Lol, well that tells you about what I look like versus what Stuart Baggs looks like.

I mean getting called up by Sheffield United if youre a Sunday League player probably is a step up.

If on the other hand youre playing for Manchester United ...... you aren't even going to take Sheffield United's call.

That comment might give us an idea of what you think they think you look like.

From your attitude towards women I very much doubt that you have any real experience with them, except, perhaps, from hearing things like 'in your dreams', when you ask them a question.


ROFLMAO.

And I suppose you consider yourself to be in the Man. U. league?

I'd guess that school second eleven reserves would be nearer the mark.

(I'm really basing all this on the persona and appearance of the sort of person who make the sort of remarks about women that you seem to think appropriate.)

I think with all of the candidates Nick is simply re-positioning himself based on what we have seen on screen.

Nick seems to be insinuating that Susan kind of skates around telling the absolute truth in order to prove her point which isn't the best strategy to have.

Whereas, of course, the interview tries to make out he's saying 'OMG she's such a two-faced lying biatch. Humph!!!' lol

I would go one further and guess he has issues with them.

Why does he always feel the need to point out that Natasha bats for the other team, it's like a weird fixation that his dislike for her is justified by her being lesbian (or whatever she actually is). And the whole Susan Hitler parallel is even more bemusing.

In link to your other thread, I've changed my mind, I would love for you to be in the Apprentice now because watching you go mad alongside those two would brilliant tv.

That's strange. I can't think of any occasion where she hasn't told the truth. Several occasions where she said one thing and everyone else said something else, but I don't recall her being the one who was wrong. (On matters of fact, obviously.)


And because Susan fans claimed this was unusual and meant Susan was something special.

I don't rate Nick's judgement, personally. He has candidates he favours and candidates he dislikes, and he's not always right.

I perceived it as being the 'haters' who claimed it was unusual. Making stupid comments about him being in love with her just because he was impressed with the way she managed the buying task.

As he has now shown, his opinion of her is not blindly positive.


And in further news, no one else is perfect, either.

Thanks for that. Saved me the trouble of trying to sum it up.

I don't think I've even seen her do that, to be honest. Perhaps she puts a bit of a positive spin on her own actions on a task, but all the candidates do that.

I haven't noticed the general dislike of the other candidates for Melody he implies either (in the full article, he seems to be suggesting Helen isn't much liked either)

Not sure of that , you have to remember Nick knows who went and why - all he doesn't know is who wins.

On that write up Jim gets pulled back a little into the running, even if Nick doesn't like him, and Tom looks fatally holed - would LAS want someone who would find and fall over any passing banana skin - even if he had a good idea.

The Susan bit is very strange, as is Melody's, it could imply something untrue and a lack of support will prove fatal. Natasha is doomed on that write up.

I thought the two interesting pieces were Helen - which is unsupportive given her strong record, labels her as corporate animal ( a Sugar no no) and suggests she needs more attack. Why write that if you had lived through all we have seen, and more, before you put pen to paper?

The other one is Zoe - which is very positive. it points out that we don't know much about what she might offer, but that she has a business. It raises the sulkiness issue but thats not as damaging as the negatives raised for Helen or Jim or Melody or Susan.

Its not at all clear how we should read that all. He may be laying a smokescreen, but wouldn't he look silly praising Zoe and holding praise back on Helen for no good reason? He may be trapped into writing a few weeks ago and having to keep to what had been seen til then, but then Tom wasn't looking so bad then.

There's also a mystery why its Jim, Tom, Helen and Susan who are on the RT cover. They can't be giving all but the SF and final away - unless they are very incompetent or silly. If its not all the last 4, or all the not the last 4, its a mix - and you can perm your own last 4 from the best of who is not there and the weakest of who is?

Not knowing his underlying goal is the problem with trying to interpret that article.

Is it supposed to be balanced? If so, in a self contained way or balanced taken as a whole with his comments in the tasks to date?

Or is he, as you say, trying too lay a smokescreen? (Which I would think is, by a small margin, most likely).

Its not really that balanced, or an acceptable smokescreen though. If you went for balanced why talk down Helen? if its a balanced review written several weeks ago trying to avoid anything that then hadn't been shown , its tough on Tom, Melody and, in its reasoning, on Susan. and too positive on Zoe. Writing it as the view from week 5, is also pretty useless as the public may have seen something diferent in the weeks aired after the point it was written. Its also too predictative for someone who is in a position to predict. Why imply that some faults will prove serious for some people in a balanced description, when you don't do it for everyone ?

its not even a smoke screen. A smokescreen should obscure, but thats a bit different than deception or misleading or making winners sound bad. If you want to obscure, you play down the pluses slightly and mention the negatives, so the successful don't stand out. If you have people who will do well, you don't label them with strong negatives or discount their positives.. As it is, if Tom or Jim or Melody or Susan wins, they will always be stuck with Nick's negative description of them .


As you say. its far from clear what Nick is doing. Picking 4 out of 8 candidates and putting them on the cover is also decidedly odd. Moreso when there are two from each picture of 4 inside the magazine- and two of the people with stronger Nick write ups are not there. Why not a big picture of 8? Did they forget to take the right picture, carefully select to give least away, or did they just throw any faces together for the cover?

I don't understand what you're saying about Melody and Tom here - the way I read it, they were the two Nick was most positive about - he didn't really give them negative descriptions.

And as for the cover - those are the four that have probably generated the most chatter. I'd say it's as simple as that (although obviously now Melody is getting talked about a lot too).

The bit where Nick says he was told that Jim and his wife are the Posh and Becks of Cookstown, Co Tyrone had me tensing my thighs with laughter.

Baggs said that Leon was young and enthusiastic and that Sugar had fired him (Baggs) for being the same.
Deluded dipstick.

i don't think Tom looks a very defensible winner after Nick tells the world he would fall over any passing banana skin or rake or through any open door. You don't give 250k to someone who is that accident prone ? True he's written up as likeable and worthy of listening to, but the "details man" and the point that he's been ignored don't sound positive. Melody I agree is more mixed and better overall - he pokes fun at her global connections but notes how impressive she is . You could argue accusing her of not being likeable is or isn't crucial - unless you think that being able to work with others well matters.

You may be right about the photos - its the most prominent in tv terms - but, even then, Melody isn't there.

I think all we can really say is that it's a puzzle.

I'm guessing they went for two boys and two girls, for gender balance. Jim and Tom are the only boys left, so no puzzle there. Nobody knows who Natasha or Melody are. Preferring Helen and Susan over Zoe may have been luck, or they may have felt those two were more photogenic, or better liked by the public, or maybe Zoe wasn't available, or they thought Zoe and Susan would have a negative vibe. Any number of reasons. I wouldn't read anything into it.

(I've not seen the Radio Times; just going by what's been said here.)