Let's just hope it's not HIV positive.

Mabe they should stop giving them benifits and moving them to the top of the council housing waiting list then.

arf

Goodness me, you talk even more bollocks than I do and that's saying something

I agree get her out now...its putting me off BB having to watch that slapper Michelle and stupid Stuart....pathetic

Unless every flat featured live-feed 24/7 Stu & Michelle beamed into 48" plasma screens built into EVERY SINGLE WALL and without an off switch, while a loop of Michelle cooing "Feel me baps, Chicken" played endlessly ON & ON ... Who'd make babies then?

Shit! I should have known that drama critics correspondence course I took was a con..................she looked genuinely upset to me but I give way to those gifted with more powerful observation skills.

Rest assured,my friend,its just HM positive.

And your definition of bollocks is ?
Ah...that which you don't understand.
May I respectfully suggest,a little more reading?

I agree, she was upset - see my ramble over the page

A change of channels,perhaps?

It could just be the girl has a very high sex drive...It happens !!!!

shut away for two weeks previous, then this week, maybe she just needs...........

It could be worse. Often when encountering a tiranical older lady, my friends & I have said "She needs a good ****" & if that certain lady appears pleasent one day, we assume the deed has happened.

National TV is not the place to satisfy your urges under normal circumstances, but what is normal in BB5.

However, I personally think its a bit early in te show to be giving into your lust & if she does I hope condoms are used.

Also did anyone else catch the bit during the day where she & Victor were talking alone & she said she might be up for it with him?

Coming from the man who thinks Colin Fry is credible this is a little disingenuous...

My definition is the idea that the position of astral bodies hundreds of light years away could have any influence on personality is clearly ludicrous. That anyone who believes in it speaks in generalities that could apply to just about anyone. That they then consider descriptions to so accurately fit themselves because they ignore the negatives and those that don't, proven in psychological experiments.

That any idea of 'fate' or destiny, particularly based on the position of said astral bodies is a crutch for the weak-minded who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Oh, OK, I know this is OT for here and you have every right to make your astrological postings. However, I do think those of us who think it's rubbish can occasionally say so, particularly in a tongue-in-cheek manner

By the way, I'm a Pisces

Ah, cynical pisces

Of course

Colin Fry? That was a while back I mentioned him. A great medium btw and Living TV must be paying an awful lot of people to make Colin look as good as he does...and they can't afford that sort of money.

proven in psychological experiments. Not to my knowledge.Nothing general in the way that I look at the stars....forget the tabloid columns on scopes..now THAT is general and for effect.And the first thing any stargazer should and usually does pass on are the negatives as well as the positives.And we DO ask others to take responsibility for the ship they steer.

By all means rubbish what you will.I just thought bollock's lacked a certain style.

Your pisces btw is progressed to aries....but that's another story.

I'll try not to make this too long because we're really drifting off-topic now and I should probably PM but hopefully the mods will allow me a slight indulgence.

Firstly, on Colin Fry, as someone else mentioned
he was exposed sitting on a table waving a luminous bell around when the lights were 'accidentally' turned on at a reading. Not exactly credible but perhaps he just wasn't in tune that night. As I said, I find it hard to trust UK living when they have both James Van Praagh and John Edwards on who have definitely been exposed as fakes.

As to the psychological experiment, I was referring to the Forer effect (aka Barnum effect, personal validation effect, subjective validation effect). Forer gave a personality test to his students, didn't read them and then gave each one the exact same answer as to their personality. The average rating of accuracy from the students was over 4 out of 5. This is probably because people tend to accept claims about themselves to be true because they want them to be rather than dut to any empirical evidence. They tend to accept questionable statements if they're positive enough. In addition, there's a lot of 'filling in the blanks' with vague or inconsistent claims in order to make sense out of the claims. People who seek counseling from psychics, mediums, fortune tellers, mind readers, graphologists, etc., will often ignore false or questionable claims and, in many cases, by their own words or actions, will provide most of the information they erroneously attribute to a pseudoscientific counselor. Many such subjects often feel their counselors have provided them with profound and personal information. Such subjective validation, however, is of little scientific value.

(Paraphrased from Forer's study).

To test the self-deception part, you would need to do a large number of readings on a great many people, do their personality tests but then not tell them which one was theirs. Each subject would have to pick the one that referred to them. So far, in such tests, no occult or pseudoscientific method has ever passed.

By the way, I have had my entire star chart done - a proper sceptic has to treat his opposition fairly after all

On the last point, of the negatives and personal responsibility, I apologise, that was a bit abrupt and harsh of me. I am sure you do not really try to abrogate personal choice and responsibility.

'Bollocks' was to have a go at me as much as you for my psychological leaps on Michelle's character with little evidence

Phew, ramble over now!

I thought Michelle's chat up line to Stuart was a classic:

"Do you want to feel my baps?"

Must be where I have been going wrong all these years!!!

This is the same girl who found love, married and separated from the said husband after four weeks. The husband doesn't have many good words to say about her funnily enough.

Come on, love after a week and now she's keeping one eye on Stu just in case he happens to flash Shelly or Vanessa an inadvertant glance. There is only one way for this relationship to go and better the stalker gets evicted now or Stu better hide the kitchen knives!

After reading the comments on here I'm not surprised we have wars. OK, so she's a slapper and he's a twit but I don't find them offensive.

I can think of worse people to watch......

Ahmed (didn't plan to speak all series until Jay advised him to either get his hair off quick or get evicted. 20 mins later the guy went ballistic. Probably a world record)

Marco (hugely irritating geek who throws his arms around like a 5 year old)

Kitten (now evicted thank god. I couldn't face any more of her militant, confrontational nonsense, breaking rules just to get attention and acting like a rebellious child. Oh, and her droney voice did my nut too. Everything had to be turned into a philosophical discussion. Boring cow)

I hope kitten isn't reading this, she'd accuse me of being racist, homophobic and sexist.

they are a bad match but Michelle is taking care of him as she initiates him in her promise of sexual nirvana. Another few weeks and he will be bored of her and moved on.

Team handsome said he usually goes for non-glamorous types (??), which sounds like code for he has had 2 plain-looking repressed girlfriends the same age or younger. I think he is dazzled by her sexual claims at the moment and he was worried she would laugh at his inexperience, but she has now reinforced to him that she will play mummy through the lessons and he feels totally secure now.

I think her showing her breasts and the bisexual claims and kissing Emma probably made him think for the first time that she might be a slag but she has calmed him down for now.

Nah.. it probably just means that the girls at his university aren't up to much, or the ones that are don't put out.

thats what I meant but you put it so much better.

Ok..So erm..Important question, is Stuart romantic with her?
Every time i see them kissing its always her making the moves...
He did say he was shy around her..

I agree - to me this is the whole point. I don't know enough about her to know if she's a slapper or not and as I don't have E4 I can only go off what I see on Channel 4, which I feel is too carefully edited for me to make up my mind for myself, but what can't be denied is that she had some kind of 'sexual relations' in a room full of other people.

To me, this shows a complete lack of respect for the others in the house.

I don't have a problem with their one (or maybe more) night stand, but until they were sure that everyone else in the room was happy to listen / see their sexual encounter, they should have gone somewhere private.

Up until then I had thought she was OK - a bit more feisty & interesting than Shell for example, but overuse of the word chicken and her obvious desperation has turned me a little against her - but I like to keep an open mind for a couple of weeks until I know a bit more about the HM's characters - then I can really start to bitch !!!

As much as I hate Michelle, I do agree. Stuart is WEIRD. For such an 'intelligent' bloke, his 'emotional intelligence' is zilch.