Options
People can be 'fake' for months on end
![[Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6deb677f302fcf0792b2028619c1821b.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 177 Forum Member
✭
People really can be fake for months, even years, on end. Don't just take it from me, read up some stuff on the internet about guys who keep two marriages going, each wife knowing nothing about the other.
Or what about the guy who faked his own death in a canoe accident - his wife managed to fool their poor sons that their father was dead for five years!! Acting the bereaved widow takes some beating!!
It's possible. And as that is the main argument Rachel supporters have, then their argument is totally flawed.
This 24 year old woman says things like Mikey Wikey, Ducky Wuckey, fluffy wuffy. She gets orgasmic about beans and cheese. She furrows up that big brow of hers to order. It's the only change in expression she makes.
Nobody knows anything about her apart from her love of grapes; her love of supermarkets; the fact that she has a boyfriend called Richard. They know nothing about how she feels, what she believes in, who she is.
She has systematically avoided giving away any clue about herself as a real person, she gives away an act about who she would like us to think she is.
She has been totally boring, I feel cheated that so much emphasis has been placed on her in this forum and others to win - and as someone who hails from Wales too, I am appalled that people might think she is representative of Welsh women. Or that her facade is representative of Welsh women.
If you want a master game player to win, then vote for Rachel. But if you want a real person to win, someone who gives us something of themselves, warts and all, without fear, and who has been entertaining, then vote for either Sara, Darnell, Mikey or Rex.
Or what about the guy who faked his own death in a canoe accident - his wife managed to fool their poor sons that their father was dead for five years!! Acting the bereaved widow takes some beating!!
It's possible. And as that is the main argument Rachel supporters have, then their argument is totally flawed.
This 24 year old woman says things like Mikey Wikey, Ducky Wuckey, fluffy wuffy. She gets orgasmic about beans and cheese. She furrows up that big brow of hers to order. It's the only change in expression she makes.
Nobody knows anything about her apart from her love of grapes; her love of supermarkets; the fact that she has a boyfriend called Richard. They know nothing about how she feels, what she believes in, who she is.
She has systematically avoided giving away any clue about herself as a real person, she gives away an act about who she would like us to think she is.
She has been totally boring, I feel cheated that so much emphasis has been placed on her in this forum and others to win - and as someone who hails from Wales too, I am appalled that people might think she is representative of Welsh women. Or that her facade is representative of Welsh women.
If you want a master game player to win, then vote for Rachel. But if you want a real person to win, someone who gives us something of themselves, warts and all, without fear, and who has been entertaining, then vote for either Sara, Darnell, Mikey or Rex.
0
Comments
Big Brother is a game show. Rachel is either a very nice person....or a master game player, either way she gets my vote. If she has fooled me then she deserves to win, if she really is that nice then she deserves to win.
And the fact that you feel cheated that so much emphasis has been placed on her in this forum is a little ironic since you are adding to that emphasis.
exactly. I never understand why people worry about this. If some nasty person decides i'm going to try and win BB by being nice and happy, and then does so, good luck to them. Its unlikely of course, but either way I dont see the problem
Exactly! If it's a game.....at least it's a nice game. I don't think it is though.
Anyway, isn't it time to start bigging up our favourites this week and pointing out their good points? This is the most important week now, posts like this aren't going to stop people from supporting Rachel, they will just make them vote more. It made me throw a few more votes her way.
I never understood this. I always thought "Why can't you?".
Have the people who uphold this myth gone into the Big Brother house to try out and test this theory for themselves? If not then why do they presume that you can't do it if they haven't even tried?
If people can do it in real life, and actually do, quite successfully too, then why can't people do it in the BB house?
After all, it's only about basically lying, and about accentuating certain parts of your personality whilst holding other parts back.
For £100,000 I think you'd be surprised at what people will do or will try to do. Even if they aren't that good at it I think many people would give it a shot for that amount of money.
If people can't keep up an act then there'd be no such thing as conmen, and crimes involving fraud and deception simply wouldn't exist.
As long as you can keep shtum about some things and lie about other things, then of course you can keep it up for a very long time.
It's as though one person must have said 'You can't keep an act up for several weeks" years ago, and then it just became a meme which most people accepted at face value without question.
I think that's what people generally mean though when they speak of contestants putting an act on.
Although some are more extreme at it than others.
For example whether Rachel is putting on an act or not, it would be just about being more reserved and holding back for the most part.
As opposed to Kat who would appear to have constructed an entire persona for herself along with gimmicks and catchphrases.
The problem is that if you try to present yourself as a 'fun' caricature, you'd better have a sense of humour to back it up with or it's going to be a lot easier to catch you out.
I've done a lot of voluntary work with OAPs and if you asked them what I was like they would say kind, caring, nicely spoken and well behaved. I'm not.
I don't think it has to be an either/or situation. I think in some cases it could be both.
