[Angus]

All the people bemoaning the fact that she's gone make me laugh. It's a vote to SAVE so if you don't pick up the phone and vote, what do you expect? For once the haters had absolutely no influence on the outcome of who was evicted, that was most definitely in the hands of her so called fans, many of whom wax lyrical about how amazing and wonderful she is, yet they're too tight to make a phone call or two.

As a hater, I salute your apathy, and am looking forward to a Gillian free jungle for the rest of the week.

[Jack_]

The fault of her 'haters', for hating the most entertaining contestant this series and not voting for her. Pretty much the same during most reality TV shows. When did the most entertaining housemate ever win BB? Never. That's because the public never supported the most entertaining housemate - they supported the bores. Same applies here. That answer your question?

[Jordan.]

I dont blame any of the viewers tbh, haters or not. She has herself to blame for not keeping up the fake act and fading into the background.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The fault of her 'haters', for hating the most entertaining contestant this series and not voting for her. Pretty much the same during most reality TV shows. When did the most entertaining housemate ever win BB? Never. That's because the public never supported the most entertaining housemate - they supported the bores. Same applies here. That answer your question?

No it doesn't because that is the stupidest response to a perfectly rational question and answer as to why YOUR fave got the boot. After all you're probably not voting for the people I love watching so why would I vote for someone I loathe and despise? I pointed out that many of those hypocritical Gillian fans who flood the forum with posts about how entertaining and amazing she is never actually pick up the phone and vote, and always expect someone else to do it. Then they come on here afterwards and whinge about how people who HATED the cow should have kept her in when they themselves couldn't be arsed to. I vote for my faves so why didn't you and the other fans vote for the wizened one?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by angus58

No it doesn't because that is the stupidest response to a perfectly rational question and answer as to why YOUR fave got the boot. After all you're probably not voting for the people I love watching so why would I vote for someone I loathe and despise? I pointed out that many of those hypocritical Gillian fans who flood the forum with posts about how entertaining and amazing she is never actually pick up the phone and vote, and always expect someone else to do it. Then they come on here afterwards and whinge about how people who HATED the cow should have kept her in when they themselves couldn't be arsed to. I vote for my faves so why didn't you and the other fans vote for the wizened one?

I did vote, thanks.

It did answer your question, because if the large majority of the public support the bores, then they're the ones that are going to last longer, aren't they? And that's more often than not the case in most reality TV shows. The most entertaining contestant is NEVER debatable - it's always the one who sparks the most discussion and debate. After all, that is what these types of shows thrive on. Without it, they would not exist. So if you don't support the most entertaining contestant, then it's obviously your fault that they leave, and in some cases - it's your fault that the show then becomes less entertaining, even mind-numbingly dull in some cases. This is what happened to Big Brother over the years. The so-called 'fans' are partly to blame for the demise of the show, and why the show has now been axed. Evicting entertaining contestants, praising and supporting dull ones - rendering the series practically unwatchable each year. All equaled low ratings and bad reviews. Other factors came into it, of course - but the fans certainly played their part, and they always do in these types of shows. If you don't support the most entertaining contestant(s) - it's your problem. Simple.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I did vote, thanks.

It did answer your question, because if the large majority of the public support the bores, then they're the ones that are going to last longer, aren't they? And that's more often than not the case in most reality TV shows. The most entertaining contestant is NEVER debatable - it's always the one who sparks the most discussion and debate. After all, that is what these types of shows thrive on. Without it, they would not exist. So if you don't support the most entertaining contestant, then it's obviously your fault that they leave, and in some cases - it's your fault that the show then becomes less entertaining, even mind-numbingly dull in some cases. This is what happened to Big Brother over the years. The so-called 'fans' are partly to blame for the demise of the show, and why the show has now been axed. Evicting entertaining contestants, praising and supporting dull ones - rendering the series practically unwatchable each year. All equaled low ratings and bad reviews. Other factors came into it, of course - but the fans certainly played their part, and they always do in these types of shows. If you don't support the most entertaining contestant(s) - it's your problem. Simple.

Ah, but there's the rub - your definitiion of what is "entertaining" was clearly in the minority since the witch is gone. Your arrogance is breathtaking since your clearly cannot recognise the simple truth that supporters of these despicable contestants are what lower the credibility and point of the whole show and that includes all reality shows. More interesting characters are overlooked and given no airtime as the manipulative con artists manage to convince SOME gullible viewers they are worth the air time they hog. JJ&J completely ruined the last ever BB, and Gillian McKeith has ruined this year's IAC. I feel sorry for people who think her attention seeking antics and selfish, self-serving behaviour are "entertaining and amusing".

