[EzzaB]

Dave is boring hypocrite , **** hm . get him out
nuff said

[psychtracker]

Originally Posted by MrWong

Ok, Rachael.

Now what?

This is like pulling teeth....
Do you think she's given a lucky, unlucky or fair edit?

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by MrWong

So why didn't Dave, given his sensitive nature in regards to nudity, consider the effect that Mario's streaking might have on the female housemates?
Fact is, he didn't. He thought Mario's actions were perfectly acceptable and even encouraged him to show his knob.

I didn't see the streaking incident and obviously I don't know Davids mind but I think you and I both know what the answer is:
- Something like... David does not believe that a man making a comical naked run past women has any serious effects on them.

He DOES believe that a beautiful women lounging around (what was in his mind) seductively near men IS too powerful.

Let's drop pretending-games. OBVIOUSLY you know this is VERY COMMON thinking, social concepts/rules, everyday-life beliefs in the UK. You know this. I know this.
This is a VERY TYPICAL belief held by a vast majority of people alive today and women know it as much as men do.

So why are you showing up 'gasping in outraged shock' that you caught someone daring to believe such a thing!?
Why are you pretending we should debate about this?

Now.. EVEN IF you actually did believe there should be no difference here - you still haven't found a 'hypocrite'.
David believes this and acting accordingly.

Not only that but he went from hm to hm castigating Caoimhe. Fine, he can be offended but why then does he need to involve the whole house?

I thought he may have been a little over-concerned about it in the same way Josie highly over-rated 'seeing Daves asshole' and running to tell everyone
[in the sense that bored HMs tend to overdo and over-discuss many a thing]
but,
Here I will actually give David a little credit - he DID properly go appealing for a consensus.
That is healthy.
He was assertive but did so in an 'appeal' AND in a way that was met with quick and easy agreement.
People did 'second' his motion.

But don't be guilty of what you accuse David of doing - over-reacting with some put-on sensitivity and then going about the forum lobbying for condemnation,
yet,
not applying the same standards to (for example) where is your outrage over Josie exaggerating trauma over 'seeing Daves ahole' and then telling anyone?
Don't be a hypocrite.
You don't want to be exposed as a hypocrite do you?

But realistically David did not make much out of it and did seek 'tribe approval' which was quickly granted.
Keep in mind his 'intentions' were that (he believed) Chamomiles luscious boobs and body were going to cause too many powerful difficult emotional problems for married men who are without wives.

Is that REALLY such a bad intention?
Even if you keep pretending you are outraged by his solution - he did have noble intentions right?

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by psychtracker

This is like pulling teeth....
Do you think she's given a lucky, unlucky or fair edit?

No sh!t

Will this do???

Caoimhe got an unlucky edit, starting as little more than Shabby's sidekick, to being shown on the highlights bitching about Sunstroke when Josie was just as bad. To being shown negatively in regards to Shabby expressing her love, even though Caoimhe handled it really well and was very sensitive to Shabby's feelings. To then being shown as the villain in a love triangle that never was. Production penciled her in as the female villain and edited out her many, many fun moments accordingly.

Dave's been penciled in as the harmless, god botherer with a lot of love in his belly and edited accordingly.

I really hope you have some kind of point to make now.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

I didn't see the streaking incident and obviously I don't know Davids mind but I think you and I both know what the answer is:
- Something like... David does not believe that a man making a comical naked run past women has any serious effects on them.

He DOES believe that a beautiful women lounging around (what was in his mind) seductively near men IS too powerful.

Let's drop pretending-games. OBVIOUSLY you know this is VERY COMMON thinking, social concepts/rules, everyday-life beliefs in the UK. You know this. I know this.This is a VERY TYPICAL belief held by a vast majority of people alive today and women know it as much as men do.

We'll never agree on this because this religious hypocrisy isn't, very common, or even typical in any part of my life. None of my family are religious, neither are any of my friends.

Which is probably why that sort of behaviour sticks in my craw.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by MrWong

We'll never agree on this because this religious hypocrisy isn't, very common, or even typical in any part of my life. None of my family are religious, neither are any of my friends.

Which is probably why that sort of behaviour sticks in my craw.

Yes, I figured you have a hate-on for this and are probably on youtube approving of 'online athiest' type videos,
but,
No, you didn't answer this at all. I suggested that you and I both know full well that the vast majority of people in the UK actually do believe there is a difference between:
- a man streaking by women.
- a woman naked in a room with men.

Men AND women full-well know and understand these are different social situations with different consequences and different emotions, social dynamics etc.

So why are you acting as if you never heard of such 'hypocrisy' and that you don't see any difference at all?
Explain that?

[psychtracker]

Originally Posted by MrWong

Caoimhe got an unlucky edit, starting as little more than Shabby's sidekick, to being shown on the highlights bitching about Sunstroke when Josie was just as bad. To being shown negatively in regards to Shabby expressing her love, even though Caoimhe handled it really well and was very sensitive to Shabby's feelings. To then being shown as the villain in a love triangle that never was. Production penciled her in as the female villain and edited out her many, many fun moments accordingly.