She possibly is 'playing' to some extent, but I don't think she's necessarily not 'nice'. She hasn't really done anything to deliberately hurt somebody in there I don't think. I just think that if she has been 'acting' a bit then it's just been to attach herself to the two housemates she thinks will be the most popular and by being extremely careful about how she's perceived by the camera.
Pretty harmless stuff really, although I don't admire anybody for trying to pull the wool over my eyes. But I'm not really going to actively dislike her if her game doesn't do any harm or hurt anybody's feelings in there. It's not a nasty game if she's putting on an act of this kind.
Lol, Peony .. Good post.. Lovin your work ...
Nice and happy is cool. But Rachel says almost nothing. Her conversations are insects and fruit. She's had zero impact on the house.
She hasnt really let down her guard. She doesnt want to talk about herself, what she thinks, what she believes. Yesterday she wouldnt even given an opinion on spitgate.
So I dont mind if she wins, but she inspires only apathy in me rather than my support.
Two words...Harold and Shipman.:D
I know what you mean because sometimes people misunderstand what I'm like even if I aren't putting on an act. Sometimes they think that I'm nicer than I think I am.
But I think that with what you say therein lies the confusion. You don't have to keep it up 24/7 for weeks on end. You just have to do it in little bits.
You just exaggerate a bit here, and hold back a bit there. It's really not hard. You don't have to walk around all day performing an act. You don't have to do it when you sleep, you don't have to do it when you eat, you don't have to do it when you drink a cup of tea, and you don't even have to do it during most conversations. You just have to do it in little bits here and there in order to create an impression.
You say that Rachel would need to be an Oscar winning actress to keep it up that long?
Why would she?
If you haven't been on BB how would you know?
Why would she need to win an Oscar? Wouldn't just being an actress be enough?;)
Bear in mind that you said that she wouldn't be able to keep it up...what makes you think that she has?
Haven't many people already suspected that she may be 'acting' a bit already? Wouldn't this imply that she may not have been able to keep it up if some people believe that they have caught her out?
I'm not necessarily saying that I think she's putting on an act. I'm pretty open minded about it. But I'm just saying that I can understand why some people believe that she is and can completely accept that she may be and can see how she can get away with it when other contestants maybe can't. Possibly due to other contestants trying too hard to put on an act or create a persona which they simply can't carry off.
It is possible to live two lives but you have missed the point these people don't do it 24/7. The son's of the canoe wife lived independently of their mother so she didn't not have to keep up any pretense for long periods and secondly we only have their word that they weren't in on the scam and that their denial wasn't just a desperate bid to avoid facing prison.
My answer to that is 'so what'. If you don't like her then that's fine don't vote for her but the duck was named by Mikey as it is his duck (though it's a very common name for a plastic duck so no points for originality there).
Those who are interested probably know more about Rachel than anyone else on there. Including the fact that she has a half-sister whom she has never met but will be meeting for the first time when she leaves the house. Also if anyone on DS has any questions about Rachel they are probably well aware by now that they can ask me or go on her support site on Facebook and ask her family.
With Rachel what you see is what you get. She is showing her real self and you only need to look at her bedroom and see the collection of disney pillows or her large disney film collection to realise that her innocent disneyesque persona is not an act but just one of the many facets of her personality.
People on this forum are free to support anyone they want to so the emphasis is always going to be on the one whom the majority like. No one person can ever be a true representative of the area they are from as we all have our own unique identity which has been shaped by our experiences as well as our demographics. I think that most people are grown up enough to realise this.
Rachel is not a gameplayer. The person you see on your tv is the person her friends know and love. She has her flaws, who doesn't but her heart is always in the right place. With the exception of Mikey I don't think that any of the other HMs have given us a 'warts and all' insight into their lives.
Darnell is always going on about how he can't behave the way he wants to because he's on BB, we know very little about Sara except that she has been disowned by her family and works as a PA for MTV and as for Rex well even he appears to have been showing us an false side to his personality. He said the other night that he is fed up with having to pretend that he is having fun all the time so he's hardly being honest with the viewers is he?
Then there are the contradictions like his family having so much money that he just throws away his mobile phones when the battery runs down but the next minute he's on about how he wants to take a loan out to buy another fancy car or that he wants to win the 100k to start his own restaurant chain. If he is as rich as he claims why doesn't he just use his own or his father's money?
If the stories sold by his rich friend are true when they were in the US they pretended to be rich London restaurant owners to get the girls back to their hotel room. Again if his friend is as rich as Rex makes out why would he be selling scandal stories to the press and feeling that he and Rex need to lie to the show girls to get them back to their rooms? Hardly the actions of someone who is honest and doesn't care what people think of him.
I know that any property in london is expensive but isn't one of their restaurants in Notting Hill? I always think of that being a downmarket area by London standards. We don't actually know whether his family own the buildings that the restaurants are in or if they rent them. Rex's claims that you can get a good flat in London for £220,000 and that Sarah's £25,000 would be enough for a deposit makes me wonder if he really is in touch with the property market as he makes out.
If you don't like Rachel then that's fine you are entitled to like who you want but I for one would question your motives for your constant attacks on Rachel. Is this personal?
