[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

don't ponder too much..... some of us have our dinner to eat.

cat that got the cream!

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by jo1791

I disagree, he'd be gambling with Louise's money because there'd be no guarantee that Alex would split still. So he's right to split his with Louise who is his girlfriend. Aaron wouldn't have split the winnings with Jay regardless!!

Ah but he wouldnt be gambling if Alex kept to the deal. It would all have to be done under everyones understanding. My point is, the ball is definitely in Alex's court and there is no way that Aaron should be expected to share with Jay unless everyone is fair, this could be why Jay is upset at Alex not sharing. As everyone thought that Alex would share, I feel that had things gone to plan then Aaron would have upheld his part. After all how could he accept his balance and then not uphold the rest?

The thing is this it is all water under the bridge now and each one of them will have sorted their own thoughts out on the subject. Possibly we are all only really surmising.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

cat that got the cream!

Funny you mention: you weren't too far off the mark...... this cat had fish for dinner.

But unlike the manner in which BB ultimately has managed to cause all this kerfuffle - it didn't stink!

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Yep, they were meant to.... but they didn't. It all boiled down mostly to Alex and Jay - the main winners in the 'BB allocation'.

Makes me all the more glad though that Aaron was not coerced into wasting Ł500 of his Ł990 on a gift for Alex/Tom !!! I bet Jay and Louise are ripping !!! tee hee. Serves them right for being sneaky anyhooooo !!

It did say in the magazine that they were annoyed because they had spent the money on them. Who knows eh!

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jules2

It did say in the magazine that they were annoyed because they had spent the money on them. Who knows eh!

That comes as absolutely no surprise.

There was both Jay and Louise banging on and on while they were in the house that they both bought the gifts because they wanted to, and in Louise's case: she actually said verbatim, "You don't give to receive but..."

The gifts were purchased as leverage to ensure that Alex would play ball as far as I am concerned. Having read what you've just written, it makes me all the happier that Alex appears to have dissied them - if that's what they've admitted in the mag. Proves that the birthday gifts weren't bought because they wanted to ... they bought because they wanted to ensure some form of payback, and now they didn't get that financial payback, they are annoyed.

If the gifts were bought out of sheer desire with no strings; they would have no reason to feel annoyed - nor would they feel the need to refer to the money they spent on the birthday gifts at all.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

That comes as absolutely no surprise.

There was both Jay and Louise banging on and on while they were in the house that they both bought the gifts because they wanted to, and in Louise's case: she actually said verbatim, "You don't give to receive but..."

The gifts were purchased as leverage to ensure that Alex would play ball as far as I am concerned. Having read what you've just written, it makes me all the happier that Alex appears to have dissied them - if that's what they've admitted in the mag. Proves that the birthday gifts weren't bought because they wanted to ... they bought because they wanted to ensure some form of payback, and now they didn't get that financial payback, they are annoyed.

If the gifts were bought out of sheer desire with no strings; they would have no reason to feel annoyed - nor would they feel the need to refer to the money they spent on the birthday gifts at all.

LOL we can go on and on eh, I hadnt thought of it in that way before I have to admit, you have a point though tbh. Mind you at that stage the fruit would have only been the 1,000 to make up the difference, they would have spent the 1,000 so possibly it wouldnt have benefited them. My thoughts were that they wanted to get one over on Aaron and to gain the aw factor from the public. I wouldnt argue though as none of us really know.

At that stage in the game Jay wouldnt have known about the end result and the second agreement.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by jo1791

It was used on hair fgs!

The thing is though, underneath that hair is scalp which could have for one reason or another, been sensitive, a scratch, a cut, a small wound, who knows eh. Definitely not the way to go imo.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jules2

LOL we can go on and on eh, I hadnt thought of it in that way before I have to admit, you have a point though tbh. Mind you at that stage the fruit would have only been the 1,000 to make up the difference, they would have spent the 1,000 so possibly it wouldnt have benefited them. My thoughts were that they wanted to get one over on Aaron and to gain the aw factor from the public. I wouldnt argue though as none of us really know.

At that stage in the game Jay wouldnt have known about the end result and the second agreement.

All in all, they pair of them are underhand imo (for the reason re Aaron and the gifts), for them now stating this annoyance at having bought pressies that they claimed was out of the goodness of their hearts, and all manner of other things. Two thoroughly untrustworthy and completely self centred, self absorbed sorts. IMO of course.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

All in all, they pair of them are underhand imo (for the reason re Aaron and the gifts), for them now stating this annoyance at having bought pressies that they claimed was out of the goodness of their hearts, and all manner of other things. Two thoroughly untrustworthy and completely self centred, self absorbed sorts. IMO of course.

I think there are a lot of people who share your opinion tbh. My main thing against them is the crudity which went on in the house. This is why I love the fast forward issue on Sky LOL....I lost the patience to listen to them tbh.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Jules2

Hi folks, Pyramid I love your cat. I cant find the post which I want to reply to but it refers to the money. Having read the pieces from the twits and putting it into context, I would say that Jay meant shame tbh. Shame is a gentler word than sham and this is how I read it. He was totally out of order re the razor but there again that is the type of bloke he is.

