No, it's not my last word on it. This is a forum, isn't it? For discussion... at least that's my understanding. What's your understanding of the word FORUM? In any case, I wasn't even replying to you, was I. But anyhoo, thanks for the slightly obsessive interest in my posts.

For the record, I don't think Steve should win. I'm was just amazed that a throw away comment, when everyone else was talking about what they'd spend the money on, should throw up so much poison. Speaks volumes.

Yes he would spend the money more wisely than most of them. But he has done alot less than any other housemate except Laura.. was that her name?

He hasn't made a name for himself, everyone else has a persona and when you hear their name you think of something to do with them like Corin "are you buzzin'" well steve still has the "guy with no legs and one eye" as what he is thought of. Because he has done nothing

If he wanted money he should have gone on deal or no deal, far less time spent away from family, an easy win, Deal or no deal would take him as he has a sympathy story.

I dont think he will win, as Mikey didn't and he has a disability and done far more in the house than Steve has.

Partly correct and mostly wrong ^

In fact, no, you do not have to work hard for votes even we did use your bizarre definition.
In fact the first thing that must be done is to 'not' become nominated by enough fellow Housemates.
This may be done (partly) by working hard during group tasks.
This part of winning BB can be done by 'working hard' to earn the trust of fellow HMs and be useful to them.
Steve actually has been doing that and your opinion or that of viewers doesn't have anything to do with this part.

The next thing here IS winning viewers but 'being entertaining to viewers' is only a part of it. (and not even necessarily part of it).

You can win viewers by showing them you will NOT become easily upset, stay positive, handle the stress and psychological pressure.
Now one could argue that is 'entertaining' if you are the viewer who finds that interesting and approves of seeing such a thing.
(example, I like seeing Steve behave in that way).

Another way to win is to 'work hard' at NOT being a dick, highly objectionable or at least 'not as much' as one other person nominated.
This is where the audience may approve of someone being less 'negatively interesting'.
Or you can even say not 'entertaining too much'

You can also win those votes by being 'identifiable' or you may do so by appealing to a specific but loyal demographic of voters (quality over quantity you may say).

Another problem is you have a possible contradiction when you suggest 'lazy and creepy' is the 'opposite' to being entertaining and interesting.
Not necessarily and both can be true.
For example - many people agreed that BB9s Mo Mohammad's laziness was entertaining and interesting.
It was often featured on Highlights and some of us found it hilarious and wanted to reward him with a longer stay.

'Creepy' could be quite interesting. In some cases 'creepy' may even be rewarded by viewers depending on who it's directed at. A hip-hop streetster with a comical attitude may earn votes making 'creepy' comments towards a highly unpopular HM.
They can 'work hard' to get the votes.

But BB is interesting in that the winner is exactly who deserves to win. Each time. Every time.
It is 'self-defining' in its very happening.
Rachel Rice can be said to 'deserve the win' because, in fact, everything she did was EXACTLY what (as proven) was required to win in that season.
The Winners very existence as winner is the 'proof positive' that WAS how to win.

Anyways.. that should hopefully clear up a few of your misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Well put ElProximo. I will also add that there are quite a few out there who talk about keeping in the entertainers, but it is subjective as to whether one persons view on the entertainers is what the majority voting public want?
In 11 BBs todate, those that have st1tstirred and been disruptive have tended to be voted out when it comes to vote to win, if not sooner....look at Ben....popular but gone.
Its one of the main reasons BB tries its damnest to manipulate the evictions so as to mkeep in the entertainers.

Legs aside it's like Steve suddenly woke up when he found out the final was closer than he thought. He's been sat there for the duration just waiting out the time until he gets (what I believe he thinks will be) his cheque.

The only reason he's not been up for eviction (until now) is because most of them are frightened of looking callous if they nominate him.

My recollection of the conversation to pay for Steve's legs was that they (led by Shabby in the bit I saw) were talking of going to Big Brother to ask that the £30,000 be taken from the prize fund there and then so they were all playing for £70,000. I think the only person that didn't agree was Ben who said he had to think of his 'family'

I so hope he doesn't win though, especially after that disrespectful comment to Rachel, he makes my skin crawl.

