Who goes? Eviction 9

tylerdurden94

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

Stuart is sooo slow. Not sound. Sly. He never wants to get invloved in anything...everything has to be done on the sly with him...yet no one calls him a fence-sitter?!

That has to be one of the most off the wall remarks, im not the biggest fan of stu he has been a good housemate to watch in certain parts.

Details please on how he doesnt get involved in anything and is a fence sitter? He does get involved in alot of activitys with the house maybe not so much now that the people he was close to are now gone, he was always up for a laugh and messing about i would call that gettin involved and for fence sitting he definately doesnt do that if he has a point to say then he will say it.

For example he had a big discusion in one of the shows from during the week the other night with Darnell and has done on many an occasion.

Chinafoot

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

For example he had a big discusion in one of the shows from during the week the other night with Darnell and has done on many an occasion.

Yep, and during that discussion he was gunning for getting Kat nominated because he thinks it would "break" her.

Stu doesn't like anyone in that house, it's obvious. Anyone who uses their daughter for sympathy and then goes on about his "week" outside the house and not wanting someone else to cut into it (ie: he doesn't want a double eviction) is an ass tbh.

tylerdurden94

Chinafoot wrote: »

Yep, and during that discussion he was gunning for getting Kat nominated because he thinks it would "break" her.

Stu doesn't like anyone in that house, it's obvious. Anyone who uses their daughter for sympathy and then goes on about his "week" outside the house and not wanting someone else to cut into it (ie: he doesn't want a double eviction) is an ass tbh.

I dont know the situation that you mentioned there, i should of explained mine it was to do with groups in the house.

Yes the guy is a douche there is no denying it!

HoneyButterfly

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

That has to be one of the most off the wall remarks, im not the biggest fan of stu he has been a good housemate to watch in certain parts.

Details please on how he doesnt get involved in anything and is a fence sitter? He does get involved in alot of activitys with the house maybe not so much now that the people he was close to are now gone, he was always up for a laugh and messing about i would call that gettin involved and for fence sitting he definately doesnt do that if he has a point to say then he will say it.

For example he had a big discusion in one of the shows from during the week the other night with Darnell and has done on many an occasion.

How is it an off-the-wall remark?! I simply comparing the two? Stu is sly and is very aware of every single thing he says. There are numourous times where I've been watching, and just thought to myself that he was being very careful not to become emotionally involved, he always keeps his distance, makes it all the more easier to stab someone in the back (I'm not saying he has, its just for want of a better phrase) So...my point was, that you say Rachel is boring, a fence-sitter, etc, but other HM's bare more of the characteristics of that type of person, but why aren't they targetted liek Rachel is? It just confuses me...what do some people have against her....when they justify and glorify others in the house you are downright mean people?! :rolleyes:

Ann22

Chinafoot wrote: »

'your child should be your absolute number one priority'
I 100% agree with this. It always baffles me when people can enter big brother leaving children behind. I never took to Jen even in the beginning as she left a young baby behind for God knows how long. I could never have done that:(. A lot of men are different I suspect, they don't have the same bond when they're babies but would find it harder to leave them when they're older like Stu's wee one. I'm sure she misses him too. I'd say though as she's not living with him it may make it a bit easier. Maybe he's thinking the money if he won would make it worth it. I never said I was a mad fan of his- i'm simply indifferent to him really. I don't really pay much heed to him when he does talk about being sad or whatever-always more interesting things happening.

'And Luke was favourite to win at one point, things change in the house.' Mikey continued to be friendly with Luke even when the whole nation was baying for his blood. He happily sat and listened to his bitching.

Chinafoot

Delighted!!!

Bye bye Stu, enjoy your week befor eyou disappear back into the bowels of oblivion.

LolaDub

Why can't a parent enter the big brother house? Its as much an experience for them as anyone else? People don't have to stop having a life when they have children. As long as the child is cared for then whats the problem?

JBoyle4eva

Didn't see this live, mainly out of choice as I didn't want either one to go....but i'm somewhaty happy with the result.

long live the battle of Rex and Rachel: P

HoneyButterfly

LolaDub wrote: »

Why can't a parent enter the big brother house? Its as much an experience for them as anyone else? People don't have to stop having a life when they have children. As long as the child is cared for then whats the problem?

Personally (first of all I don't have children) , I couldn't see myself ever leaving my child for that long for something like a gameshow or something that wasn't neccessary. I think its rather selfish

HoneyButterfly

Oh, and obviously extremely happy with the result tonight!

