It does not mean she was forced to do anything; and not revealing isn't even a lie. Nor would she be lying if she didn't say "Chris" when other HMs were speculating about who the power HM is.
Also, she does not know who the power HM is. Something shouted over the wall could easily be wrong; so for all she knows, it is wrong.
This is true, that's why I am confused as to why her protests about not wanting to lie came into it. Perhaps when BB called them in from the garden, the others asked a million questions and it was than she didn't want to lie but, like almost every event, we can't know this for sure.
The clip on bbbots showed her having a go at Chris because of the whole bloody power housemate thing. So you didn't hear a peep out of her when Helen was being vile to her but she's happy to sound off to her supposed friend Chris for a secret he HAS to keep and is the whole point of the game. Ugh, my sympathy for her has vanished, everything she does is evidently conceited.
Absolutely agree. You also have to remember the PH has done her a huge favour by nominating Pauline. Pauline has instigated the bullying. She will be evicted this Friday and that's down to the PH.
There's no reason to think the "hostage" came from anything we haven't seen. It was Jale's way of expressing what she thought -- or wanted people to think she thought -- her situation was.
I agree that we should be aware that we don't see most of what happens in the house; but many have been happy to judge other HMs based only on what was in the highlights or a clip, and now what's gone around has come around to Jale.
So you believe that there is no reason to think that the hostage thing came from anything we haven't seen, yet you put forward that the reason is based on your reading of her mind about what she thought, as though we have reason to believe that your subjective assessment of her is the truth.
There is an element of truth to what you say in the second paragraph. That's why people can get hysterical on here, even about Pauline and Helen. However some housemates have actually said and done things which require no further investigation into whether they were right or wrong, as what they said or did would be seen to be wrong in its own right without seeking further evidence or proof that there could be justification for it. I'm thinking along the lines of examples such as Helen nastily calling another housemate a slug.
So you believe that there is no reason to think that the hostage thing came from anything we haven't seen, yet you put forward that the reason is based on your reading of her mind about what she thought, as though we have reason to believe that your subjective assessment of her is the truth.
I'm not interested in playing forum games. Do you normally complain about reading minds, or are you using that as a point against me because you know I've complained about "mind reading" in the past?
I don't claim to know in a way I'd have called "mind reading" what's in her mind, which is why I said "what she thought -- or wanted people to think she thought". That's simply based on her behaviour and the opinion that "hostage" is not so weird a thing to say -- given what we have seen, and given other things she also said which no one seems to be questioning -- that it wouldn't be what she thought (or wanted people to think she thought) her situation was. That's generally how it is with things people say: it's what they think, or what they want people to think they think.
And I did not, in that post, "put forward" any reason for thinking 'there's no reason to think the "hostage" came from anything we haven't seen'. I was simply posting my view of it. But my explanation would be much that same as in the previous paragraph, that "hostage" is not so weird a thing to say, etc, that it would have to have an explanation in things we haven't seen; plus what I've seen of editing, behaviour in the house, etc, over my years of watching.
The clip on bbbots showed her having a go at Chris because of the whole bloody power housemate thing. So you didn't hear a peep out of her when Helen was being vile to her but she's happy to sound off to her supposed friend Chris for a secret he HAS to keep and is the whole point of the game. Ugh, my sympathy for her has vanished, everything she does is evidently conceited.
Yesterday's events don't suddenly make previous events untrue.
We saw how other housemates treated her even when she wasn't present in conversations, we saw what they said.
Just because Jale let herself down on one day doesn't suddenly erase everything that went before and make it untrue.
But it can change what we think of the previous events and of things Jale did or didn't do in the past. I can also be a reason to reassess what her motives were.
I don't think J-Star's post is saying any past events are different; it's not saying anything we saw didn't happen. It even speaks of "when Helen was being vile to her" and doesn't say Helen hadn't been vile.
Yesterday's events don't suddenly make previous events untrue.
We saw how other housemates treated her even when she wasn't present in conversations, we saw what they said.
Just because Jale let herself down on one day doesn't suddenly erase everything that went before and make it untrue.