Yeah, that's probably fair points. I mean she was cast in the villain role the last couple of weeks. I would say honestly though, she was pretty miserable to watch on the Live Feed toward the end, she was quite disassociated with the group as a whole (except JJ), and it would have been VERY difficult to give her a good edit. But she was certainly an excellent scapegoat for the producers in the "love triangle" storyline.

Originally Posted by MrWong

Dave's been penciled in as the harmless, god botherer with a lot of love in his belly and edited accordingly.

Please be 100% honest with me. Do you completely believe that to be true?

[chuff me dizzy]

No sorry ,I disagree ,someone like him should never have been allowed in bb to start with ,He is a conman ,who takes advantage of victims of cancer

[psychtracker]

Hey Chuff...i'm still waiting for my 10 Quid!!!

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by psychtracker

Hey Chuff...i'm still waiting for my 10 Quid!!!

You will have a long wait !!

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Yes, I figured you have a hate-on for this and are probably on youtube approving of 'online athiest' type videos,
but,
No, you didn't answer this at all. I suggested that you and I both know full well that the vast majority of people in the UK actually do believe there is a difference between:
- a man streaking by women.
- a woman naked in a room with men.

Men AND women full-well know and understand these are different social situations with different consequences and different emotions, social dynamics etc.

So why are you acting as if you never heard of such 'hypocrisy' and that you don't see any difference at all?
Explain that?

Why are you exaggerating Caoimhe's nudity and who she was 'nude' in front of? Is it because you need to because it helps make your point?
She had a shirt on that was wet and was wearing knickers, Rachel and Josie were also there at the time. Mario was fully naked on 3 seperate occasions.

Also, where do you get this 'vast majority of people in the uk' from? Surely the vast majority wouldn't give a stuff either way where as the prudes, religious types or whatever would view both incidents negatively as both were pretty similar and both happened in front of the opposite sex.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by psychtracker

Please be 100% honest with me. Do you completely believe that to be true?

Yes i do. I'd say he's more 'bad' than 'good' but he's shown as the opposite of that in the highlights.

Off out for dinner, so can't reply till later.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by MrWong

Yes i do. I'd say he's more 'bad' than 'good' but he's shown as the opposite of that in the highlights.

IMO there is a LOT more bad in him than good ,he has been totally dishonest ,I have heard him "claim" he is a "man of the cloth" he is NOT ,he is a charlatan

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

confined it to the bathroom or male company??? what a load of rubbish he's on national TV duh!!!!

hes a hypocritical woman hating pig

Bull - I am completely against sexism of any form - but I don't see that from Dave! What has he done to suggest he hates women?

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by MrWong

Why are you exaggerating Caoimhe's nudity and who she was 'nude' in front of? Is it because you need to because it helps make your point?
She had a shirt on that was wet and was wearing knickers, Rachel and Josie were also there at the time. Mario was fully naked on 3 seperate occasions.

I wasn't exaggerating her nudity but it's not about what I think but how David took things,
and,
again all you are doing is 'announcing' that we had:
- Chamomile naked (partially.. the way you describe it is much sexier) in the room in front of men.
- Mario streaking past women.

These are (and in Davids mind) two different things with two different consequences and hence he was not being a 'hypocrite' as he acted consistently with his belief system.

YOU are the one who demands others go by your belief system that there is 'no difference'.
I don't think you even believe there is 'no difference' but so you claim.

Also, where do you get this 'vast majority of people in the uk' from?

About 90+% are from the UK and most others are immigrants or temporary students/workers etc.

Surely the vast majority wouldn't give a stuff either way where as the prudes, religious types or whatever would view both incidents negatively as both were pretty similar and both happened in front of the opposite sex.

No.
The vast majority of living human beings see a difference between men (especially if deprived of sex for some time) in a bathroom having a scantily clad babe,
versus,
women part of a crowd seeing a male streaker.

The most annoying thing is that I have to play along with your 'dumb act' when obviously you know that in our society that is definitely considered two different things with different effects, consequences, physiological responses, emotions etc.

Keep in mind - the HM's whom David complained to were nearly unanimously nodding and responding in agreement.
So you need to call them 'hypocrites' and 'double-standard misogynists' too,
or,
do you just apply it to David but not to Ben or Steve or Josie or whoever else AGREED with him?
Remember.. don't be a double-standard hypocrite!

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Bull - I am completely against sexism of any form - but I don't see that from Dave! What has he done to suggest he hates women?

thats how they operate they pretend to be your friend, that they 'love' you and then turn everyone against you behind your back thats what happend to caoimhe.

