[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Responding to someone else's point about something else entirely. But you can't handle it so let's drag a load of other people into it. Yes, they were negative, does that somehow mean Ashleigh and Danielle weren't? No.

My main point is that Danielle and Ashleigh didn't need any encouraging before they immediately put a divide/wall between themselves and Helen, Danielle doing it within minutes. Helen/Pauline/Jale/Chris has zero to do with it.

But then she's come out and admitted to a fully fledged game plan so we know it for a fact anyway.

And I could say that you can't handle when some brings up a point contrary to your own. Its easily said.

You put Danielle and Ashleigh into a statement about "creating negativity" on day one. What you completely failed to mention was that the conversation that Daneille had was about Tamara, that she had a sixth sense that they weren't going to get on. Something that she admitted was based on first impressions. And she had this conversation with Matthew after he asked her if there was anyone she didn't like from their initial meetings. This was part of a larger conversation where they were discussing Pauline having to make snap judgements on people based on VT's, and how difficult that would be.

Ashleigh had nothing to do with that conversation. You chose to make that link. Daneille's point wasn't made maliciously, it was part of a conversation and she was answering a question, based on how you would chose to punish and reward someone after just meeting them.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because when a discussion is based on a particular topic/person, I stick to it. I don't feel the need to constantly drag other things into it.

Whether Helen, Pauline or bloody Tamara were being negative doesn't change the point about Danielle and Ashleigh.

In response to your misleading points and connections, I brought up actual conversations that created negativity, both those aren't what you want to talk about.

If you want to talk about creating negativity in the house at least try to find actual examples, instead of making tenuous links, based on half facts.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

And I could say that you can't handle when some brings up a point contrary to your own. Its easily said.

You put Danielle and Ashleigh into a statement about "creating negativity" on day one. What you completely failed to mention was that the conversation that Daneille had was about Tamara, that she had a sixth sense that they weren't going to get on. Something that she admitted was based on first impressions. And she had this conversation with Matthew after he asked her if there was anyone she didn't like from their initial meetings. This was part of a larger conversation where they were discussing Pauline having to make snap judgements on people based on VT's, and how difficult that would be.

Ashleigh had nothing to do with that conversation. You chose to make that link. Daneille's point wasn't made maliciously, it was part of a conversation and she was answering a question, based on how you would chose to punish and reward someone after just meeting them.


In response to your misleading points and connections, I brought up actual conversations that created negativity, both those aren't what you want to talk about.

If you want to talk about creating negativity in the house at least try to find actual examples, instead of making tenuous links, based on half facts.

Oh dear, like a dog with a bone.

Your points were irrelevant to the discussion you joined in with. Accept it and move on.

[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh dear, like a dog with a bone.

Your points were irrelevant to the discussion you joined in with. Accept it and move on.

Aaawww...Its hard when people refute made up points with detailed facts isn't it? Easier to dismiss them...call them irrelevant...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

Aaawww...Its hard when people refute made up points with detailed facts isn't it? Easier to dismiss them...call them irrelevant...

Responding to "Danielle was negative" with "Helen is negative too" isn't refuting made up points, it's derailing what was said. Helen being negative has no effect on the point I was making about Danielle.

But continue to derail.

[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Responding to "Danielle was negative" with "Helen is negative too" isn't refuting made up points, it's derailing what was said. Helen being negative has no effect on the point I was making about Danielle.

But continue to derail.

I'm sorry, but making things up about Danielle, taking a conversation out of context, changing who the conversation was about and linking it to someone that wasn't there, is derailing.

If you can't stick to events that actually happened and need to make stuff up to prove a point, then the debate has no meaning.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by kefln

I'm sorry, but making things up about Danielle, taking a conversation out of context, changing who the conversation was about and linking it to someone that wasn't there, is derailing.

If you can't stick to events that actually happened and need to make stuff up to prove a point, then the debate has no meaning.

It's pretty common knowledge that Danielle was a miserable ballsack the entire time she was there.. apart from the time that she was creeping on Winston

[kefln]

Originally Posted by LiamPRW

It's pretty common knowledge that Danielle was a miserable ballsack the entire time she was there.. apart from the time that she was creeping on Winston

My statement was a direct reply to Marsh's, saying that Danielle was talking behind Helen's back on day one, spreading negativity, and that it relates to Ashleigh.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

I'm sorry, but making things up about Danielle, taking a conversation out of context, changing who the conversation was about and linking it to someone that wasn't there, is derailing.

If you can't stick to events that actually happened and need to make stuff up to prove a point, then the debate has no meaning.

Yeah, I completely made that up. Danielle wasn't negative at all.

She didn't spend the first week isolating herself and anyone she could ensnare whining with her fake offence at bad language and sex. Which she's admitted to as her game plan so is proving my point.

Who caused Helen's first outburst? Oh yeah, Danielle calling the girls slags. I imagined that too.

[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah, I completely made that up. Danielle wasn't negative at all.

Actually you did:

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Exactly. Even on night 1 Danielle was talking behind Helen's back about "seeing problems" creating negativity and who did she befriend? Ashleigh.

This never happened. And because it never happened what has it got to do with Ashleigh.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

She didn't spend the first week isolating herself and anyone she could ensnare whining with her fake offence at bad language and sex. Which she's admitted to as her game plan so is proving my point.

And who's derailing the conversation now?

You "point" was on what happen on the first night. And at what point did I "defend" Danielle, I simply pointed out that your statement was wrong and that others were far worse on the first/second night.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Who caused Helen's first outburst? Oh yeah, Danielle calling the girls slags. I imagined that too.

Derailing...as you would put it...