Meaning their vote is not inconsistent with being duped or with falling for an agenda.
I don't buy this at all as it would suggest only some were duped but some managed to remain not duped. It doesn't make sense. People having a variety of tastes and reasons for voting makes more sense in my view.
To reduce cognitive dissonance. For instance, if someone liked Jale or Kim, they might deal with Jale or Kim becoming part of Helen's group and friendly with her by seeing Helen as not so bad, or by seeing other (anti-Helen) HMs as being as bad or worse.
So did no one actually like Helen voluntarily Or were they all either duped or subject to some psychological condition.
I do accept comeback but as I said - I'm not going to defend it all over again. It was exhausted (and more) at the time and I will happily put JD in the mix with the likes of Helen. I don't know enough of Gary Busey.
JD never shouted at anyone (apart from Linda and she deserved it) and he never bullied anyone. So to compare him to Helen is daft.
I don't buy this at all as it would suggest only some were duped but some managed to remain not duped. It doesn't make sense. People having a variety of tastes and reasons for voting makes more sense in my view.
So do you think that unless everyone was duped, no one was? Now that wouldn't make sense. As Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time" (just not all of the people all of the time).
In any case, what I said was correct: someone who was duped, or who fell for an agenda, can nonetheless mean their vote. Are you thinking the only way someone could be duped (or led to fall) is by something like the unofficial app that pretended a vote meant something different than it actually did?
So did no one actually like Helen voluntarily Or were they all either duped or subject to some psychological condition.
Do you think that if someone was misled by BB's contrived redemption story line for Helen (for example), and so liked the Helen they thought they were seeing, then it somehow wasn't voluntary?
Anyway, quite a few people seemed to realise, once they saw some of what Helen did after BB, that they'd been wrong in backing her.
So did no one actually like Helen voluntarily Or were they all either duped or subject to some psychological condition.
I'm wondering whether any of last year's cast - more so than any other year - could have been diagnosed as coming out of there with Stockholm Syndrome. Surviving that house pretty much totally involved finding a way to get on with Helen because she couldn't get evicted. For someone in there with any ounce of empathy it wouldn't take much for "getting along" to turn into understanding and then into grudging respect if not full blown friendship.
So do you think that unless everyone was duped, no one was? Now that wouldn't make sense. As Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time" (just not all of the people all of the time).
In any case, what I said was correct: someone who was duped, or who fell for an agenda, can nonetheless mean their vote. Are you thinking the only way someone could be duped (or led to fall) is by something like the unofficial app that pretended a vote meant something different than it actually did?
Do you think that if someone was misled by BB's contrived redemption story line for Helen (for example), and so liked the Helen they thought they were seeing, then it somehow wasn't voluntary?
Anyway, quite a few people seemed to realise, once they saw some of what Helen did after BB, that they'd been wrong in backing her.
What she got up to or did afterwards is pretty irrelevant IMO. We were voting for a winner of BB - people vote according to what goes on for a few weeks in the house. It is a snippet of all their lives - we're not giving knighthoods or awards we vote on a 12(?) week long 'competition'.
What she got up to or did afterwards is pretty irrelevant IMO. ...
It is relevant to her actual personality and character and consequently to which views of her during bb15 were correct and which were (for instance) overly influenced by the such things as the contrived redemption story line.
Quite a few people seemed to realise, once they saw some of what Helen did after BB, that they'd been wrong in backing her -- because (they realised) they'd been wrong about her personality or character.
It is relevant to her actual personality and character and consequently to which views of her during bb15 were correct and which were (for instance) overly influenced by the such things as the contrived redemption story line.
Quite a few people seemed to realise, once they saw some of what Helen did after BB, that they'd been wrong in backing her -- because (they realised) they'd been wrong about her personality or character.
I regretted backing her for the simple reason that she pushed it too far when she posted that Chris Wright was a paedophile. This didn't reveal anything new to me about her character, but it was a step too far.
It's perfectly possible to understand what someone is about, to find them deeply flawed but likeable, and then change your feelings based on a particular action. I've had friends and boyfriends who I once liked very much who aren't in my life anymore. It doesn't mean I was wrong about them or somehow duped or somehow using 'cognitive dissonance' the whole time I liked them. It just means they crossed a line I wasn't prepared to let them cross.
Some forum members like to play the parts of these housemates down, whilst playing Helen's part up. Not that that was necessary as she did it all herself.
I actually liked Ashleigh a lot, but I don't condone her fans that painted her as some kind of angel. I also liked Danielle in parts too. And both the Chris's....but particular Christopher.
In any event, it was always going to be any of these five that were going to win.
But regardless of the win. In terms of being totally themselves right through the process and being right up front about it, it was Helen for me.
The others were too busy playing games at the end, whilst she'd [Helen]. had given up caring. That was the difference for me.
Some forum members like to play the parts of these housemates down, whilst playing Helen's part up. Not that that was necessary as she did it all herself.
I actually liked Ashleigh a lot, but I don't condone her fans that painted her as some kind of angel. I also liked Danielle in parts too. And both the Chris's....but particular Christopher.
