[jet]

Originally Posted by hot2go

That's very impressive and an accurate narration of what was said....thanks for taking the time to do that....I understand exactly how the dialogue in print looks like Gemma is innocent and you have every reasonable right to accept it on face value, especially as a fan....but myself I think it's very much open to interpretation and I think what Gemma says, or appears to say, and what Gemma actually means are two very different things....I don't agree that just because the edit shows Tiffany shouting then cuts to Gemma saying negative things about someone, that that someone was def Tiffany ...not at all....and I don't think for one minute that Gemma only had a problem with Tiffany and didn't relish the drama that was being directed at Steph by Dani.....I think we will get a clearer picture tonight when we see them reflect on it all....maybe Gemma will confirm the way it looks to you and say she only felt threatened by Tiffany.....or maybe she will confirm the way it looks to me and tell everyone that Steph was scary and that she was responsible for the bad energy in the house last night.....be kinda fun to see tonight's episode....you and me going head to head in a clean but friendly fight

Sorry, you've lost me. I can't have any further discussion with you if you insist on disregarding actual proof and persist in attributing sinister meanings and motives to anything Gemma does or says without any words or footage to prove it.
Reverse things here. How would you like it if I was doing the same with Steph? Attributing words and actions to her that she didn't say or do? Then you take the time to give me evidence of her innocence and I persist that what she says and means are two different things and she only looks innocent etc? Wouldn't that annoy the hell out of you?

I know Gemma isn't perfect by any means, but she is not the conniving, two faced monster she is being made out to be. When she confronted Steph about having a boyfriend to her face, she was blasted. She can't win, cos then she is accused of saying things behind her back, but I rarely see that. Dani and John do that far more. John is sneakier and more two faced than Gemma by far, yet you don't blast him. You see what you want to see, imo.
When we can only go by what we see on the screen, that is what we have to take as FACTS. Anything beyond that is only an opinion, but you persist in stating your opinions as FACTS, with no EVIDENCE, and that is what bothers me and why I can't discuss Gemma with you any more. It's too frustrating.

I'm sure I'll debate other stuff with you though. Peace and out.