Caoimhe should have pushed him a lot further on his BS preaching.. his ideas are as empty as his friendships

[Hero1]

Originally Posted by psychtracker

I've been watching the BB streams for the last couple of weeks, and Dave is the life and soul of that place. He's a genuinely warm and good-hearted guy, having lots of harmless fun...keeping everyone entertained. Then when they assemble the HL shows they're desperately attempting to paint him in a bad light at any given scenario!

C'mon BB Producers, you're a fcking DISGRACE you should be ashamed of yourselves!!!

I believe careful editing can only tell us half of the story, however, if Dave is being drunk (some Christian), saying something manipulative or taking out his two stale chicken fillets on camera and it gets shown, he only has himself to BLAME.

The negative things that are being shown qute frankly a man in his position should not be doing full stop, especially if he is making a living of his congregation in Christs name.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

thats how they operate they pretend to be your friend, that they 'love' you and then turn everyone against you behind your back thats what happend to caoimhe.

Caoimhe should have pushed him a lot further on his BS preaching.. his ideas are as empty as his friendships

From memory, Keeva was the one that was pretty nasty and bitchy to and about Dave - naturally he didn't like her very much! But he was never rude or offensive to her - as I remember her being to him!

[Hero1]

Originally Posted by karezza

You have to watch the live feed to appreciate how funny Dave is - the producers don't want him in the final.

He could be funny, but he is doing a HELL of a lot to prove he is nothing special and has no rights to a congregation he feeds off.

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

From memory, Keeva was the one that was pretty nasty and bitchy to and about Dave - naturally he didn't like her very much! But he was never rude or offensive to her - as I remember her being to him!

he makes my blood boil maybe when i calm down a bit i'll think about it more

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

he makes my blood boil maybe when i calm down a bit i'll think about it more

He makes your blood boil. I want to take a wild guess as to why. Tell me if I am close enough:

- growing up you often felt like the odd one who didn't quite fit in. a misfit. You felt teased, picked-on and even bullied. Whether it was schoolyard taunts, rejected love-interests or just being ignored. It hurt. It hurt you a lot and still hurts.
- At some point, although you are not a gay or lesbian you 'identified' with that subculture as if 'one with them' in terms of victimization, suffering, empowerment and the like.
- You suppose that one of the reasons many of your comrades suffer is only because they are not accepted for same-sex attraction which is 'who they are'. It is directly proportional suffering and shame to the % of society not yet accepting them as normals.
so,
- when you see David you see him as someone who, by not accepting homosexuality as normal or 'good' is (ultimately stringing this altogether) the reason for you being teased, shamed, feeling socially awkward and what hinders you from realizing all the goodness of being seen as normal, successful, socially praised etc.

Something like that.
Would you agree I'm just about right on this, overall?

[Peter Plunker]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

No sorry ,I disagree ,someone like him should never have been allowed in bb to start with ,He is a conman ,who takes advantage of victims of cancer

In what way has he taken advantage of cancer victims? Do you have any source for this or is it just chinese whispers with some of the more pathetic members of this forum?
I'm probably on your ignore list anyway.

[psychtracker]

Originally Posted by Hero1

The negative things that are being shown qute frankly a man in his position should not be doing full stop, especially if he is making a living of his congregation in Christs name.

Look, in the context of this conversation it's kind of irrelevant whether you approve or disapprove of his behaviour. The comment i made was from my viewing of the Live Feeds and then seeing the HL show. I strongly believe that the producers are focusing on more of a negative storyline or side to his personality. Do you agree or disagree? Do you think over the course of the series Dave has received a fair, good or bad edit on the HL show?

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

He makes your blood boil. I want to take a wild guess as to why. Tell me if I am close enough:

- growing up you often felt like the odd one who didn't quite fit in. a misfit. You felt teased, picked-on and even bullied. Whether it was schoolyard taunts, rejected love-interests or just being ignored. It hurt. It hurt you a lot and still hurts.
- At some point, although you are not a gay or lesbian you 'identified' with that subculture as if 'one with them' in terms of victimization, suffering, empowerment and the like.
- You suppose that one of the reasons many of your comrades suffer is only because they are not accepted for same-sex attraction which is 'who they are'. It is directly proportional suffering and shame to the % of society not yet accepting them as normals.
so,
- when you see David you see him as someone who, by not accepting homosexuality as normal or 'good' is (ultimately stringing this altogether) the reason for you being teased, shamed, feeling socially awkward and what hinders you from realizing all the goodness of being seen as normal, successful, socially praised etc.

Something like that.
Would you agree I'm just about right on this, overall?

no, i'd say you were pretty far away Mr Proximo although interesting.. i'm not sure where that came from though

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by Peter Plunker

In what way has he taken advantage of cancer victims? Do you have any source for this or is it just chinese whispers with some of the more pathetic members of this forum?
I'm probably on your ignore list anyway.

how does he make a living then??? last time i checked being drunk on the lord doesn't pay the bills