LolaDub

I don't mean this in a rude way at all so please don't take it in that way but you really don't know until you have children. Parents need to have some time away from their children to be have a shot at good mental health. Most parents love their baby more than they thought possible but people need a break. Everyone wants to relax or have free time differently so whats so bad about going on big brother compared to the average person going on big brother?

jaffa20

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

Oh, and obviously extremely happy with the result tonight!

Who went

HoneyButterfly

jaffa20 wrote: »

Who went

Stuart! So happy Rachel stayed

Chinafoot

LolaDub wrote: »

Why can't a parent enter the big brother house? Its as much an experience for them as anyone else? People don't have to stop having a life when they have children. As long as the child is cared for then whats the problem?

Jen's baby wasn't even 2 years old. For a mother to leave her child at such a young age for what could have potentially been 3 months is pretty selfish.

When the children are a bit older then yeah, go for it.. and by older I mean over 10 maybe. They're better equiped to understand whats going on then, but to leave an infant is awful. It's not something I would ever do tbh.

Roses are red

Bye Stu. Rachel all the way.

HoneyButterfly

LolaDub wrote: »

I don't mean this in a rude way at all so please don't take it in that way but you really don't know until you have children. Parents need to have some time away from their children to be have a shot at good mental health. Most parents love their baby more than they thought possible but people need a break. Everyone wants to relax or have free time differently so whats so bad about going on big brother compared to the average person going on big brother?

Yes, you're right, until I am a parent how could I possibly know what its like to be one. I'm not for a minute saying I don't understand that. However, its just incomprehensible to me how someone can go into the BB house when they are fully aware it may be 3 months (And I'm presuming they hope it will be, if they want to win) and all for what?! Some fame? Selfish.
I 100% agree with you that parents would need some 'me-time', time away from their children for their sanity. So go a holiday?! This reasoning does not justify leaving young children for that length of time for an unneccessary reason in my opinion.

Mr.Nice Guy

The right person went I feel. So glad Rach survived.

59% to 41% was the outcome.

That's a great result for a female to get going up against the last of the male eye-candy.

PS Nice crowd surfing from Stuart. :pac:

Chinafoot

Didn't bother watching the interview. After last week's pathetic attempt with Dale I figured it'd be more of Davina fawning over the six-pack.

Sharpshooter

Chinafoot wrote: »

Didn't bother watching the interview. After last week's pathetic attempt with Dale I figured it'd be more of Davina fawning over the six-pack.

Yep , you Nailed it.:D

The Little Guy

Chinafoot wrote: »

Didn't bother watching the interview. After last week's pathetic attempt with Dale I figured it'd be more of Davina fawning over the six-pack.

Nailed it you did !!

davina is just not up to it this year

HoneyButterfly

Chinafoot wrote: »

Didn't bother watching the interview. After last week's pathetic attempt with Dale I figured it'd be more of Davina fawning over the six-pack.

Yeah thats what happened alright, and not much else except him moaning on about how people don't like him....blah blah blah

Can I just ask any males out there...whats the deal withthe black nail varnish on Stu? Cause personally, it weirds me out....and the eye make-up! And Sara plucking his eye brows today!?? Oh I coud go on forever here...

Mr.Nice Guy

tylerdurden94 wrote:

Dont try to make me look bad, I have answered your question "She is a nice person which is what i think people like about her, which i have said loads of times," was my answer in the last one you dont want to accept that its up to you.

I don't need to try to make you look bad. You are doing that yourself by refusing to respond to my questions. My question was...

If Rachel is so boring why is she so popular with the audience? Popular enough to be in second place?

So you're saying your reply is...?

"She is a nice person which is what i think people like about her, which i have said loads of times."

So in your mind, people like her because she's nice - but she bores them? That makes no sense. But why let logic get in the way of a good rant eh?

tylerdurden94 wrote:

I do get it trust me been popular and been boring are two different things, yes she is popular with certain people but that doesnt make her UBER exciting she is still the same person.

How can you be a boring person and be popular with the public? Since when is being boring a charismatic trait? You are not using sense.

tylerdurden94 wrote:

I think you are so set in your ways that you wont open up to peoples opinions on things, on here digitalspy and im sure loads more people have said that Rex has been one of the most interesting housemates Big Brother has had in years but you wont ever consider that for one second.

No, I won't consider that he is popular with the public because the evidence suggests otherwise.

tylerdurden94 wrote:

Nobody wants Nicole in there she isnt a great housemate, get her out and Rex is back to normal

Normal for him is being a miserable bastard.

Call Me Jimmy

I answered this "can't be boring if in second place" argument already and didn't get a response from ye I don't think: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56897109&postcount=35

Look, the fact that the bookies put her odds on for second place doesn't mean she is in second place yet. Even if she does get second place that doesn't mean she can't be boring.

