About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

LukeB · 22-10-2016, 09:21 PM

who ever wrote that is bitter and stupid

not every plastic fan are racist/ i don't think any of them are racist.That's just insulting and has nothing to do with race at all. Neeley is only a nom(if it happens) because Jason is overrated and Kryssie is HOH (I'm sure they would be a campaign for Kryssie to go up if she wasn't hoh, she is annoying america) Danielle is a bitch and unlikeable.

reece(: · 22-10-2016, 09:23 PM

Idc for this anyway but America continues to suck

BBfanUSA · 23-10-2016, 04:18 AM

TBH, Justin would be my main target, 1. He's a floater, 2. He's the last man you'd want to face in a public vote, especially the one you need to win if he's been entertaining everyone and being a charmer.

Hell, I'd tell him straight up that "America loves you, I'd lose to you in a public vote most likely because of your personality, that's why you're up. You better win Veto if you want to stay"

Macie Lightfoot · 23-10-2016, 03:09 PM

Just wanted to jump in and say that while I am not actively following this season to the lengths that I normally follow a BB season (lol nobody is though), from what I've seen Alex ****ing sucks? I know people thought she was great in the first week bc of the hinky vote, but casting a hinky vote in Week 1 really just screams desperation to be seen as a strategist. IDK, faux-masterminds are annoying enough on this show but in the first week? All you're supposed to do for the first two weeks is be social, not say or do anything stupid, and let the models and surfers self-evict.

And aside from her transparent, desperate desire to be a BB legend (on this show, mind you), her voice is annoying, her fake screaming DR persona sticks out even more than usual because this cast is fairly laid back, and she pretends that Big Brother is some legendary game that warrants respect when it's really just a random **** show of production manipulation and power shifts that depend on carnival games like rolling your ball into the correct slot. She's everything wrong with the Grodner era personified :3

Raph · 23-10-2016, 04:15 PM

Alex won the safety package i'm so happy, she's arguably the best girl ever on BBUSA

Headie · 23-10-2016, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

Just wanted to jump in and say that while I am not actively following this season to the lengths that I normally follow a BB season (lol nobody is though), from what I've seen Alex ****ing sucks? I know people thought she was great in the first week bc of the hinky vote, but casting a hinky vote in Week 1 really just screams desperation to be seen as a strategist. IDK, faux-masterminds are annoying enough on this show but in the first week? All you're supposed to do for the first two weeks is be social, not say or do anything stupid, and let the models and surfers self-evict.

And aside from her transparent, desperate desire to be a BB legend (on this show, mind you), her voice is annoying, her fake screaming DR persona sticks out even more than usual because this cast is fairly laid back, and she pretends that Big Brother is some legendary game that warrants respect when it's really just a random **** show of production manipulation and power shifts that depend on carnival games like rolling your ball into the correct slot. She's everything wrong with the Grodner era personified :3

I totally agree, she sucks

Raph · 23-10-2016, 04:34 PM

Well clearly America disagrees with you two!

#TeamAlex #TeamSuperfans #TeamBallSmashers

Macie Lightfoot · 23-10-2016, 04:49 PM

America also voted Jason back in over Jozea lol and they also voted that fake evil slut Natalie into the top 3 for AFP!

Headie · 23-10-2016, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

America also voted Jason back in over Jozea lol and they also voted that fake evil slut Natalie into the top 3 for AFP!

Raph · 23-10-2016, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

America also voted Jason back in over Jozea lol and they also voted that fake evil slut Natalie into the top 3 for AFP!

Yes and I was so glad Jozea wasn't allowed back in, Jason is a HUGE superfan and deserved to play the game way more than Jozea. And sure she did, but also Victor, the one she accused of sexist behaviour ended up winning AFP so where is ha impact

Macie Lightfoot · 23-10-2016, 05:39 PM

Her impact is still being loved by America despite being a filthy no good slut recruit that Paulie was right about the entire time!!!

Raph · 24-10-2016, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

Her impact is still being loved by America despite being a filthy no good slut recruit that Paulie was right about the entire time!!!

Why are you slut shaming?

