[Jack_]

Originally Posted by calyman

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.

I'm having to repeat myself because it seems so...difficult...to get through to you people. To most it would be pretty much common sense...

Originally Posted by calyman

As to Rachel Rice, I rooted for her throughout her time on BB9.

Congratulations on being a contributing factor to Big Brother's axe, then.

Originally Posted by calyman

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.

Bullied? ROFL, far-fetched. At the end of the day, she was a total, utter bore. A complete waste of space. Added nothing to the house and nothing to the show. Had absolutely no impact whatsoever. She wasn't a good housemate, and she wasn't a big character. It's not debatable - it's the truth.

Originally Posted by calyman

As a result, Rachel's innate decency, integrity and strength ensured she deservedly won the top prize.

Deservedly? You've got to be kidding me? So sitting around on your arse for 3 months adding absolutely **** all to an entertainment gameshow should be 'rewarded' [as some people seem to keep saying] in the form of £100,000, should it? It's not difficult - if you add nothing to the show, make no impact, spark no discussion and debate, you are a useless housemate and totally undeserving of a place in the house, let alone victory. She's a nice person, yes, I'm not going to dispute that. But she is an awful, awful housemate. And arguably the worst winner ever.

Originally Posted by calyman

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.

It does if they spark discussion, debate, have an impact on the house/show and give us something to talk about. That is a big character and a good housemate. Housemates that give us **** all to talk about like Laura, Steve, Hira etc are not good housemates nor are they big characters. It's really, really not difficult to understand. As I have already said, to most it is common sense. Just...think about it. Big Brother is an entertainment gameshow. Housemates like Laura, Steve, Hira, Rachel etc don't offer entertainment, spark discussion, debate, give us something to watch...I could go on. There is nothing difficult to understand...

Originally Posted by calyman

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.

I'm quite aware of that. But again, keyword - person. A nasty person. There is a difference between a person and a housemate. And they should be judged accordingly. Sadly, you are, she was evicted because she was a 'rotten and twisted person'. But this is where the voting public have always gone wrong...they have voted with hatred, rather than with logic. And thus they have killed the show year on year. Some of them also go on to later complain it's 'boring', when they're responsible. Laughable really. And it's also partly the reason why, as far as we're all currently aware, we're no longer going to be watching Big Brother.