Do you know, I rather think you did :hugesmile:

Was Juan taken?

I KNOW he didn't. :hugesmile:

:joker:

Enjoy life in 'Pyramid land' :hugesmile:

I'm enjoying it fine in the UK.

Yeah, well we do have freedom of speech here!

Exactly and it was that freedom of speech here in the UK that Michael was exercising his right to on BOTS the other night.

Err, yeah ok. Snoring is a very intelligent form of communication!

But then if we are to believe your thoughts on the matter, without Michael being in the house there would have been no footage of Denise to be shown on the show :joker:

No, you KNOW I did.

And the reason? Because I managed to produce valid, reasoned points, leaving you with no way to respond. You were proven wrong I'm afraid.

:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:

Yep, that about sums it up. :joker:

Because of course, Gareth and Michael were the ones that started 'pantsgate' (the most entertaining moment of the series), not Denise :crazy:

So, they wouldn't of course shown the footage of the Jacuzzi or the 'Girls night in' then?
:hugesmile:

Who knows....... you might want to ask BB's camera crew/ production crew about that.....

Perhaps you regard a 53 year old woman exposing a young woman on tv as entertainment. I don't.

Is that the best you can come up with? :joker:

You're just showing yourself up now, Pyramid. :hugesmile: You know full well that they would have have shown Denise in the Jacuzzi and the 'girls night in' :joker:

No, but I regarded the resulting argument as fantastic entertainment. It created discussions, led to days and days of debate (some of which is still continuing to this day) and had many people talking. That is entertainment. That is what makes an entertaining housemates. These are not things that can be disputed.

Imagine the series without that argument, without Denise and Michael's constant spats. What other events were there? Because I certainly can't remember any, most discussions focused on these events. Therefore, it was entertainment, and Michael, Denise, the twins and Nicola were all very much entertaining housemates.

If we had you in charge of the show none of the argument would have been broadcast, and only the clips of the housemates having a tea party would have been shown. Imagine that, eh? :sleep:

pantsgate was not entertainment...it was akward uncomfortable viewing...as were all such issues lets not kid ourselves.

:crazy:

It was amazing TV, and the resulting discussions ever since have proved that. You wouldn't see those type of discussions if Gareth had eaten a biscuit. Events like that are crucial and beneficial to the success of the show, it gets people talking and generates interesting. If there's nothing to discuss, there's no show.

the little figure is uncalled for as you post suggests you are lucid, i did not feel that any aspect of those senarios were 'amazing' more 'tragic' to be fair. If housemates cannot gemerate interest without abusing each other its time to pull the plug...i dont want to see how far some celeb will go for 2 mins of airtime.. Am i watching the wrong show? is this how it it and ever will be now?..

What else is there to be discussed? In every series almost every discussion has centred around an argument, romance (or fauxmance), ongoing feud or mishaps during a party. It's very difficult to discuss in depth something like a task or housemates eating dinner...there's not much to say. It's essential that the housemates contribute something of interest in order for everyone to talk about it. If they don't, then of course there's nothing to discuss and the series is rendered boring, nobody watches and then...ta-da, our beloved Big Brother is gone.

If you were living in there, you'd want there to be peace. But none of us are, and as viewers we want to see storylines develop, and that includes arguments, feuds, bitchiness etc. That way we all have something to talk about on forums like these. If we don't, well...then the show fails, that's the bottom line of it really.

it may be, unless in this case it was not that simple was it?...the clash of personalities is what makes BB fun and interesting...However , if you have one HM who dislikes the other and it not be accepted makes for the uncomfortable situation we witnessed. I feel he gave her many chances to accept he was just another HM but she was equally as determined there was something more...#embarrassing

...but that's brilliant TV. Because as a result, everyone starts debating whether she fancies him, who's in the right, who's in the wrong etc. It's all part of the fun. The real problem is when people let whichever side they take in a certain argument dictate which housemates they are going to like, that's just foolish. For example, during the Denise/twins saga, I was on the twins side, as I'm of the belief that you do not pull someone's trousers down. However, if it weren't for Denise, the best argument of the series would not have occurred, and as such, there would not have been so many discussions about it. Therefore I don't let the fact that I sided with the twins on this particular issue make me dislike Denise, or want her to be evicted, as that would just be stupid. And sadly, a lot of people seem to do this instead of realising that even though you may not agree with someone's actions...their actions are beneficial to the success of the show and how entertaining it is.

Not sure, but it'd sound a bit too much like Willy Wonka if I'd used that.

when ARE you going to learn that what you think, what you feel, what you believe is your own view, and not fact. I'll certainly dispute from here to hell and back that pulling down someones trousers was as far removed from being classed as 'fantastic entertainment', as you put it. It is churlish, childish and pathetic behaviour - not fantastic entertaiment - that's my view and I'm intelligent and mature enough to realise that my view in this, is not fact.

Try to avoid getting personal Jack - we are not discussing fms here - we are discussing the show and the housemates - feel free to criticise them, but save your petty insults / critique /criticism for that direction and not towards me.

To me the whole Denise Michael thing started when she failed to respect his obvious habit of spending some alone time in the bedroom. Even then if she had just spoken to him respectfully and not badgered and harangued him with the same question over and over it would have been ok. She harrassed him about what he was doing in the diary room when it was obvious to me it was something he did NOT want to discuss with the housemates. The guy just wanted to be alone for a while and she could not comprehend this fact. To be honest she reminded me of Tashie: extremely needy and a bit of a mess

The incident at the final interview was rude in my opinion. Chatting over an interview on television would get you fired if not blacklisted as a production worker. However Denise was the one who trampled over Michael's boundries in the house first and he was continuing the dynamic which had been established between them.

On the circular argument in this thread:
Something I have come to realise is that personal rules of conduct vary greatly from family to family, culture to culture, group to group. What is outright rude to one group is acceptable and hilarious to another. It seems Michael's behaviour breaks Jack and Wayne's personal rules but not Pyramid's

I think he was struggling to understand why she was so adored, versus the Denise that he had to put up with in the house, and got angry.....