[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Jemal

And i hope you know this doesnt mean ****.
Everyone knows the top 4 will be Jim Dappy Sam Ollie in any order you wana put it, whether people like it or not.

People pushing luisa, is a farce. Shes been entertaining but she is disliked.
This isnt to save, so not alot of people will vote for luisa because this isnt to keep her in the house.. This is to make her the winner. And not in a million years will that happen, not to talk of top 3.

Exactly.

[Sophiee]

I actually prefer them arguing .

[joeysteele]

It is really good to see and I am really glad it has happened as the final week approached,I also think Luisa will have learned a big lesson too as to how she fell into the poisonous web spun by the miserable Nolan.

Thankfully Nolan got booted out and Luisa and Jim got to see each other in a more respectful way towards each other.

[rusticgal]

However much I can see right through Luisa....I hope Sam goes before her.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

Its wrong for anyone to label someone of anything without proof.

Anyone includes Jim,Linda,Luisa,us and the rest of the world.

I cant really make it any clearer.

partly truth partly fiction, a walking contradiction

Its a shame that you cant make it clearer because thats not clear at all. and youve had about 10 goes to get it right.

are you admitting it is wrong to label jim ,because they have to no proof of anything that justifies them labelling him?

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by the truth

partly truth partly fiction, a walking contradiction

Its a shame that you cant make it clearer because thats not clear at all. and youve had about 10 goes to get it right.

are you admitting it is wrong to label jim ,because they have to no proof of anything that justifies them labelling him?

Mate if I just stuck Jims name in there instead of ANYONE you would be as happy as pie. It totally makes sense and I cant see how its a contradiction seeing as it derives from a post you made which I agreed with, you said (It is bigoted to make accusations without proof) all I did was agree with that statement alone.

You literally just want me to aim this totally at Jim when why should I? I never once said I was talking about Jim specifically in regards to the sexist remarks I was just agreeing with you in general when you said it was bigoted to judge someone without proof.

Ive said it is wrong for ANYONE to accuse someone of being sexist without proof. That includes comments the housemates may have said to each other.

Who really cares now though, are you not bored of all this sexism talk? Its the final, Luisa and Jim are both in with a good chance so just enjoy it.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

Mate if I just stuck Jims name in there instead of ANYONE you would be as happy as pie. It totally makes sense and I cant see how its a contradiction seeing as it derives from a post you made which I agreed with, you said (It is bigoted to make accusations without proof) all I did was agree with that statement alone.

You literally just want me to aim this totally at Jim when why should I? I never once said I was talking about Jim specifically in regards to the sexist remarks I was just agreeing with you in general when you said it was bigoted to judge someone without proof.

Ive said it is wrong for ANYONE to accuse someone of being sexist without proof. That includes comments the housemates may have said to each other.

Who really cares now though, are you not bored of all this sexism talk? Its the final, Luisa and Jim are both in with a good chance so just enjoy it.

thats a total contradiction. you say its wrong to label someone without evidence. they provided no evidence of him being a sexist pig. therefore by your own definition , it is wrong of them to have labelled him a sexist pig. do you agree yes or no? if not why not? because if you say yes its fine then it makes a total mockery of your very own belief.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by the truth

thats a total contradiction. you say its wrong to label someone without evidence. they provided no evidence of him being a sexist pig. therefore by your own definition , it is wrong of them to have labelled him a sexist pig. do you agree yes or no? if not why not? because if you say yes its fine then it makes a total mockery of your very own belief.

I categorically agree that its wrong to label anyone with no evidence to back up those accusations which ive already said.

A contradiction is a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another I am not opposed to anything.
Im talking about the events in the house and the outside world, Anyone who calls someone a homophobe, hetrophobe or sexist with no proof of those allegations is a bigot or very ignorant.

I don't see why you are getting all worked up just because I wont specifically single out Jims situation, When I say everyone I mean accusations against Jim aswell as other housemates, people in general and the rest of the world.

I was agreeing with your post and for some reason you are picking holes in my comment which is not contradicted or biased.

Can someone please back me up here lol.

[Gusto Brunt]

Don't be so gullible. It's as phoney as a seven pound note.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

I categorically agree that its wrong to label anyone with no evidence to back up those accusations which ive already said.

A contradiction is a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another I am not opposed to anything.
Im talking about the events in the house and the outside world, Anyone who calls someone a homophobe, hetrophobe or sexist with no proof of those allegations is a bigot or very ignorant.

I don't see why you are getting all worked up just because I wont specifically single out Jims situation, When I say everyone I mean accusations against Jim aswell as other housemates, people in general and the rest of the world.

I was agreeing with your post and for some reason you are picking holes in my comment which is not contradicted or biased.

Can someone please back me up here lol.

You state the theory but you wont back it up with jim? why? theres no evidence of him being a sexist pig in the house, so by your own definition its wrong to label him a sexist pig. if you dont agree with that they youre totally and utterly contradicting your own theory. which is frankly embarassing

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by the truth

You state the theory but you wont back it up with jim? why? theres no evidence of him being a sexist pig in the house, so by your own definition its wrong to label him a sexist pig. if you dont agree with that they youre totally and utterly contradicting your own theory. which is frankly embarassing

You obviously didn't read my last post thoroughly as I did mention Jim and every person in general, even peoples comments on the forum.