One of the main criteria for doing well in big brother is being unthreatening. So long as there are people that annoy the public more than a particular housemate, that housemate will do well. So in order for her to get second place she could simply not be as annoying as other housemates.

The sugar on top is that when people have a go at her she does the puppy dog eyes which makes her more endearing. Stuff like the goldfish, crap like that can easily explain how she does well. But the main thing is, she doesn't do enough to piss people off to become hated. The people who vote on big brother vote out the most bitchy/backstabbing/outright annoying people first and then she has to do very little to get to second place.

tylerdurden94

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't need to try to make you look bad. You are doing that yourself by refusing to respond to my questions. My question was...

If Rachel is so boring why is she so popular with the audience? Popular enough to be in second place?

So you're saying your reply is...?

"She is a nice person which is what i think people like about her, which i have said loads of times."

So in your mind, people like her because she's nice - but she bores them? That makes no sense. But why let logic get in the way of a good rant eh?



How can you be a boring person and be popular with the public? Since when is being boring a charismatic trait? You are not using sense.



No, I won't consider that he is popular with the public because the evidence suggests otherwise.



Normal for him is being a miserable bastard.

You are getting pretty close to becoming the first person i will have put on the ignore list.

tylerdurden94

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

How is it an off-the-wall remark?! I simply comparing the two? Stu is sly and is very aware of every single thing he says. There are numourous times where I've been watching, and just thought to myself that he was being very careful not to become emotionally involved, he always keeps his distance, makes it all the more easier to stab someone in the back (I'm not saying he has, its just for want of a better phrase) So...my point was, that you say Rachel is boring, a fence-sitter, etc, but other HM's bare more of the characteristics of that type of person, but why aren't they targetted liek Rachel is? It just confuses me...what do some people have against her....when they justify and glorify others in the house you are downright mean people?! :rolleyes:

My message was more to do with the fact that you called him a fencesitter i just didnt see how you came to that conclusion, on the other part you said about him been sly i do agree with.

Ann22

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I answered this "can't be boring if in second place" argument already and didn't get a response from ye I don't think: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56897109&postcount=35

Look, the fact that the bookies put her odds on for second place doesn't mean she is in second place yet. Even if she does get second place that doesn't mean she can't be boring.

One of the main criteria for doing well in big brother is being unthreatening. So long as there are people that annoy the public more than a particular housemate, that housemate will do well. So in order for her to get second place she could simply not be as annoying as other housemates.


The sugar on top is that when people have a go at her she does the puppy dog eyes which makes her more endearing. Stuff like the goldfish, crap like that can easily explain how she does well. But the main thing is, she doesn't do enough to piss people off to become hated.
The peole who vote on big brother vote out the most bitchy/backstabbing/outright annoying people first and then she has to do very little to get to second place.

I agree! The most controversial housemates go first, this has been proven countless times. I always think Big Brother would be far more entertaining if people always voted to keep people in. The boring ones always go first that way.

TheBigFella

Ann22 wrote: »

I agree! The most controversial housemates go first, this has been proven countless times. I always think Big Brother would be far more entertaining if people always voted to keep people in. The boring ones always go first that way.

Well said Ann22, it's been a big downfall for Big Brother every year. Vote for your favourite instead of who you want out and it would be all different.

HoneyButterfly

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

My message was more to do with the fact that you called him a fencesitter i just didnt see how you came to that conclusion, on the other part you said about him been sly i do agree with.

Nope, I did not say that. I said "He never wants to get invloved in anything...everything has to be done on the sly with him...yet no one calls him a fence-sitter?!" So don't tell me what I said and did not say ok?
Again, I was simply making a comparison between Rachel, who you say is boring and a fence-sitter, and another HM (well ex HM) who I think bares more if the characteristics of that type of person.
Why do some people view genuinely nice people suspciously?

tylerdurden94

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

Nope, I did not say that. I said "He never wants to get invloved in anything...everything has to be done on the sly with him...yet no one calls him a fence-sitter?!" So don't tell me what I said and did not say ok?
Again, I was simply making a comparison between Rachel, who you say is boring and a fence-sitter, and another HM (well ex HM) who I think bares more if the characteristics of that type of person.
Why do some people view genuinely nice people suspciously?

I never said anything to the contrary so i cant see why you are getting so defensive. If you read my point i referred to the remarks you made which you highlighted in bold about him never gettin involved and been a fencesitter remarks you made i didnt just pull them out of thin air.

HoneyButterfly

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

..... you called him a fencesitter.

This is what I'm refering to. Don't tell me what I did and didn't say. When you're the one getting all heighty tighty earlier about people 'putting words in your mouth'