Never said any of the previous events were untrue and don't get me wrong I think the others treated her poorly but you would think that then perhaps given her treatment she would have a little more sympathy for others e.g. Chris. It's like when you're at school and someone is bullied and then they go straight on to pick on someone else.
That is a fair point. After all we only see the occasional edit. For all we know Chris could be frequently reminding her to keep quiet throughout the day. We just see the edit. So I think we should bear this in mind and keep things in perspective.
To be honest I'd rather just judge it on the edit rather than guessing or assuming things which may or may not be true. I think people tend to favour the people they like anyway and look less so on the people they dislike (Including me) So the highlights is good enough for me, although I'd love live feed, but not to be *sigh*
I don't think J-Star's post is saying any past events are different; it's not saying anything we saw didn't happen. It even speaks of "when Helen was being vile to her" and doesn't say Helen hadn't been vile.
Yes thank you, don't for one moment want people to think I condone Helens behaviour. Every time she is on screen it reminds me of being at school and there is no reasoning with a school bully.
Okay, technically she was not forced to lie, she could have just told her (Was it Kimberly?) that the Power HM was Chris. Look where that got her when she told the truth to Danielle and Ashleigh.
If you want to be pedantic by saying that Jale wasn't forced to lie, fine. But it's because she told the truth to two housemates which has got her in a spot of bother in the first place.
I think most people understand when it is said that she was forced to lie.
Because the point is that if it is revealed later on that Jale had been sitting on this information all along the other housemates would have seen it as a lie.
It's not only "technically" that she wasn't forced to lie. She simply wasn't forced to lie. She even had other options than saying the power HM was Chris. It's not like some technical definition of "forced" is needed.
I'm not interested in playing forum games. Do you normally complain about reading minds, or are you using that as a point against me because you know I've complained about "mind reading" in the past?
I'm not playing forum games. You said that there was no evidence to think that anything which hadn't been shown would explain why she saw herself being held hostage. But your subjective interpretation was presented as a valid explanation.
That's all. I'm not complaining, and I wasn't trying to score a point against you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I have absolutey no recollection whatsoever of whatever you'd said about mind reading in the past. I have no idea at all what that's about.:D
But you did undermine the possibility of unseen events as being an important factor.
To be honest I'd rather just judge it on the edit rather than guessing or assuming things which may or may not be true. I think people tend to favour the people they like anyway and look less so on the people they dislike (Including me) So the highlights is good enough for me, although I'd love live feed, but not to be *sigh*
It's not only "technically" that she wasn't forced to lie. She simply wasn't forced to lie. She even had other options than saying the power HM was Chris. It's not like some technical definition of "forced" is needed.
Yes, but sitting on this information would require her to not admit to people who start these conversations that she knows what had been shouted over the wall. Fast forward to when it is revealed that Chris was the Power HM and in hindsight she would be seen by her friends in there to have been lying to them. I use the word 'friends' loosely there.
Chris may not have left Jale in a position in which she is forced to lie, but she is in a position in which she is forced not to tell the truth if she is to protect his identity as the PH.Leaving her in certain circumstances in a dilemma she would understandably not appreciate.
To be honest I'd rather just judge it on the edit rather than guessing or assuming things which may or may not be true. I think people tend to favour the people they like anyway and look less so on the people they dislike (Including me) So the highlights is good enough for me, although I'd love live feed, but not to be *sigh*
But I'm not doing that. I've said in a few posts that I prefer to just wait and see how this plays out and see if we are presented with a fuller context.
If you want to judge everything by the edit then good luck to you. You might be more accurate with just simple guessing.:D
I think that there has to be an element of guessing and assuming because the edit isn't truth in itself, it still needs interpretation which rightly or wrongly is all we can really do.
Never said any of the previous events were untrue and don't get me wrong I think the others treated her poorly but you would think that then perhaps given her treatment she would have a little more sympathy for others e.g. Chris. It's like when you're at school and someone is bullied and then they go straight on to pick on someone else.