As you appear to be a Rex supporter why would someone like Rachel be considered such a threat to his winning ? If she is as bad as you are trying to make out surely she doesn't have a hope of winning especially when she already has so many things going against her?
She female, she's not from London and she is not desperate enough to do crazy things to win so why are you so worried?
Day 89, 02:25 -Darnell revealed last night that he wants certain people to win the show.
As Rex sat in the bathroom with Darnell and Mohamed, he noted that Rachel was "sweet and lovely" but that she didn't get "involved".
"I think a lot of people will think: 'She can't be like that,'" he added.
Darnell agreed: "It's bad for me to say this, but I said in the Diary Room: 'Maybe I do want to win this. And if I don't, I want to see Rex or Mo up there.'"
He explained that they were "well-rounded" housemates who had been through ups and downs on the show.
"You're loving and caring, but you can also be jerks and insensitive," he observed. "At the same time, you're super-emotional. You've had arguments and cried, you've shown every human emotion."
Darnell claimed that he, Rex and Mohamed had experienced "every aspect" of Big Brother, before noting that although Rex was his friend, it was fine when he disagreed with him.
"I feel like that makes us the most realest housemates," he admitted.
BB previously put an actress called Amy into the house to pretend that she was from the Australian BB. She couldn't keep it up 24/7 for more than a couple of days before she the cracks began to show - despite them giving her a room of her own where she could relax and be herself. BB7 I think.
Also in the world of theatre I can remember something about a group of prominent actors (can't remember who it was but I could research it if needed) who tried to keep a play going for days and they failed to keep in character 24/7
Think it was for the guiness book of records or to raise money for charity
The only thing that this proves is that Darnell has finally admitted to the public that he wants to win - something he and Rex have denied previously. It also supports a newspaper claim that the boys have been trying to get the girls voted out and will stop at nothing to achieve it. It's probably a male ego thing. They would hate to be upstaged by a female whether that was Rachel, Kat or Sara whom they've also recently launched attacks on.
Did those husbands & wives have loads of cameras trained on them 24/7 through those years? Were they locked in the house with their wife/husband/kids while a team of cameramen had them under 24/7 survailance and TV producers beamed their activities to the nation?
Did those people have to be fake 24/7? Or did they just have to be fake during the hours they were with their families?
I'm not saying I dispute your claims but give me a scenario which is similar!
The juiciest newspaper story on Rachel is that she "faked" her height in a beauty contest by wearing high heels!:D
If she's fake or playing the 'careful' game then fair play! She's champion gameplayer supreme and hats off to her! I don't think I'm even that bothered anymore!...but give me something extra to work with!
Either she is stuck in a timewarp and doesn't know how to be adult or she is living the best lie on BB. I think the latter.
If this is really the case then do you see the irony of your own comment there?? I have to say that Rachel has been a valuable housemate during this series and has shown that not everyone that goes into the house has to be a loud, selfish media-****! She gets my vote for the winning slot!
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Darnell is the only person who forces his life onto people as for the rest they are only talking about what they want US to know.
Actually, Notting Hill is one of the trendiest, and priciest areas of London.
Yes, you can buy a flat for just over £300k, but that will get you a 1 bed ex-local authority place.
There are currently 1 bed flats in Notting Hill for sale for £499k!
Hardly a down-market area!
(Not a Rex fan BTW)
The girl is very astute and very composed, she doesnt have to worry about the cameras 24/7 because when Rachel doesnt want to get involved Rachel just ducks out of the House by walking off and avoiding anything and everything - or sits there giving off clear body language she doesnt want to talk.
And she gets away with it - rex tried to bring down the mask and failed, she has totally latched on to the two people in the house she could relate to due to their needs...Kat because she acts like a child most of the time and all rachel need do is call on her teacher training to cope with Kat, Michael she has become his personal carer - this does a few things - makes her look good and gives her an out to get involved. Also allows her to avoid getting involved with any of them except mikey in the final week - she is almost invisible now.
"leave me alone i need to look after Mikey Wikey"
Amazing how independent Mikey is when Rachel is not around.
So yep she is a great game player cos she has chosen the route of "carer" and childminder, her mask would have slipped weeks ago if she hadnt had Mikey in there. I think people do Rachel a disservice not to consider her as quite ruthless. maybe she did totally ham up her VT to get in there by pretending to be somebody she wasnt..
Why she doing it? Who knows maybe she plans to kick start her acting career, i recall a lot of controversy regarding her teaching career when she went in - which with the reputation BB has had over the years she was prepared to risk for something big, personally her acting doesnt appeal to me - but the way she has fooled the public with her St rachel routine I can see people paying to watch her.
Rachel used to be a child actress and despite her efforts she is not an experienced adult actress. That's why she is so childish with the Mikey Wikey etc. That's all she knows. As an actress she is also used to cameras and her acting is very simple, just be a little childish, dumb and voiceless. It is very easy and it is endearing to the public. She's doing nothing extraordinaire. So no Oscars for her.