In any event, it was always going to be any of these five that were going to win.
But regardless of the win. In terms of being totally themselves right through the process and being right up front about it, it was Helen for me.
The others were too busy playing games at the end, whilst she'd [Helen]. had given up caring. That was the difference for me.
She didn't need to play games, she got a free pass to the final. Noone else stood a chance, it was so wrong.
I absolutely hated this BB and I shall never watch again until they totally change their format.
Danielle called the Police and wanted her charged with assault. She was arrested but later released with no charge.
Didn't it say she accepted a caution, if so this will show up on her CRB, the only time it would really matter though is if she went to work somewhere requiring a CRB check, ie a primary school or any childcare position, probably a few others too.
Didn't it say she accepted a caution, if so this will show up on her CRB, the only time it would really matter though is if she went to work somewhere requiring a CRB check, ie a primary school or any childcare position, probably a few others too.
I doubt it would ever be a problem, I don't think anyone would employ her in a primary school etc after seeing/hearing about her behaviour on BB. I certainly wouldn't want her in any school that my children were attending.
So do you think that unless everyone was duped, no one was? Now that wouldn't make sense. As Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time" (just not all of the people all of the time).
No I don't but I am very cynical about Ashleigh fans talking about Helen fans being duped.
Do you think that if someone was misled by BB's contrived redemption story line for Helen (for example), and so liked the Helen they thought they were seeing, then it somehow wasn't voluntary?
That sounds a little philosophical to be honest. If you're acting as a result of being duped, are your actions voluntary Hmmm
I was more asking for an opinion. Do you think that anyone of their own volition (not under the influence of a dupe or a psychological condition, like you described) just liked Helen?
Separate people, however saying it Helen and Connor both got it their own way. Ashleigh, Chris and Danielle got edited in selective ways down to big brother politics if it makes sense.
No I don't but I am very cynical about Ashleigh fans talking about Helen fans being duped.
Obviously the people who supported Ashleigh had abundant reasons to look beyond her appalling behaviour, and see the lovely girl lurking beneath the sour-faced, snide, foul-mouthed, manipulative veneer. But the people who supported Helen because they also saw something behind her own unattractive veneer were instead:
- fans of Jale and Kim needing a reason to justify their friendship with Helen
- engaged in deep cognitive dissonance
- duped by a contrived redemption storyline
- just plain wrong about her, no one could possibly like her and if they did, there's something wrong with them
So in short, Helen supporters are weak-minded or cognitively challenged.
Obviously the people who supported Ashleigh had abundant reasons to look beyond her appalling behaviour, and see the lovely girl lurking beneath the sour-faced, snide, foul-mouthed, manipulative veneer. But the people who supported Helen because they also saw something behind her own unattractive veneer were instead:
- fans of Jale and Kim needing a reason to justify their friendship with Helen
- engaged in deep cognitive dissonance
- duped by a contrived redemption storyline
- just plain wrong about her, no one could possibly like her and if they did, there's something wrong with them
So in short, Helen supporters are weak-minded or cognitively challenged.
Also scarlett I don't know if a good chunk of management for big brother are all that qualified to work there. Personally I think they've lied on their CVs and destroying a one great show into something rubbish really. >:(
I believe we didn't really have a choice who won as endemol really were playing the hard sell with Helen as Richard Desmond had work for her later on wheras he had no work at all for ashleigh, Chris or Danielle. Just seems like pathetic behaviour from all the management of channel 5 and endemol really, they've behaved worse than kids really getting what they want rather than what we want. >:(
You would think big brother production staff would learn their lesson from what went wrong from last season, but because of their politics they want to make it as nasty as possible. I think a good chunk of producers are just doing their job on big brother for a bit of pocket money rather than loving what their doing to be frank and honest. >:(
Really some of the management of big brother are in the wrong jobs, simples.
Obviously the people who supported Ashleigh had abundant reasons to look beyond her appalling behaviour, and see the lovely girl lurking beneath the sour-faced, snide, foul-mouthed, manipulative veneer. But the people who supported Helen because they also saw something behind her own unattractive veneer were instead:
- fans of Jale and Kim needing a reason to justify their friendship with Helen
- engaged in deep cognitive dissonance
- duped by a contrived redemption storyline
- just plain wrong about her, no one could possibly like her and if they did, there's something wrong with them
So in short, Helen supporters are weak-minded or cognitively challenged.
Yup :cool: A million different ways to actually say my favourite is much better than your favourite ;-)
Comments
I don't buy this at all as it would suggest only some were duped but some managed to remain not duped. It doesn't make sense. People having a variety of tastes and reasons for voting makes more sense in my view.
So were Chris and Ashleigh and Danielle.
So did no one actually like Helen voluntarily
NO...not in the house they didn't.
If they weren't in her gang she just shouted at them every day, it would be easy just to get along with her for the sake of an easy life.
JD never shouted at anyone (apart from Linda and she deserved it) and he never bullied anyone. So to compare him to Helen is daft.
So do you think that unless everyone was duped, no one was? Now that wouldn't make sense. As Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time" (just not all of the people all of the time).
