Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3788641)

probably but that's life isn't it. I mean going on BB is like getting a job, If you're better at that job or are making them more money then the bosses will do more to make sure you stay. C'est la vie!

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.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3793884)

Wrong. They were voted off because they dared to do something. It's the reason why Vote to Evict fails every time. If you do **** all, you stay. And if you do anything, you leave. Remember the Quadruple Eviction before the final? The one that left us with the dullest, most undeserving Big Brother finalists ever? Yes? That's because all the big characters left. And who the big characters are is not something that can be debated.

It is not an opinion. It is fact. I loathed Bea in BB10 but she was definitely one of the best housemates last year, alongside a few others.



Did I say it did? There is nothing wrong with 'nice' housemates on Big Brother, so long as they actually do something. Or are you trying to tell me that housemates like Rachel Rice and Hira are better for the show than the likes of John James and Sam? Whether a housemate is 'nice' or not doesn't come into it. It's whether they have an impact on the house/show or not. If they don't, then they should leave. If they do, then they should stay. It really does not matter whether they are 'nasty' or 'nice. At the end of the day, we want something to watch and talk about - and we're not going to get that with housemates like Rachel and Hira.



Again - wrong. What turns viewers away is when there is nothing to watch, because the housemates all sit around getting along making small talk about tea and biscuits. It's no surprise that after the worst winner ever was crowned [Rachel Rice] the viewing figures begun to drop when BB10 started. It's also the same when the big characters leave each year.

Would people watch dramas/soaps if all the main/big characters left and the only ones left were the little extras? No, they wouldn't.

It's the same thing with Big Brother. The big characters leave, people switch off. I really fail to see what is so hard to understand about that...



Indeed he is a loathsome character, but he is a good housemate, who gave us lots of things to talk about during the summer and lots of things to watch during the summer, so therefore he is a big character. He also saved a very large chunk of BB11. It was on the edge of being practically unwatchable, as a result of the worst cast...possibly ever.



Yes - you disliked them, but that doesn't automatically make them bad housemates. Bad people yes, bad housemates, no.

As I have said, Bea was a vile, manipulative, conniving little cow - but there is no doubting the fact that she was a good housemate. It's simple really.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3794097)

You are only repeating yourself, repetition does not make for a succesful argument. To answer you, I must refer you to my earlier posts, because I don't like repeating myself.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3794097)

As to Rachel Rice, I rooted for her throughout her time on BB9.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3794097)

She was repeatedly bullied and ridiculed by that cretin rex, yet Rachel held her dignity and self respect. She would not allow herself to descend to the level of nastiness evinced by rex.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3794097)

As a result, Rachel's innate decency, integrity and strength ensured she deservedly won the top prize.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3794097)

This is also another example as to why boorishness, abuse, bullying, hypocrisy, nastieness and other such behaviours do not make for either a "good housemate" or any sort of entertainment.

Originally Posted by calyman (Post 3794097)

You mention Bea, she was so innately nasty, she got voted off, not because she was a "good housemate" but because she was such a rotten and twisted person.

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.