He has been quietly confident that he will win all along, the rude awakening came when he didn't get the FREE PASS!

I suspect he would end up just drinking the prizefund and ending up legless.

hahahaha your signature totally rocks!!

Ben = MI6! LOL

As for Steve and wanting to buy legs if he won.. WHO CARES... wouldn't you want to buy legs if you were him?? I think yes.. so shut up and leave him alone on that basis at least.

:joker::joker:

.......... except you're proabbly right! :(

Win or not he can certainly afford to buy himself a pack of condoms.

Maybe steve would buy legs that looks realistic maybe they cost a huge amount of money so maybe he is just telling the truth and not looking for sympthy at all. Its just because he has no legs that we feel he is looking for sympthy when he said this. He does charitys helps to raise money! I think steve is genuine .. quite but thats because he is more mature than dave and the rest our so much younger than him. Plus he cant do anything because he has no legs! he cant run around the garden like the others do.

Why should he - if he and his wife want more children - that is their right! I'm more concerned about all the young guys out there sleeping around and fathering kids they have nothing to do with and refuse to pay child support for! Far bigger fish to worry about!

Because Wombai there comes a time when you have to think about the kids that you've already got and how to give them the best future you can.

Alot of firms /employers only pay a certain amount nowadays towards pregnancy leave or they pay for pregnancy leave a certain amount of times before they say enough is enough. Thats presuming his wife actually works.

So how far is his pension goin to stretch if he dosn't apply for more child benifit?

And your point about young fathers. How is Steve any better? On his pension how can he contribute to his earlier kids futures financially? Dad can you help with college ? for eg
Apparently he never sees some of them never mind help them... on his pension.

Its about responsible parenting .
Steve dosn't like wearing condoms face facts.
So thats even more sprougs on the way in the next 10-15 years each with even less support than the next.
Why? Cause Steve dosn't like wearing condoms.
And judging from the character traits im seeing from him in the house i really don't think he cares too much.

That's a fact, is it?

Are we still slagging steve off for wanting more managable legs for the rest of his life?

Of course :rolleyes:

I swear I have never seen a more spiteful, joyless, bitter and miserable bunch of sods than some on here....there are some people who only come here to spew bile, I'm positive of it.

What a way to get your jollies eh, posting bitter after bitter comment about people you'll never know so it'll give you a buzz....I can see them now, teeth gritted, squirming in their chairs while they chain smoke and mutter 'ha! have THAT!' at a computer screen...

tsk...

I feel better for that :joker:

dave haters are by far the most vile, every single one of them, without exception, reek of stale pish and wotsits.

Hot wotsits that have been sitting in the sun and smell like arse?

3 sets of kids by 3 different women.
Its probably a distint possability

Not just any arse, but daves arse after his morning stride.

Apparently - being the operative word! That comes from his ex - and it is never very wise to put much store in what ex's have to say - they tend to be a little biased!

As long as the children are loved and looked after - that is all that really matters! All these nasty comments about him and his family - god knows how his children must feel if they read any of this - with people referring to them as a drain on taxpayers money etc. One day they will all become tax-payers themselves - and help provide towards the pensions of the rest of us in years to come!

The balance between the elderly retired population and the youngsters that put into the pot to finance the pensions is unbalanced and we need more youngsters to pay into the system in a few years - so things really are not that bleak!

Nice :joker:

It's not funny!

These complete one dimensional haters who would rather single out a housemate for hatred than support a housemate make me sick.

That sick I think I might leave the forum and just post "corin is an ugly cow" every two or three minutes in justin tv's chat box for the free live feed!

Being a probable distinct possibility isn't a fact.

If you don't like him as a housemate, that's fine. I don't like him much as a housemate either. The rest of it is nosey-parkering because no one here knows anything about his private life other than he has a pension and eight kids. Unless you're going to go down the road of enforced sterilisation and having kids by licence, you have to accept some people will always have more kids than others.

3 sets of kids by 3 different women.
Its probably a distint possability