[calyman]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Wrong. They were voted off because they dared to do something. It's the reason why Vote to Evict fails every time. If you do **** all, you stay. And if you do anything, you leave. Remember the Quadruple Eviction before the final? The one that left us with the dullest, most undeserving Big Brother finalists ever? Yes? That's because all the big characters left. And who the big characters are is not something that can be debated.

It is not an opinion. It is fact. I loathed Bea in BB10 but she was definitely one of the best housemates last year, alongside a few others.



Did I say it did? There is nothing wrong with 'nice' housemates on Big Brother, so long as they actually do something. Or are you trying to tell me that housemates like Rachel Rice and Hira are better for the show than the likes of John James and Sam? Whether a housemate is 'nice' or not doesn't come into it. It's whether they have an impact on the house/show or not. If they don't, then they should leave. If they do, then they should stay. It really does not matter whether they are 'nasty' or 'nice. At the end of the day, we want something to watch and talk about - and we're not going to get that with housemates like Rachel and Hira.



Again - wrong. What turns viewers away is when there is nothing to watch, because the housemates all sit around getting along making small talk about tea and biscuits. It's no surprise that after the worst winner ever was crowned [Rachel Rice] the viewing figures begun to drop when BB10 started. It's also the same when the big characters leave each year.

Would people watch dramas/soaps if all the main/big characters left and the only ones left were the little extras? No, they wouldn't.

It's the same thing with Big Brother. The big characters leave, people switch off. I really fail to see what is so hard to understand about that...



Indeed he is a loathsome character, but he is a good housemate, who gave us lots of things to talk about during the summer and lots of things to watch during the summer, so therefore he is a big character. He also saved a very large chunk of BB11. It was on the edge of being practically unwatchable, as a result of the worst cast...possibly ever.



Yes - you disliked them, but that doesn't automatically make them bad housemates. Bad people yes, bad housemates, no.

As I have said, Bea was a vile, manipulative, conniving little cow - but there is no doubting the fact that she was a good housemate. It's simple really.

You are only repeating yourself, repetition does not make for a succesful argument. To answer you, I must refer you to my earlier posts, because I don't like repeating myself.

As to Rachel Rice, I rooted for her throughout her time on BB9. She was repeatedly bullied and ridiculed by that cretin rex, yet Rachel held her dignity and self respect. She would not allow herself to descend to the level of nastiness evinced by rex. As a result, Rachel's innate decency, integrity and strength ensured she deservedly won the top prize.

This is also another example as to why boorishness, abuse, bullying, hypocrisy, nastieness and other such behaviours do not make for either a "good housemate" or any sort of entertainment. You mention Bea, she was so innately nasty, she got voted off, not because she was a "good housemate" but because she was such a rotten and twisted person.