In any case, what I said was correct: someone who was duped, or who fell for an agenda, can nonetheless mean their vote. Are you thinking the only way someone could be duped (or led to fall) is by something like the unofficial app that pretended a vote meant something different than it actually did?
Do you think that if someone was misled by BB's contrived redemption story line for Helen (for example), and so liked the Helen they thought they were seeing, then it somehow wasn't voluntary?
Anyway, quite a few people seemed to realise, once they saw some of what Helen did after BB, that they'd been wrong in backing her.
I'm wondering whether any of last year's cast - more so than any other year - could have been diagnosed as coming out of there with Stockholm Syndrome. Surviving that house pretty much totally involved finding a way to get on with Helen because she couldn't get evicted. For someone in there with any ounce of empathy it wouldn't take much for "getting along" to turn into understanding and then into grudging respect if not full blown friendship.
What she got up to or did afterwards is pretty irrelevant IMO. We were voting for a winner of BB - people vote according to what goes on for a few weeks in the house. It is a snippet of all their lives - we're not giving knighthoods or awards we vote on a 12(?) week long 'competition'.
It is relevant to her actual personality and character and consequently to which views of her during bb15 were correct and which were (for instance) overly influenced by the such things as the contrived redemption story line.
Quite a few people seemed to realise, once they saw some of what Helen did after BB, that they'd been wrong in backing her -- because (they realised) they'd been wrong about her personality or character.
I regretted backing her for the simple reason that she pushed it too far when she posted that Chris Wright was a paedophile. This didn't reveal anything new to me about her character, but it was a step too far.
It's perfectly possible to understand what someone is about, to find them deeply flawed but likeable, and then change your feelings based on a particular action. I've had friends and boyfriends who I once liked very much who aren't in my life anymore. It doesn't mean I was wrong about them or somehow duped or somehow using 'cognitive dissonance' the whole time I liked them. It just means they crossed a line I wasn't prepared to let them cross.
Indeed they were.
Some forum members like to play the parts of these housemates down, whilst playing Helen's part up. Not that that was necessary as she did it all herself.
I actually liked Ashleigh a lot, but I don't condone her fans that painted her as some kind of angel. I also liked Danielle in parts too. And both the Chris's....but particular Christopher.
In any event, it was always going to be any of these five that were going to win.
But regardless of the win. In terms of being totally themselves right through the process and being right up front about it, it was Helen for me.
The others were too busy playing games at the end, whilst she'd [Helen]. had given up caring. That was the difference for me.
She didn't need to play games, she got a free pass to the final. Noone else stood a chance, it was so wrong.
I absolutely hated this BB and I shall never watch again until they totally change their format.
Did you actually read the link?
Danielle called the Police and wanted her charged with assault. She was arrested but later released with no charge.
Didn't it say she accepted a caution, if so this will show up on her CRB, the only time it would really matter though is if she went to work somewhere requiring a CRB check, ie a primary school or any childcare position, probably a few others too.
I doubt it would ever be a problem, I don't think anyone would employ her in a primary school etc after seeing/hearing about her behaviour on BB. I certainly wouldn't want her in any school that my children were attending.
No I don't but I am very cynical about Ashleigh fans talking about Helen fans being duped.
That sounds a little philosophical to be honest. If you're acting as a result of being duped, are your actions voluntary Hmmm
I was more asking for an opinion. Do you think that anyone of their own volition (not under the influence of a dupe or a psychological condition, like you described) just liked Helen?
Separate people, however saying it Helen and Connor both got it their own way. Ashleigh, Chris and Danielle got edited in selective ways down to big brother politics if it makes sense.
Obviously the people who supported Ashleigh had abundant reasons to look beyond her appalling behaviour, and see the lovely girl lurking beneath the sour-faced, snide, foul-mouthed, manipulative veneer. But the people who supported Helen because they also saw something behind her own unattractive veneer were instead:
- fans of Jale and Kim needing a reason to justify their friendship with Helen
- engaged in deep cognitive dissonance
- duped by a contrived redemption storyline
- just plain wrong about her, no one could possibly like her and if they did, there's something wrong with them
So in short, Helen supporters are weak-minded or cognitively challenged.
Also scarlett I don't know if a good chunk of management for big brother are all that qualified to work there. Personally I think they've lied on their CVs and destroying a one great show into something rubbish really. >:(
I believe we didn't really have a choice who won as endemol really were playing the hard sell with Helen as Richard Desmond had work for her later on wheras he had no work at all for ashleigh, Chris or Danielle. Just seems like pathetic behaviour from all the management of channel 5 and endemol really, they've behaved worse than kids really getting what they want rather than what we want. >:(
You would think big brother production staff would learn their lesson from what went wrong from last season, but because of their politics they want to make it as nasty as possible. I think a good chunk of producers are just doing their job on big brother for a bit of pocket money rather than loving what their doing to be frank and honest. >:(
Really some of the management of big brother are in the wrong jobs, simples.
Yup :cool: A million different ways to actually say my favourite is much better than your favourite ;-)
But to be honest the editing has been very business like. >:(