"When I say everyone I mean accusations against Jim aswell as other housemates, people in general and the rest of the world.
"

Im right in saying its wrong to label someone without proof do you not agree?

Dont be so rude and call my posts embarrassing, we both have the same opinion on the belief its wrong to label someone something when there is nothing to prove their allegation.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

You obviously didn't read my last post thoroughly as I did mention Jim and every person in general, even peoples comments on the forum.

"When I say everyone I mean accusations against Jim aswell as other housemates, people in general and the rest of the world.
"

Im right in saying its wrong to label someone without proof do you not agree?

Dont be so rude and call my posts embarrassing, we both have the same opinion on the belief its wrong to label someone something when there is nothing to prove their allegation.

Im not being rude, dont falsely accuse me without proof.
The fact is you are not prepared to back up your theory in practice. that makes a total mockery of your theory. It displays a degree of bias which totally devalues everything else that follows

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by the truth

Im not being rude, dont falsely accuse me without proof.
The fact is you are not prepared to back up your theory in practice. that makes a total mockery of your theory. It displays a degree of bias which totally devalues everything else that follows

You called my post embarrassing that's very rude and the proof is in black and white lol.

How do you want me to back up my theory then tell me what I should do.

[bez87]

When lusia came in she understood Jims humour and went with it, it was only over time linda battered her head with the hate Jim fan club it seemed, i mean if lusia was friends with Jim, linda would of gave her the evil talk, as linda did to dappy, Linda made the house into a horrid place, even the love triangle may of been more light hearted if linda wasn't there, you can see the difference since linda has gone, absolutely NO arguments, it's been great, and lusia and jim get on now and it's nice to see actual conversations flowing than arguments

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by bez87

When lusia came in she understood Jims humour and went with it, it was only over time linda battered her head with the hate Jim fan club it seemed, i mean if lusia was friends with Jim, linda would of gave her the evil talk, as linda did to dappy, Linda made the house into a horrid place, even the love triangle may of been more light hearted if linda wasn't there, you can see the difference since linda has gone, absolutely NO arguments, it's been great, and lusia and jim get on now and it's nice to see actual conversations flowing than arguments

And them spending alone time together who would have thought lol.

They work great as a duo watch this clip from 20 seconds, shame it wasn't included in the main show.

Youtube video

[the truth]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

You called my post embarrassing that's very rude and the proof is in black and white lol.

How do you want me to back up my theory then tell me what I should do.

youve had ample opportunity to back up your theory in practice, but the bias has ensured this hasnt happened..youve now lost all credibility on this matter.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by the truth

youve had ample opportunity to back up your theory in practice, but the bias has ensured this hasnt happened..youve not lost all credibility on this matter.

Did I not say in regards to people labelling people without anything to back it up with are bigoted. Proof of this when I posted this and directly referred to words against Jim. SEE BELOW:

"When I say everyone I mean accusations against Jim aswell as other housemates, people in general and the rest of the world.
"


I do believe that is me agreeing with you that comments towards Jim can be perceived as bigoted when Linda did not give proof of why she was calling him sexist but I also stick to the fact that we only see a highly edited 46 minutes so we don't really know whats gone on between them.

Also do you mean to say "ive NOW lost all credibility on this matter"?

I believe I answered everything even though I don't need to justify myself to you, all you are doing is pushing and pushing and bombarding me with the same question which I have answered. Now you cant tell me what you actually want me to do?

C'mon tell me what is it I should say to satisfy you?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bez87

When lusia came in she understood Jims humour and went with it, it was only over time linda battered her head with the hate Jim fan club it seemed, i mean if lusia was friends with Jim, linda would of gave her the evil talk, as linda did to dappy, Linda made the house into a horrid place, even the love triangle may of been more light hearted if linda wasn't there, you can see the difference since linda has gone, absolutely NO arguments, it's been great, and lusia and jim get on now and it's nice to see actual conversations flowing than arguments

when louisa was discriminating against jim, she was looking at linda for approval...this happened umpteen times at the table and during nominations, where louisa was totally spineless and went with the crowd of bullies

[Z]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

Youtube video

That was funny!

[Slevin]

lmao at this ****. i would just let it be daniel.

[anne666]

Shall we credit the HM's with a modicum of common sense please. They are in the final. Luisa also got a few cheers the other night after dropping her aggression a touch! It's hardly rocket science.Only Jim has stepped over the mark this week. No surprise there! Cocky? Yes.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Slevin

lmao at this ****. i would just let it be daniel.

Do you agree with me though or am I going nuts!

Please because im pulling my hair out lol.

[Slevin]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

Do you agree with me though or am I going nuts!

Please because im pulling my hair out lol.

lol you're fine. you even agreed but still getting bombarded for no reason. seen it in other threads. its not the first series we've seen some do this and by the same people. so hostile.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Slevin

lol you're fine. you even agreed but still getting bombarded for no reason. seen it in other threads. its not the first series we've seen some do this and by the same people. so hostile.

YAY!

Thank you