LOL @ 'spend the day'. You're quite content with arguing with me for numerous, numerous posts. Infact, you're often quite content with starting the argument. But isn't it funny how when suddenly I make a lenthy post, justifying my side of the argument, challenging the points you make, you tell me that you 'can't be bothered arguing'. Sounds like you've run out of things to say to me. That I've proved you wrong. And you know I have. But you won't admit it, you'll just avoid the points I have made and divert it into some totally pointless exchange of smilies or similar, mostly on your part.
I mean, really? Is that the best you can do? Are you not going to at least even
attempt to challenge
my points? Or is it just all 'this is my opinion, but I'm not willing to justify it or back it up or challenge the points you make' with you? Is your argument
really that weak? Deary me...
But I've already told you, it's not an opinion. And I've told you why it's not an opinion. But instead of challenging these points that I make like any other person would do in a
debate, becuase...you know...that is the idea of a debate, or are you just going to continue telling me 'it's MY opinion lOOL', with not justification or attempt at debate whatsoever? Tragic, really.
Indeed I did say that. But that was in reference to the fact you, strangely, think it is bad if 'nasty' people win, as it is 'rewarding' something. Because it doesn't matter...this is not 'real', it's TV. And thus, if a 'nasty' person wins, it is not rewarding anything. Because it's just TV.
I'm not 'busting a blood vessel' when 'nice' people win. Again, why to miss my entire point. I have no problem with 'nice' people winning. I was quite happy with Brian Dowling winning UBB, as he was one of my favourites. And he was nice. But
why was I happy with that? Because he was
entertaining. And a big character. So long as a big character, who is entertaining, and has given everyone something to watch and talk about...wins, then it does not matter whether they are 'nasty' or 'nice'. That's irrelevant. It's about how good they are as a
housemate, not a
person. If there was a nasty person, who added **** all to the show...then I would not want them to win. If there was a nice person, who added lots to the show...then I'd want them to win. What is so difficult for you to understand? It is pretty much common sense...
Wrong again. It bares no relevance whether a housemate is nasty or nice. They are a big character if they give people lots of things to talk about, spark lots of discussion and debate, give us something to watch, are entertaining, have added to the show/house, etc etc. Housemates like Steve, Andrew and Laura are
not big characters...and to pass them off as big characters is just plain stupid. Big characters are not debatable, they are not people's individual 'favourites'...they cannot be changed. The big characters are the big characters, regardless of whether they are your favourite or not.
Wrong
again. That is a 'favourite'. You know...like the Bookie's favourite to win. It is rarely the
real big characters...they are usually the favourites to be evicted. Favourites are individual chocies [that, if people had any sense, would be the big characters]. Big characters are not choices, they are set in stone, and cannot be changed. Fact.
That pretty much proves how weak your argument is. And how weak your debating skills are. Theoretically, I should be the one acting like you, considering I am [supposedly] younger. Says a lot really, doesn't it?
Thanks. At least someone agrees.
It's like trying to get through a brick wall with some of these people though, I could say it a million times and I would never get through to them