I can assure you she will not be missed by the majority of viewers who will now get a chance to see more of their favourites. There are far bigger, better and more interesting characters left in the jungle, now that the one trick pony has got the boot. In case you're wondering how I can be so certain the wizened one's absence will barely register, it's because she got the lowest amount of votes in a VOTE TO SAVE, which is evidence that most people did NOT find her entertaining or amusing enough to waste their money on, so you, my friend, are in the minority.

[Omah]

I don't care - as along as she disappears into obscurity .....

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by angus58

Ah, but there's the rub - your definitiion of what is "entertaining" was clearly in the minority since the witch is gone. Your arrogance is breathtaking since your clearly cannot recognise the simple truth that supporters of these despicable contestants are what lower the credibility and point of the whole show and that includes all reality shows. More interesting characters are overlooked and given no airtime as the manipulative con artists manage to convince SOME gullible viewers they are worth the air time they hog. JJ&J completely ruined the last ever BB, and Gillian McKeith has ruined this year's IAC. I feel sorry for people who think her attention seeking antics and selfish, self-serving behaviour are "entertaining and amusing".

I can assure you she will not be missed by the majority of viewers who will now get a chance to see more of their favourites. There are far bigger, better and more interesting characters left in the jungle, now that the one trick pony has got the boot. In case you're wondering how I can be so certain the wizened one's absence will barely register, it's because she got the lowest amount of votes in a VOTE TO SAVE, which is evidence that most people did NOT find her entertaining or amusing enough to waste their money on, so you, my friend, are in the minority.

Nicely put. Reality TV is going down the toilet due to headline hunting contestants and producers.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by King Herod

Ah, but there's the rub - your definitiion of what is "entertaining" was clearly in the minority since the witch is gone. Your arrogance is breathtaking since your clearly cannot recognise the simple truth that supporters of these despicable contestants are what lower the credibility and point of the whole show and that includes all reality shows. More interesting characters are overlooked and given no airtime as the manipulative con artists manage to convince SOME gullible viewers they are worth the air time they hog. JJ&J completely ruined the last ever BB, and Gillian McKeith has ruined this year's IAC. I feel sorry for people who think her attention seeking antics and selfish, self-serving behaviour are "entertaining and amusing".

I can assure you she will not be missed by the majority of viewers who will now get a chance to see more of their favourites. There are far bigger, better and more interesting characters left in the jungle, now that the one trick pony has got the boot. In case you're wondering how I can be so certain the wizened one's absence will barely register, it's because she got the lowest amount of votes in a VOTE TO SAVE, which is evidence that most people did NOT find her entertaining or amusing enough to waste their money on, so you, my friend, are in the minority.

LOL, it's not 'arrogance', love, it's called common sense. Without these types of contestants reality TV shows would not exist, whether you like them or loathe them. That is just a simple fact, I'm afraid. You say it 'ruins the point of the show' - yet surely the point of the show is to ensure the most entertaining contestants win and survive as long as possible, no? After all - there wouldn't be a show without them. And it's quite odd that I notice you constantly condemn contestants in these shows for being 'fake' and 'playing the game' and 'conning people' to get 'airtime'. It's strange because, you know...these shows are gameshows, those sorts of things should be praised and actively encouraged. It's just a bit...stupid, to condemn people for playing the game in a gameshow.

And I have to ask you - she survived four/five [not sure how many] Vote to Save's - so what does that tell you? She was entertaining at first, surely? Not to mention she was voted to do nearly all Bushtucker Trials...and why is that? I wonder if it's because she was entertaining when she did them...

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Reality TV is going down the toilet due to headline hunting contestants and producers.

LOL please, it's completely the opposite. These shows wouldn't survive without them. Press and media attention, discussion and debate is what these shows thrive on. Anyone that believes that isn't the case is completely and utterly deluded.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by JackFrost

LOL please, it's completely the opposite. These shows wouldn't survive without them. Press and media attention, discussion and debate is what these shows thrive on. Anyone that believes that isn't the case is completely and utterly deluded.

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that the Restaurant has been cancelled after last years debacle? That show went so far the wrong way that no one took it seriously and consequently it is no more.

