Who goes? Eviction 9

tylerdurden94

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

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'

All i did was reference a post you made, maybe you dont think he is a fencesitter is that what im getting mixed up with? But you think people might think he is a fencesitter is that?

And please no need to drag other stuff into this post.

HoneyButterfly

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

All i did was reference a post you made, maybe you dont think he is a fencesitter is that what im getting mixed up with? But you think people might think he is a fencesitter is that?

And please no need to drag other stuff into this post.

OMG what do you not understand about what I am saying?!
I am saying that I do not think Rachel has the characteristics of a boring person, or a fence-sitter, she just doesn't delibately look for an argument. I was making a comparison between her and Stuart, simply as an example. I did not call him a fence-sitter, I said he was sly,and very wary of any opinions he gave out, anything he said, who he said what to, he tried to influence others nominations etc. And I was also saying that I didn't get why people singled her out as being a fence-sitter

tylerdurden94

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

OMG what do you not understand about what I am saying?!
I am saying that I do not think Rachel has the characteristics of a boring person, or a fence-sitter, she just doesn't delibately look for an argument. I was making a comparison between her and Stuart, simply as an example. I did not call him a fence-sitter, I said he was sly,and very wary of any opinions he gave out, anything he said, who he said what to, he tried to influence others nominations etc. And I was also saying that I didn't get why people singled her out as being a fence-sitter

I didnt know you were talking about Rachel because the reason i got involved was the very first statement that you made on Stuart and i did was give my opinion on that he doesnt get involved he is sly and he is not referred to as a fencesitter.

Call Me Jimmy

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

OMG what do you not understand about what I am saying?!
I am saying that I do not think Rachel has the characteristics of a boring person, or a fence-sitter, she just doesn't delibately look for an argument. I was making a comparison between her and Stuart, simply as an example. I did not call him a fence-sitter, I said he was sly,and very wary of any opinions he gave out, anything he said, who he said what to, he tried to influence others nominations etc. And I was also saying that I didn't get why people singled her out as being a fence-sitter

She gets singled out as a fence-sitter because the people who have conversations with her 24/7 noticed that she never ever gave an opinion on anything besides the fact that she liked grapes. She didn't go looking for arguments but she also wouldn't give her opinions on any situation in the house - that's why people single her out, because she is so ridiculously un-opinionated on anything of any importance; deliberately so imo.

KateF

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

She gets singled out as a fence-sitter because the people who have conversations with her 24/7 noticed that she never ever gave an opinion on anything besides the fact that she liked grapes. She didn't go looking for arguments but she also wouldn't give her opinions on any situation in the house - that's why people single her out, because she is so ridiculously un-opinionated on anything of any importance; deliberately so imo.

Right well the thread was about who would go last Friday, and seeing as Rachel is still there, I don't really see the debate here anymore.

Call Me Jimmy

What do you care? Someone made a point on this page and I wanted to reply to it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

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.

Wrong. If she gets second, third or fourth place it means she has a lot of fans.

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

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.

Yawn. She does well because she's a good person not because of 'endearing crap'. She managed to outlast the last of the eye-candy males which wouldn't happen with a so-called boring housemate.

tylerdurden94 wrote:

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

I suppose it's easier to run away from points you can't answer.

tylerdurden94

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I suppose it's easier to run away from points you can't answer.

Yes it is you just win at everything how do i stand a chance against you :rolleyes: i have answered my points cleary everytime just some people cant accept my points.

hoppo254

Cameron Stout Winner 2003:

Winner and possibly the most boring housemate ever.

Hence just because your winning (or second etc) doesnt stop you from being boring.

Often being boring means you dont offend anyone thus they dont have a reason to vote you out. Its people who stand out who are often the ones that offend or annoy viewers thus are voted out.

Call Me Jimmy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Wrong. If she gets second, third or fourth place it means she has a lot of fans.

No it doesn't, it means that there are people who are more hated. How do you explain housemates who have said she's boring/doesn't give an opinion on anything? They live with her all day and they find her more boring than anyone else.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Yawn. She does well because she's a good person not because of 'endearing crap'.

Exactly.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I suppose it's easier to run away from points you can't answer.