Okay, thanks, I understand you now. Fair point.:)
I agree with your post. The main problem with just about all the housemates this year is that they seem to be too weak. The only housemates who appear to be strong happen to be housemates who are simply horrible.
Which is going to be a big problem for me when football beckons on other channels.
Chris may not have left Jale in a position in which she is forced to lie, but she is in a position in which she is forced not to tell the truth if she is to protect his identity as the PH.Leaving her in certain circumstances in a dilemma she would understandably not appreciate.
That is simply not true.
It is very unlikely someone will just randomly ask her if she heard anyone shout something over the wall when she was in the garden. The only way anyone else would even consider that is if either Chris, Christopher or Jale told them.
If someone asks her who she thinks is the PH and she tells them she doesn't know, that would not be lying, because she doesn't know. For goodness sake, it was a total stranger who shouted something over the wall. Shameful that she's willing to throw Chris under the bus based on a comment shouted over the wall by a total stranger.
I spent a moment wondering if it should be double m, too. A pedant's life is not a happy one, happy one. But I reckon it's precisely because of the lack of forethought that she drew from her default section of the lexicon. It's not indefensible, but it is telling.
I agree that choice of word tells us something about her state of mind. It IS victim-speak. But then she actually has been quite emphatically victimised in the house so it would be understandable if she's temporarily feeling like every situation is making her a "dartboard" (in her words). There's no knowing if this is a word she'd have pulled from her sub-conscious outside.
But just to argue with myself, it has struck me that some of the things being levelled at Jale on the forum now are actually, god forbid, things her bullies have been saying for a while. That she plays victim, that she's selfish, that she makes things about her, that she's a tattle tale, that she's clumsy/says the wrong thing. Time will tell if these are fair observations.
I agree that choice of word tells us something about her state of mind. It IS victim-speak. But then she actually has been quite emphatically victimised in the house so it would be understandable if she's temporarily feeling like every situation is making her a "dartboard" (in her words). There's no knowing if this is a word she'd have pulled from her sub-conscious outside.
But just to argue with myself, it has struck me that some of the things being levelled at Jale on the forum now are actually, god forbid, things her bullies have been saying for a while. That she plays victim, that she's selfish, that she makes things about her, that she's a tattle tale, that she's clumsy/says the wrong thing. Time will tell if these are fair observations.
But they are all like that, selfish. lol
Just because she used the word hostage and dartboard doesn't mean its a cry from her subconscious mind. (so psychological!! ) Maybe she just has a different set of vocabulary than the usual effing this effing that we usually get on BB. Maybe she is trying to sound clever, who knows!
It is very unlikely someone will just randomly ask her if she heard anyone shout something over the wall when she was in the garden. The only way anyone else would even consider that is if either Chris, Christopher or Jale told them.
If someone asks her who she thinks is the PH and she tells them she doesn't know, that would not be lying, because she doesn't know. For goodness sake, it was a total stranger who shouted something over the wall. Shameful that she's willing to throw Chris under the bus based on a comment shouted over the wall by a total stranger.
What is shameful is that you are totally unprepared to consider this matter from Jale"s point of view.
I'm not playing forum games. You said that there was no evidence to think that anything which hadn't been shown would explain why she saw herself being held hostage. But your subjective interpretation was presented as a valid explanation.
But as I tried to make clear, the second sentence was not there as an explanation of why I thought what was in the first sentence. I can see how that wasn't clear initially, though.
That's all. I'm not complaining, and I wasn't trying to score a point against you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I have absolutey no recollection whatsoever of whatever you'd said about mind reading in the past. I have no idea at all what that's about.:D
But you did undermine the possibility of unseen events as being an important factor.
What is shameful is that you are totally unprepared to consider this matter from Jale"s point of view.
You can't defend the indefensible. Jale has sat back and allowed Helen and co to walk all over her and she now suddenly turns on Chris, the most reserved and least confrontational person in that house. Someone who has been nothing but nice to her.
If she took a step back she would realise the power housemate has done her a huge favour by nominating Pauline.
It's all about Jale though. She thinks this is her ticket back into the ''gang''. She forgets they hated her long before Chris was made power housemate.