Imo he would be upset about Alex not sharing the money because if Alex doesnt keep her side of the bargain then imo Aaron shouldnt neither. Aaron should have the greater amount as he won . In theory Jay would have done better to offer Aaron the 5, thus leaving Aaron's balance to be claimed from Alex. Louise should then have claimed her balance from Alex. It all rests on Alex if Jay has already shared with Louise. The first part needed to be taken up before the second part was undertaken, thus Jay has now lost out and this is possibly why he would be upset at Alex not sharing. It is said in the magazines that Louise and Jay are upset?

What magazines?

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Jules2

It did say in the magazine that they were annoyed because they had spent the money on them. Who knows eh!

again what magazine?

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

All in all, they pair of them are underhand imo (for the reason re Aaron and the gifts), for them now stating this annoyance at having bought pressies that they claimed was out of the goodness of their hearts, and all manner of other things. Two thoroughly untrustworthy and completely self centred, self absorbed sorts. IMO of course.

This is the only thing I have seen/heard either of them comment on the presents.


mz_gael mz_gael
@ @RealJayMcKray alex hasn't shared and you haven't kept in touch? so do you regret the Ł500 birthday presents yet?


@RealJayMcKray
Jay McKray @mz_gael no na a done it cos a wanted 2 other people were happy and that made me happy so it was worth it , it's nice 2 give

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

What magazines?

Star 28.11.2011, they were said to be fuming. They were cross as they had bought the gifts and they accused her of playing a game in the house. It was at the BB Wrap party.

[robb]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

If I was Alex I would keep the money lol.

me too...with the proviso that she shares some with tom.....

AARON hasn't shared with jay anyway, has he?

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Jules2

Star 28.11.2011, they were said to be fuming. They were cross as they had bought the gifts and they accused her of playing a game in the house. It was at the BB Wrap party.

The wrap party was on the 14th, so the Star sat on this to print it yesterday. They were said to be fuming. Is the hear say or did it quote them? I am guessing the Star is a reputable mag in the UK.....

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

The wrap party was on the 14th, so the Star sat on this to print it yesterday. They were said to be fuming. Is the hear say or did it quote them? I am guessing the Star is a reputable mag in the UK.....

LOL. You didn't believe them, demanded the name of the mag. You were given the name of the mag, and are now disputing the reputation of said mag, want to know exactly how it was quoted, and why the delay in printing......


PMSL.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

LOL. You didn't believe them, demanded the name of the mag. You were given the name of the mag, and are now disputing the reputation of said mag, want to know exactly how it was quoted, and why the delay in printing......


PMSL.

What's funny is how you post comments off what you have heard instead of trying to find out facts. you have not even read the article yourself but have commented on it. Seeing how everything Jay does is scrutinized on this site I find it hard to believe a thread was not created yesterday with a picture of the article. So yes I will question it if I want to.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

What's funny is how you post comments off what you have heard instead of trying to find out facts. you have not even read the article yourself but have commented on it. Seeing how everything Jay does is scrutinized on this site I find it hard to believe a thread was not created yesterday with a picture of the article. So yes I will question it if I want to.

I didn't say you weren't allowed to question it.

I was highly amused that you were doing it and questioning every smallest detail as though you had a vested interest in it.

I'm not as bothered by the article as you are, thus I have no need to put someone through the 3rd degree about it.

If I was as determined as you appear to be to 'rubbish' the article, I'd be doing some research about it and the article myself, and not expect others to do my dirty work for me. Particulary in regards to 'why the mag 'sat' on the article'. May I suggest you contact the editor of Star mag, and put your questions to them: because unless the fm in question has direct involvment in the article/the mag: it's a question that they will not be able to answer.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I didn't say you weren't allowed to question it.

I was highly amused that you were doing it and questioning every smallest detail as though you had a vested interest in it.

I'm not as bothered by the article as you are, thus I have no need to put someone through the 3rd degree about it.

If I was as determined as you appear to be to 'rubbish' the article, I'd be doing some research about it and the article myself, and not expect others to do my dirty work for me. Particulary in regards to 'why the mag 'sat' on the article'. May I suggest you contact the editor of Star mag, and put your questions to them: because unless the fm in question has direct involvment in the article/the mag: it's a question that they will not be able to answer.

May I suggest you not reply to a question that was not asked to you in the first place since you have no vested interest.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

May I suggest you not reply to a question that was not asked to you in the first place since you have no vested interest.

No you may not.

Public forum and I am quite within my rights, quite entitled to add to the thread, using any previous comment.

If you want a one to one convo: I suggest you do that via PM.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

No you may not.

Public forum and I am quite within my rights, quite entitled to add to the thread, using any previous comment.

If you want a one to one convo: I suggest you do that via PM.

Don't care to talk to you at all much less one on one.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

Don't care to talk to you at all much less one on one.

I wasn't referring to me.

I was referring to the fm that you are putting through the 3rd degree, with questions that you know they most likely are not in a position to answer.

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I wasn't referring to me.

I was referring to the fm that you are putting through the 3rd degree, with questions that you know they most likely are not in a position to answer.

Can't you just quit making **** up and go away?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BBfan6418

Can't you just quit making **** up and go away?

Ermmmm..... how about a very firm

[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I wasn't referring to me.

I was referring to the fm that you are putting through the 3rd degree, with questions that you know they most likely are not in a position to answer.

There was a statement I made at the beginning, no question. Then there was a question that could be answered by the poster. If it was a quote they will put these "" at the beginning and end of the quote. Then I followed up with another statement, again no question. So I asked one question and you qualify that as putting someone through the "3rd degree." I would disagree with you again as well as most posters on here.

And I suppose you are one of the ones that said Louise is thick.