Or just keep telling people they're wrong.

Mr.Nice Guy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

No it doesn't, it means that there are people who are more hated.

It means she is more liked. Few would argue that Stu was hated but yet he went when up against her.

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

How do you explain housemates who have said she's boring/doesn't give an opinion on anything? They live with her all day and they find her more boring than anyone else.

They are saying that as it's the only negative thing they can say about her. They are incorrect anyway.

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

Or just keep telling people they're wrong.

If they are I will.

tylerdurden94 wrote:

i have answered my points cleary everytime just some people cant accept my points.

With respect you dodged my points on several occasions but whatever.

hoppo254 wrote:

Cameron Stout Winner 2003:

Winner and possibly the most boring housemate ever.

Hence just because your winning (or second etc) doesnt stop you from being boring.

Poor reasoning. That series is widely criticised for being free of incident and the participants slated for doing very little. Rachel - and many of the other housemates - have been involved in several incidents and this series would not be regarded as being as bad.

hoppo254 wrote:

Often being boring means you dont offend anyone thus they dont have a reason to vote you out.

Often many people are voted out for being 'boring'. If the public thought Rachel boring they would have voted her out last week as she went up against the last of the girl demographic's eye candy males.

tylerdurden94

Are you still going on about that Rachel question?? Is that what your referring to?

I have gone over this thread to make sure i havent missed anything and i cant see where your coming from saying i dodged your questions? I answered the questions you put forward.

Call Me Jimmy

I just realised how stupid it is to argue with you. I have a friend like you - spins anything even if he's wrong and just won't stop talking until the other person gives up and admits he's right.

tylerdurden94

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I just realised how stupid it is to argue with you. I have a friend like you - spins anything even if he's wrong and just won't stop talking until the other person gives up and admits he's right.

You speak much sense

Mr.Nice Guy

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

Are you still going on about that Rachel question?? Is that what your referring to?

I'm referring to the question I asked you on Rachel which you ducked several times.

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

I just realised how stupid it is to argue with you. I have a friend like you - spins anything even if he's wrong and just won't stop talking until the other person gives up and admits he's right.

It's stupid trying to argue that someone who is a 7/2 second favourite to win at this moment in time is a boring housemate when the person you, and the guy backslapping you in this thread tyler, seem to think is very exciting - Rex, is currently third from last to win with outside odds of 14/1.

So in this bizarre world bereft of logic, the second favourite to win is boring and yet the guy who has been driving people nuts with his painful train-wreck of a relationship is exciting. Yeah that makes a ton of sense.

You need to realise that there are people on this forum, other forums and in the public at large who don't find Rachel boring and that the opinions of yourself do not reflect mainstream opinion. In other words, your subjective opinions do not constitute objective facts.

I hope that clarifies my view on the matter.

tylerdurden94

As i said i went back over the thread and i did answer the questions you put forward but hey whats reasoning got to do when you can just keep trying to shut people down. :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

As i said i went back over the thread and i did answer the questions you put forward but hey whats reasoning got to do when you can just keep trying to shut people down. :rolleyes:

You answered it after I asked you about three times which has been acknowledged on a previous page.

tylerdurden94

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You answered it after I asked you about three times which has been acknowledged on a previous page.

You sure about that now? Because a minute ago it was several times now its three?

Mr.Nice Guy

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

You sure about that now? Because a minute ago it was several times now its three?

"several - a few, more than two but not many."

- Oxford English Dictionary.

:pac:

tylerdurden94

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

"several - a few, more than two but not many."

- Oxford English Dictionary.

:pac:

Ok dont accept the fact that i answered your questions.

Mr.Nice Guy

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

Ok dont accept the fact that i answered your questions.

I accept the fact you answered my questions but only after several attempts by myself to get you to do so.

tylerdurden94

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I accept the fact you answered my questions but only after several attempts by myself to get you to do so.

I will reiterate the point i answered the question but you didnt want to see to accept it when i put it out the first time.

Mr.Nice Guy

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

I will reiterate the point i answered the question but you didnt want to see to accept it when i put it out the first time.

LOL sure. You can have the last word on it if it will make you happy but we both know the score.

tylerdurden94

Yeah im right

(last word)