I agree that choice of word tells us something about her state of mind. It IS victim-speak. But then she actually has been quite emphatically victimised in the house so it would be understandable if she's temporarily feeling like every situation is making her a "dartboard" (in her words). There's no knowing if this is a word she'd have pulled from her sub-conscious outside.
...
I was struck by something you said in another thread:
...
I do think that nonsense about "being hostage" and being stuck between being a grass or a liar was a mask for her inner frustration at simply wanting to tell but knowing it was morally wrong to do so. So she concocted an entirely different moral dilemma, one that sounded disingenuous to us cos basically it was: she wanted to tell, and she knew it was probably not a good idea.
...
Never said any of the previous events were untrue and don't get me wrong I think the others treated her poorly but you would think that then perhaps given her treatment she would have a little more sympathy for others e.g. Chris. It's like when you're at school and someone is bullied and then they go straight on to pick on someone else.
I would have thought so too so again it makes me question if she's done what she's done to deflect the attention and animosity from herself onto another knowing she'll no longer be public enemy number one. I hope not and that she was just genuinely conflicted but I have trouble swallowing that
Comments
This is true, that's why I am confused as to why her protests about not wanting to lie came into it. Perhaps when BB called them in from the garden, the others asked a million questions and it was than she didn't want to lie but, like almost every event, we can't know this for sure.
Absolutely agree. You also have to remember the PH has done her a huge favour by nominating Pauline. Pauline has instigated the bullying. She will be evicted this Friday and that's down to the PH.
So you believe that there is no reason to think that the hostage thing came from anything we haven't seen, yet you put forward that the reason is based on your reading of her mind about what she thought, as though we have reason to believe that your subjective assessment of her is the truth.
There is an element of truth to what you say in the second paragraph. That's why people can get hysterical on here, even about Pauline and Helen. However some housemates have actually said and done things which require no further investigation into whether they were right or wrong, as what they said or did would be seen to be wrong in its own right without seeking further evidence or proof that there could be justification for it. I'm thinking along the lines of examples such as Helen nastily calling another housemate a slug.
I agree. I include Jale.
They're all idiots in this respect.
They are creating their own paranoia for themselves.
It's the housemates themselves who've created this thing in their minds that being the Power HM makes them a bad person.
There's only Christopher, Matthew, and Chris who have got a rational handle on this.
I'm not interested in playing forum games. Do you normally complain about reading minds, or are you using that as a point against me because you know I've complained about "mind reading" in the past?
I don't claim to know in a way I'd have called "mind reading" what's in her mind, which is why I said "what she thought -- or wanted people to think she thought". That's simply based on her behaviour and the opinion that "hostage" is not so weird a thing to say -- given what we have seen, and given other things she also said which no one seems to be questioning -- that it wouldn't be what she thought (or wanted people to think she thought) her situation was. That's generally how it is with things people say: it's what they think, or what they want people to think they think.
And I did not, in that post, "put forward" any reason for thinking 'there's no reason to think the "hostage" came from anything we haven't seen'. I was simply posting my view of it. But my explanation would be much that same as in the previous paragraph, that "hostage" is not so weird a thing to say, etc, that it would have to have an explanation in things we haven't seen; plus what I've seen of editing, behaviour in the house, etc, over my years of watching.
But it can change what we think of the previous events and of things Jale did or didn't do in the past. I can also be a reason to reassess what her motives were.
I don't think J-Star's post is saying any past events are different; it's not saying anything we saw didn't happen. It even speaks of "when Helen was being vile to her" and doesn't say Helen hadn't been vile.
Never said any of the previous events were untrue and don't get me wrong I think the others treated her poorly but you would think that then perhaps given her treatment she would have a little more sympathy for others e.g. Chris. It's like when you're at school and someone is bullied and then they go straight on to pick on someone else.
To be honest I'd rather just judge it on the edit rather than guessing or assuming things which may or may not be true. I think people tend to favour the people they like anyway and look less so on the people they dislike (Including me) So the highlights is good enough for me, although I'd love live feed, but not to be *sigh*
Yes thank you, don't for one moment want people to think I condone Helens behaviour. Every time she is on screen it reminds me of being at school and there is no reasoning with a school bully.