[BB_Eye]

It's society's fault.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by JackFrost

LOL, it's not 'arrogance', love, it's called common sense. Without these types of contestants reality TV shows would not exist, whether you like them or loathe them. That is just a simple fact, I'm afraid. You say it 'ruins the point of the show' - yet surely the point of the show is to ensure the most entertaining contestants win and survive as long as possible, no? After all - there wouldn't be a show without them. And it's quite odd that I notice you constantly condemn contestants in these shows for being 'fake' and 'playing the game' and 'conning people' to get 'airtime'. It's strange because, you know...these shows are gameshows, those sorts of things should be praised and actively encouraged. It's just a bit...stupid, to condemn people for playing the game in a gameshow.

And I have to ask you - she survived four/five [not sure how many] Vote to Save's - so what does that tell you? She was entertaining at first, surely? Not to mention she was voted to do nearly all Bushtucker Trials...and why is that? I wonder if it's because she was entertaining when she did them...



LOL please, it's completely the opposite. These shows wouldn't survive without them. Press and media attention, discussion and debate is what these shows thrive on. Anyone that believes that isn't the case is completely and utterly deluded.

Oh dear, you really can't see the wood for the trees can you? The fact that idiots were voting for her to NOT do the trials goes to show how badly this year's IAC has been hijacked by the vapid, quick fix, shallow viewers who fixate on a single contestant's appalling behaviour, deluding themselves that it is "entertainment", thereby depriving the rest of the contestants of sufficient air time to make an impact, and depriving the rest of us viewers of watching different people doing the trials. It is a MIX and VARIETY of reactions and contestants that I want to see, not one attention seeking bint who, even if her phobias and fainting were genuine, would be able to bore for England. So NO, she was NEVER once entertaining or amusing, but if you thought so what can I say

These shows do NOT thrive on allowing a single contestant or couple to dominate the air time, but on the interaction between all of them, and the slow burners should be given a chance to shine. Gillian was not a BIG character, neither was she entertaining, funny, endearing, charismatic, lovable, interesting or amusing - only the braindead would be fooled by her deliberate attention seeking and deceitful behaviour, and encourage it by persistently voting for her, despite the fact she never brought anything new to the table.

So therefore, my little love, you are wrong and my point is proved because clearly the majority agree with me and did NOT vote for the freak. In your little mind no doubt that proves you are somehow superior, but in everyone else's it proves that YOU and the other deluded idiots who voted for her to NOT do anything, are easily pleased and rather simplistic in your opinions as to what is considered entertainment or amusement. Some of us expect a hell of a lot more in return for investing our time, interest and emotion into watching such shows.

Unfortunately, It is the way these types of shows have been going the past few years, and goes a long way to explain the demise of reality tv shows like Big Brother that promised so much in the early days but ultimately delivered so little.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by King Herod

Oh dear, you really can't see the wood for the trees can you? The fact that idiots were voting for her to NOT do the trials goes to show how badly this year's IAC has been hijacked by the vapid, quick fix, shallow viewers who fixate on a single contestant's appalling behaviour, deluding themselves that it is "entertainment", thereby depriving the rest of the contestants of sufficient air time to make an impact, and depriving the rest of us viewers of watching different people doing the trials. It is a MIX and VARIETY of reactions and contestants that I want to see, not one attention seeking bint who, even if her phobias and fainting were genuine, would be able to bore for England. So NO, she was NEVER once entertaining or amusing, but if you thought so what can I say

These shows do NOT thrive on allowing a single contestant or couple to dominate the air time, but on the interaction between all of them, and the slow burners should be given a chance to shine. Gillian was not a BIG character, neither was she entertaining, funny, endearing, charismatic, lovable, interesting or amusing - only the braindead would be fooled by her deliberate attention seeking and deceitful behaviour, and encourage it by persistently voting for her, despite the fact she never brought anything new to the table.

So therefore, my little love, you are wrong and my point is proved because clearly the majority agree with me and did NOT vote for the freak. In your little mind no doubt that proves you are somehow superior, but in everyone else's it proves that YOU and the other deluded idiots who voted for her to NOT do anything, are easily pleased and rather simplistic in your opinions as to what is considered entertainment or amusement. Some of us expect a hell of a lot more in return for investing our time, interest and emotion into watching such shows.

Unfortunately, It is the way these types of shows have been going the past few years, and goes a long way to explain the demise of reality tv shows like Big Brother that promised so much in the early days but ultimately delivered so little.

Very well put and exactly right.

[robb]

Most people I presume voted for her because oh her reactions to the first trials, and thefact the she was sooooo annoying. She was never going to WIN. That said, it left 4 or 5 real bores in there. Kayla and Aggro are trying to get noticed now the show is almost over. They should have gone before Mckeith.