Quote:
Originally posted by stoney12
However the last 3 days have shown that you have been in that house too long after all.Why did you not have the intelligence to see that Preston and Chantelle were lying for the sake of the group ? In fact you know they were.
OK there was a little gentle fun to be had with the fact that 'you knew that they did'nt know what you knew'.
But to turn it into such a personal vendetta , when it was obvious what they were trying to achieve was just cruel,spiteful and ultimately stupid.
Honesty?One of your redeeming factors for me was the time you had for Barrymore and the late night chats and laughs you had.What happened to that friendship?you seemed to drop Barrymore as soon as the house started to notice his obsessive behaviour.So what ?The man has been through lot.If folding corners see's him through the boring day who cares? You do,because you seem to realising now that he won't be making a comeback soon,so the pete and Barrymore show is cancelled.
Why on Earth of all people have you backed George.That great champion of democracy cannot seem to realiose that in a democratic vote the rest of the house have voted (fairly)that he should not nominate.Its not his rights of speech as he keeps bleating on about...its a game in which he has broken the rules more times than anyone else.Use your intelligence.
Finally Georges outburst on Barrymore was totally unjustified,personal and offensive.I see no similarity in the phrase 'saving for a rainy day' and 'poor,poor,pour me another drink'which George more or less taunted Barrymore with was unforgivable.Preston had every right to stand up for Barrymore and your attack on him for doing so ws nothing but unreasoned spite.
Thanks for livening up the house,in the first two weeks, but you should have left with the monkey.
|
He picked up on the fact that they adapted themselves to their roles so quickly, lied so outrageously, and showed no apparent guilt about it. That's a fair observation, I think. He went on about it for far too long, but his initial points were valid.
That's quite an exaggeration, don't you think? Take it from the other side, and Barrymore nominated him. So surely if anyone has dumped a 'friend', it's Barrymore, rather than Pete. Whenever he's made his observations about Barrymore, he's always followed them up with positive comments, too. It's a tv show, not preparations for a cover version of
Little Drummer Boy, after all.
He probably thinks that he owes George a favour for backing him over the coat incident. I don't fully understand why he's backing George either, but I need to watch the show back again as I was a little distracted last night. But still, as usual, we don't know where the edits were made. At this juncture, I'd say that he was wrong to ally himself with George. But they've all done things that have been out of order, so I don't see any reason to hold one incident against him. He also knows that George is toast tonight as well, so there's no ulterior motive going on here.
I can't say that I've ever heard the phrase before, either. But it was indeed a disgusting thing to say. Well no, Preston had every right to find the comment disgusting and completely out of order, but he should've kept his mouth shut and let Barrymore answer himself. In fact, it was actually very important that he
did answer for himself, because facing up to rubbish like that and being able to get past it is of vital importance to him.
However, a Google search finds plenty of hits for this phrase, and most of them are on AA and other sites about addiction and recovery. I didn't find any links that weren't in some way connected with alcoholism, in fact. So given that Pete was aware of the phrase, and how much it seemed to rile him, it seems pretty probable to me that he's had some direct experience. I despise alcohol, and won't have it in my home or anywhere near me. I have good reason to feel that way, and the whole topic makes me extremely bitter very quickly indeed. Everyone seems to be assuming that Pete was talking nonsense when he suggested that it was a common phrase, but the fact that it is indeed common yet only in very particular circles makes me assume something altogether different.
Well hey, he was never going to win, and he was always going to get a bad reception when he left the house - nothing has changed on that score at all. But if all of this stuff about Pete is true, then why haven't the other hm's all sent him to Coventry? They're all aware of everything that we've discussed here, yet nobody seems to be actively avoiding him or even calling him to task. Why could that be? There may be a few mousey types in there, but Barrymore and Dennis are more than capable of holding their own in a heated debate, yet they've remained silent. That silence speaks volumes for me, as does looking at the whole picture rather than the spliced soundbite version.