| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
| BB10 Big Brother 10 from 2009 was won by Sophie Reade. |
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 | |||
|
||||
|
Senior Member
|
Based on an earlier post about nominations-- What gives Charlie the right to assess whether Marcus wants to stay or not. It seems Charlie is arguing for Marcus to be put up based on previous weeks.
Marcus has every right to withdraw his (generous, and convenient for HM'S) offer to be subject to nomination every week.. And this is exactly why the whole system is unfair. |
|||
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
Charlie is running scared now thinking Marcus is popular on the outside,especially since he beat Freddy in a phone vote.
|
||
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
Another deluded poster starting a thread that talks about 'fairness' in nominations. What has fairness to do with it. Only fair if they choose the ones YOU want to be up for eviction? LOL
Marcus is running scared now. he can't possibly be believing his own ridiculous hype. |
||
|
|
|
|
#5 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
There's also a video on the C4 BB site showing Rod and Charlie saying how Siavash is just scared to go up for nomination (pot calling the kettle there Charlie!).
He also says that you can really see the ones that are desperate to get to the final at any cost (Pot calling Kettle black AGAIN Charlie) Charlie's TERRIFIED of going up for nominations and that's why he tries to sit on the fence and he doesn't want anything to rock the boat so he keeps just flying under the radar. I cannot STAND Charlie! He's an extremely selfish and bitter little turd! |
||
|
|
|
|
#6 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
Charlie wants to vote Marcus because he wants to be in Lisa's voting block so it wouldn't surprise me if Charlie comes up with a very poor excuse to nom Marcus
|
||
|
|
|
|
#7 | |||
|
||||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
#8 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
#9 | |||
|
||||
|
Senior Member
|
Marcus is scared of nothing
|
|||
|
|
|
|
#11 | |||
|
||||
|
Piss orf.
|
there is no discussion needed..charlie is a bellend.
|
|||
|
|
|
|
#12 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
you are so wrong. It's everyone else terriffied of being up against the big man. Sh1t scared they are! Number one rule now operating in the House - you go up against the legend and its good night. This could be good for the enduring legend though. If HM are sh1tting it from him then perhaps HMs wont nominate him for fear of being in a one to one with him? Don't matter though; Marcus can take them all in a public vote. |
||
|
|
|
|
#13 | |||
|
||||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Fair would be the idea of abiding by a certain set system... In that yes I agree housemates should nominate if that is the system of BB. However, randomly introducing certain punishments one week and then either letting them lapse, or introducing a completely different random form of punishment the next is ludicrous. It's no secret to the majority on this Board, and the people who've been following the show, that BB organizers often pick favourites to win, and from the perspective of a lot of fans on here, the current line-up of dull, boring and unpopular housemates (like lisa who was a manipulator and a negative person at one stage) getting this far, is the result of inconsistent rules and inconsistent punishments. The problem a lot of Marcus/Freddie fans have with that eviction is that two other housemates blatantly broke the rules re this and were never punished (Sophie and Bea)... Instead of punishing these housemates..they changed the rule that week which would in fact only benefit them, since that was the week the bullying of Freddie was going on.Additionally, the 'vote to save' was an oddly designed method of determining who would leave the week before. If everything was consistent, no one would have a problem. But the combination of inter-chageable and random punishments that have only beneffited unpopular and mindlessly boring housemates. So no, we're not deluded. We just seem to be following things better than the likes of you, who would take all this at face value. |
|||
|
|
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|