degrading and dehumanising both to the contestants and to the viewers. It's car crash TV, I do not find that in any way entertaining, instead, I think it's sad that the "bread and circuses" philosophy is what passes for "cutting edge" TV.

I am interested in people dealing with things, not people "losing it", but people dealing with situations in a reasoned and appropriate manner. Rachel Rice amd Bea are two sides of two very different coins. Bea is instantly identified with the "Jeremy Kyle" generation, while Rachel is a real person who showed humour, integrity, decency, strength and carried herself with a sense of pride and honesty. I admire her, I respect her, I am glad I could see her on BB. Bea, was none of those things, she was a fake "Cruella", of no real condequence whatsoever. You found her "entertaining", I found her boring and tedious, she and people like her don't get voted off soon enough. The real and interesting housemates are the ones who I can relate to, not fakes and wannabees, they are forgotten about so quickly.