Raph · 24-10-2016, 11:01 AM

Fingers crossed Neeley or someone else from the LNJ gets nominated and evicted by America this week! Kryssie needs to be put in her place for coming after superfans Whitney, Scott and my fav Alex

Raph · 24-10-2016, 11:03 AM

Ideally the next three evictions will be Neeley, Justin and Shelby. Irregardless of sides, they are the three recruits left

Raph · 24-10-2016, 11:10 AM

(I am not trolling, just retaliating to the negativity lol from the og two)

MB. · 24-10-2016, 12:07 PM

"Irregardless"

Raph · 24-10-2016, 12:55 PM

My last post, “12 Mistakes Nearly Everyone Who Writes about Grammar Mistakes Makes,” drew a lot of comments, some supportive and some critical. But no point drew as much ire as my claim that irregardless is a word. Some stated flatly, “Irregardless is not a word.” One ignorantly demanded, “Show me a dictionary that actually contains that word.” (I could show him several.) Still others argued that it was a double negative, that it was logically and morphologically ill-formed and thus had no meaning. One commenter said that “with the negating preface [prefix] ‘ir-‘ and the negating suffix ‘-less’, it is a double negative” and that “it is not a synonym with ‘regardless’.” Another was even cleverer, saying, “The prefix ir-, meaning not, changes the meaning of the word regardless, so not only is it not a standard word, but it’s also misused in nearly all cases.” But these arguments still miss the point: irregardless is indeed a word, and it means the same thing as regardless.

In my last post I argued that there’s a clear difference between a word like irregardless and a nonword like flirgle. By any objective criterion, irregardless is a word. It has an established form and meaning, it’s used in speech and occasionally in writing, and it’s even found in reputable dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and The Oxford English Dictionary (though it is, quite appropriately, labeled nonstandard). We can identify its part of speech (it’s an adverb) and describe how it’s used. By contrast, though, consider flirgle. You don’t know what its part of speech is or how to use it, and if I were to use it in a sentence, you wouldn’t know what it meant. This is because it’s just something I made up by stringing some sounds together. But when someone uses irregardless, you know exactly what it means, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

This is because words get their wordhood not from etymology or logic or some cultural institution granting them official status, but by convention. It doesn’t matter that nice originally meant “ignorant” or that contact was originally only a noun or that television is formed from a blend of Greek and Latin roots; what matters is how people use these words now. This makes some people uncomfortable because it sounds like anarchy, but it’s more like the ultimate democracy or free market. We all want to understand one another and be understood, so it’s in our mutual interest to communicate in ways that are understandable. Language is a self-regulating system guided by the invisible hand of its users’ desire to communicate—not that this stops people from feeling the need for overt regulation.

One commenter, the same who said, “Irregardless is not a word,” noted rather aptly, “There is absolutely no value to ‘irregardless’ except to recognize people who didn’t study.” Exactly. There is nothing wrong with its ability to communicate; it’s only the word’s metacommunication—that is, what it communicates about its user—that is problematic. To put it a different way, the problem with irregardless is entirely social: If you use it, you’ll be thought of as uneducated, even though everyone can understand you just fine.

One friend of mine said, “Accepting it as a word is the first part of the slippery slope.” This seems like a valid fear, but I believe it is misplaced. First of all, we need to be clear about what it means to accept irregardless as a word. I accept that it’s a word, but this does not mean that I find the word acceptable. I can accept that people do all kinds of things that I don’t like. But the real problem isn’t what we mean by accept; it’s what we mean by word. When people say that something isn’t a word, they aren’t really making a testable claim about the objective linguistic status of the word; they’re making a sociolinguistic evaluation of the word. They may say that it’s not a word, but they really mean that it’s a word that’s not allowed in Standard English. This is because we think of Standard English as the only legitimate form of English. We think that the standard has words and grammar, while nonstandard dialects have nonwords and broken grammar, or no grammar at all. Yes, it’s important to recognize and teach the difference between Standard English and nonstandard forms, but it’s also important to be clear about the difference between facts about the language and our feelings about the language.

But the irregardless-haters can also take heart: The word has been around for at least a century now, and although many other new words have been coined and become part of Standard English in that time, irregardless shows no signs of moving towards acceptability. Most people who write for publication are well aware of the stigma attached to it, and even if they aren’t, few copyeditors are willing to let it into print. It’s telling that of the Oxford English Dictionary‘s eight citations of the word, two merely cite the word in other dictionaries, three more are mentions or citations in linguistics or literary journals, and one more appears to be using the word ironically. We talk about the word irregardless—mostly just to complain about it—far more than we actually use it.

So yes, irregardless is a word, even though it’s nonstandard. You don’t have to like it, and you certainly don’t have to use it, but you also don’t have to worry about it becoming acceptable anytime soon.

xoxo