It's not only "technically" that she wasn't forced to lie. She simply wasn't forced to lie. She even had other options than saying the power HM was Chris. It's not like some technical definition of "forced" is needed.
I'm not playing forum games. You said that there was no evidence to think that anything which hadn't been shown would explain why she saw herself being held hostage. But your subjective interpretation was presented as a valid explanation.
That's all. I'm not complaining, and I wasn't trying to score a point against you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I have absolutey no recollection whatsoever of whatever you'd said about mind reading in the past. I have no idea at all what that's about.:D
But you did undermine the possibility of unseen events as being an important factor.
Think I pointed out the obvious here
Yes, but sitting on this information would require her to not admit to people who start these conversations that she knows what had been shouted over the wall. Fast forward to when it is revealed that Chris was the Power HM and in hindsight she would be seen by her friends in there to have been lying to them. I use the word 'friends' loosely there.
It would be pressure on her I think.
But I'm not doing that. I've said in a few posts that I prefer to just wait and see how this plays out and see if we are presented with a fuller context.
If you want to judge everything by the edit then good luck to you. You might be more accurate with just simple guessing.:D
I think that there has to be an element of guessing and assuming because the edit isn't truth in itself, it still needs interpretation which rightly or wrongly is all we can really do.
Okay, thanks, I understand you now. Fair point.:)
I agree with your post. The main problem with just about all the housemates this year is that they seem to be too weak. The only housemates who appear to be strong happen to be housemates who are simply horrible.
Which is going to be a big problem for me when football beckons on other channels.
Jale is up every week, so she can be voted off any time. Pauline, however, may not be nominated again so she needs to go this week.
That is simply not true.
It is very unlikely someone will just randomly ask her if she heard anyone shout something over the wall when she was in the garden. The only way anyone else would even consider that is if either Chris, Christopher or Jale told them.
If someone asks her who she thinks is the PH and she tells them she doesn't know, that would not be lying, because she doesn't know. For goodness sake, it was a total stranger who shouted something over the wall. Shameful that she's willing to throw Chris under the bus based on a comment shouted over the wall by a total stranger.
I agree that choice of word tells us something about her state of mind. It IS victim-speak. But then she actually has been quite emphatically victimised in the house so it would be understandable if she's temporarily feeling like every situation is making her a "dartboard" (in her words). There's no knowing if this is a word she'd have pulled from her sub-conscious outside.
But just to argue with myself, it has struck me that some of the things being levelled at Jale on the forum now are actually, god forbid, things her bullies have been saying for a while. That she plays victim, that she's selfish, that she makes things about her, that she's a tattle tale, that she's clumsy/says the wrong thing. Time will tell if these are fair observations.
But they are all like that, selfish. lol
Just because she used the word hostage and dartboard doesn't mean its a cry from her subconscious mind. (so psychological!! ) Maybe she just has a different set of vocabulary than the usual effing this effing that we usually get on BB. Maybe she is trying to sound clever, who knows!
What is shameful is that you are totally unprepared to consider this matter from Jale"s point of view.
But as I tried to make clear, the second sentence was not there as an explanation of why I thought what was in the first sentence. I can see how that wasn't clear initially, though.
Ok, cool. I shouldn't have brought it up.
You can't defend the indefensible. Jale has sat back and allowed Helen and co to walk all over her and she now suddenly turns on Chris, the most reserved and least confrontational person in that house. Someone who has been nothing but nice to her.
If she took a step back she would realise the power housemate has done her a huge favour by nominating Pauline.
It's all about Jale though. She thinks this is her ticket back into the ''gang''. She forgets they hated her long before Chris was made power housemate.
I was struck by something you said in another thread:
I would have thought so too so again it makes me question if she's done what she's done to deflect the attention and animosity from herself onto another knowing she'll no longer be public enemy number one. I hope not and that she was just genuinely conflicted but I have trouble swallowing that