• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Big Brother
Formal Warnings being dished out
<<
<
4 of 4
>>
>
d'@ve
08-07-2004
Originally Posted by SuperManRules:
“I do not understand why you are qouting me here. I both know she burnt nothing AND think BB was wrong for burning anything. You are quoting me and arguing my own point of view! ”

Because you inadvertently implied (to me) that the HMs burnt something i.e. "No-One should have burned anything!)" implies that more than one party burnt stuff!

Now, I realise we're on the same side in this!
robbies_gal
08-07-2004
Originally Posted by NightSwimmer:
“They took the camera out of the diary room and tried (SYMBOLICALLY ) to set fire to it

See this thread...
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...d.php?t=137810”


thanx-bloody ell ive missed alot today!
the-tick
08-07-2004
so Vic and Jay have plenty of warning enough to warrant an eviction as per the rules and what happens ...........nowt
closeupcurehead
08-07-2004
BB were just childish and showed they had lost control by singling out and burning Stu's hat. His reaction has nothing to do with anything. The fact is BB knew that it would be taken badly. Why did they single Stu out, anyway? Because they could. The rules no longer make sense, neither do the tasks which are often set up for the HM's to fail. Get real, BB!!
Alrightmate
08-07-2004
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat:
“Public Warnings, Formal Warnings, Normal Warnings - doesn't it tell you something? They matter not - if anyone BB don't want to throw out gets near to three they just get another type of warning. It is just there for our entertainment value and shows they can decide to kick or not kick whoever they want out anytime they want.”

Exactamundo.

They are bullshit.

BB want people to be bothered about these "pretend" rules.

Like you say, if they want someone out of the game,..give them a formal warning,....someone they would like to get to the final....give them a liccle warning.

How can anyone value and respect rules made by people who set fire to a children's toy hat to punish the housemates?

And incredibly, they actually believe Stuart is bothered, (FFS )when it's just Stu pretending to be in love with a hat to give himself a gimmick.
Alrightmate
08-07-2004
Originally Posted by Vertigo1:
“Try to get it through your head that it wasn't his hat at all!”

Well that makes it even more childish then.
Alrightmate
08-07-2004
So, referring to an ealier post....

Dan, Shell, Nadia, and Michelle all got a formal warning?

Yet they only told Michelle she would be kicked out if she did anything else?

Does anyone else think that the housemates may as well do as they wish, because BB isn't exactly even handed, therefore they have no reason to respect the rules?
zzenzero
09-07-2004
Originally Posted by SuperManRules:
“Well, I hope that they (the producers) realise how childish they now appear. They burnt the hat, and when the HMs try revenge, they get a warning. Pathetic and hypocritical. Evil my a$$, childishly spiteful more like.”

Spot on.Pathetic in the extreme.
zzenzero
09-07-2004
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat:
“Public Warnings, Formal Warnings, Normal Warnings - doesn't it tell you something? They matter not - if anyone BB don't want to throw out gets near to three they just get another type of warning. It is just there for our entertainment value and shows they can decide to kick or not kick whoever they want out anytime they want.”

Yep, you've got it in one.
Basically,BB holds the sword to evict any of them when it so deems....except Jason and perhaps Victor because needs the money from their public votes in due course.
EddyBee
09-07-2004
Originally Posted by zzenzero:
“Yep, you've got it in one.
Basically,BB holds the sword to evict any of them when it so deems....except Jason and perhaps Victor because needs the money from their public votes in due course.”

So Michelle, not being seen as a 'vote puller-in' can just be evicted through the back door.
metafis
09-07-2004
Originally Posted by zzenzero:
“Yep, you've got it in one.
Basically,BB holds the sword to evict any of them when it so deems....except Jason and perhaps Victor because needs the money from their public votes in due course.”

Seems like it. This was demonstrated when bb stated about Emma(re fight night) 'we dont think she is any more to blame than anyone else', yet only she got kicked out.

So far Victor and Jason have broken the rules 67 times between them!. I dont usualy believe in conspiracy theories, but something isnt quite right here.
Tickle_Disciple
09-07-2004
It amazes me that Michelle has been given her first and last warning when you look at how much others have gotten away with. Did Ahmed not damage BB property. I know the camera is of higher value than plates but she did not even damage it and probably wouldn't have. I was told kitten damaged a £2000 microphone, she didn't get a final warning on that occasion (I don't think). And we all know how much the dastardly duo have gotten away with in nomination rigging. There is definately bias treatment of certain HMs occuring now. I suspect this is an attempt to give BB some way of dumping michelle if they can't do it in the normal eviction manner. Their 'slapper' 'bunny boiler' editing is obviously not doing the trick as well as they expected.
EddyBee
09-07-2004
So Stuart has now had 3 official warnings? Correct?
flossymcdougal
09-07-2004
Michelle hasn't had any previous warnings has she? So why the 'final warning' stuff? I not understand!
Eagle9a
09-07-2004
Originally Posted by flossymcdougal:
“Michelle hasn't had any previous warnings has she? So why the 'final warning' stuff? I not understand!”

Nobody does. But given the length of this thread we all like discussing it
Vertigo1
09-07-2004
Originally Posted by SuperManRules:
“Don't talk to me like I'm a child, it's disrepectful. I'm not here to kick something off & yes I know it's not his hat - but he did have a (rather bizarre) attachment to it.

BB wasn't evil this time, just childish. Evil is evicting one person an hour til they talk. Childish is burning something & complaining when someone tries the same thing to them.”

I'm not talking to you like you're a child, I'm talking to you like you're someone who doesn't seem to grasp that BB didn't destroy his property at all. Your last sentence simply serves to reinforce this impression.

BB destroyed a cheap hat which belonged to them, not Stuart. In retaliation Michelle and her club decide to destroy a very expensive piece of equipment which doesn't belong to them. Please explain how that is "the same thing".

BB's tone in ordering them out of the garden at the time, followed by their coming down hard on Michelle, only serves to indicate what a dim view they took of the incident. Broadcast quality cameras like that aren't at all cheap, and although I don't doubt that BB would have no problems with the housemates smashing up a few bits of furniture, destroying cameras is another matter entirely.
tooty
09-07-2004
Michelle destroys the cameras every time she goes
naked,a crack appears on my tv screen
Real_Pyrrhic
09-07-2004
Originally Posted by tooty:
“Michelle destroys the cameras every time she goes
naked,a crack appears on my tv screen ”

Cheeky!
<<
<
4 of 4
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map