[Jack_]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Freddie brought everything onto himself. I'm sorry that I don't find it appealing to watch someone screech "LISA! I'M CUMMING! I'M CUMMING!" to someone twice his age or tell Bea that he's going to caveman **** her or whatever, and I'm sorry if you find that appealing. He was a walking cringe and couldn't handle normal social interactions, I had no time for that.

I also know that there's this renegade logic on here that "well if you did something bad at least you did something" but no, that's just some qualifying bull**** in attempt to seem objective. It's Big Brother, you like who you want to like and dislike who you want to dislike. I don't care how much we had to talk about with Marcus and Freddie because all they did was help make BB10 a very ****ty season.

Except the argument in which he said that to Lisa was 6-8 weeks after the events I mentioned. You know...at the start of the series where Lisa and her crew (Kris in particular) outcasted him, constantly mocked and belittled him for practically no reason at all? And so because he 'couldn't handle normal social interactions', that makes it acceptable for another group of housemates to attack and bully (and I don't use that term loosely like most around here) him does it? Warped logic.

And that's fine, but please do enlighten me on what you suggest people talk about if the housemates that create all the talking points are evicted? Perhaps you don't think talking points are essential, and that's fine - just offer me up some sort of alternative, or explain to me how little or no talking points are supposed to attract the attention of the British press and public? How if there's nothing to chat about in the workplace, on social media sites and on forums, you expect anybody to be bothered about tuning in to watch? And how that is supposed to benefit a programme you seemingly like and support? I'd be delighted to hear your solutions to those...small issues. I'm intrigued even.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Except the argument in which he said that to Lisa was 6-8 weeks after the events I mentioned. You know...at the start of the series where Lisa and her crew (Kris in particular) outcasted him, constantly mocked and belittled him for practically no reason at all? And so because he 'couldn't handle normal social interactions', that makes it acceptable for another group of housemates to attack and bully (and I don't use that term loosely like most around here) him does it? Warped logic.

And that's fine, but please do enlighten me on what you suggest people talk about if the housemates that create all the talking points are evicted? Perhaps you don't think talking points are essential, and that's fine - just offer me up some sort of alternative, or explain to me how little or no talking points are supposed to attract the attention of the British press and public? How if there's nothing to chat about in the workplace, on social media sites and on forums, you expect anybody to be bothered about tuning in to watch? And how that is supposed to benefit a programme you seemingly like and support? I'd be delighted to hear your solutions to those...small issues. I'm intrigued even.

Kris also sucked and I'm pretty that's universally known. Just about everything with Freddie's "bullying" was cringe. For the most part, his haters were as awful as he was. But Lisa and David were the only real people by the end and their coven was endearing to me.

I don't care who talks about what because I'm not here to try to create the most objective list of "good Housemates" and based on how much they contributed. I like who I like and I dislike who I dislike no matter how much or how little they contribute. So many people here are obsessed with trying to have the fairest and most objective opinions when there's no need to. If someone sucks, they suck. I don't need to factor in how much someone contributes if I don't like them because they don't have to directly correlate. This has nothing to do with benefiting the show, it's strictly about who I like and who I dislike.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Kris also sucked and I'm pretty that's universally known. Just about everything with Freddie's "bullying" was cringe. For the most part, his haters were as awful as he was. But Lisa and David were the only real people by the end and their coven was endearing to me.

I don't care who talks about what because I'm not here to try to create the most objective list of "good Housemates" and based on how much they contributed. I like who I like and I dislike who I dislike no matter how much or how little they contribute. So many people here are obsessed with trying to have the fairest and most objective opinions when there's no need to. If someone sucks, they suck. I don't need to factor in how much someone contributes if I don't like them because they don't have to directly correlate. This has nothing to do with benefiting the show, it's strictly about who I like and who I dislike.

That's all fine and dandy, but Lisa instigated most of the bullying of Freddie in her group so how she could possibly be 'endearing' is beyond me.

As for the second paragraph...well there lies your problem doesn't it. The point is, who you like and don't like should be based upon how much a housemate contributes to the show, it's not difficult and really doesn't take much brain power to separate the two. This isn't real life, it's a TV show, why do people have to be 'nice'? You can bang on about it not being important to you, fine, but take away the housemates that create any talking points, and leave the house full of these oh so lovely (*cough* Lisa *cough*) people that you support that wouldn't raise an eyebrow let alone a debate, and how on earth do you think that anybody is going to find that interesting to watch?

It's common sense yet this seems to be so difficult to spell out to you. It's all cause and effect.

Housemates that don't do much > little to talk about (forums, work, school, Twitter, BOTS, media) > little word of mouth > reduced interested > fall in viewing figures

...which could result in an axe if the last stage goes on long enough. It's no surprise that when in previous series controversial housemates have been evicted, viewing figures have fallen. How can you honestly claim to be a fan of this show yet inadvertently go out of your way to damage it?

[Macie Lightfoot]

But there's no problem with it. Who I like and who I dislike should be based upon what the Housemates do and how I feel about it. If someone pisses me off, I'm not going to like them point blank period. I'm not going to think "well, at least they're doing something." If I'm indifferent to someone, at least they're not pissing me off. This whole logic of "the unlikable HMs are better than the boring ones because they're doing something" is backwards because if you're doing something that's vile and detrimental to my enjoyment, I'm not going to like you. If there are people in the House that I like, of course I'm going to be interested because, well, that's probably part of the reason I like them. That's all common sense but yet it seems to be so difficult to spell out to you. It's not a matter of "inadvertently going out of my way to damage the show," it's a matter of human nature where you root for the people you like and want them to last longer. Seriously, that's common sense in itself.

[armand.kay]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...play.php?f=128