Young Apprentice...Week 6 TV Advert Task, BBC 1...Discussion, 8pm
16 of 17
Originally Posted by DavetheScot:
“I don't buy the stitch-up theory. Everyone liked the idea at first because it sounded good and their market research supported it. Once they realised that the nature of a chameleon didn't really fit the concept, the team rightly conceived that it was a bad idea. Unfortunately, Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course, and no-one was able to think of a good idea to replace it (even Chameleon was better than Brian!)...”
“I don't buy the stitch-up theory. Everyone liked the idea at first because it sounded good and their market research supported it. Once they realised that the nature of a chameleon didn't really fit the concept, the team rightly conceived that it was a bad idea. Unfortunately, Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course, and no-one was able to think of a good idea to replace it (even Chameleon was better than Brian!)...”
With respect, I disagree with the part in bold. I wrote in an earlier comment:
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“Just watched the bit where Andrew's team discusses ditching "Chameleon". Stephen suggests "Brian" as the product name! When the other three unanimously express surprise, he adds "Brian - the only friend you can count on"!
At that point Lucy threw "Chameleon" back into the mix on the basis that the focus group really liked it. Andrew immediately said "I definitely don't like Chameleon". Stephen said they can change the sense of "adapting"; Lucy backed him up strongly, saying "I think you can pitch it as in that you can adapt it to your own style" - which is what they went with and were heavily criticised for.
Navdeep to her credit was 100% against using "Chameleon". Andrew quite reasonably said that Navdeep was criticising the idea without coming up with a workable alternative.
I don't share other people's opinion that Lucy's great. She could justifiably be held accountable for the failure of this task.
And it was Lucy who thought that the rear of the chameleon's head was a quiff!”
“Just watched the bit where Andrew's team discusses ditching "Chameleon". Stephen suggests "Brian" as the product name! When the other three unanimously express surprise, he adds "Brian - the only friend you can count on"!
At that point Lucy threw "Chameleon" back into the mix on the basis that the focus group really liked it. Andrew immediately said "I definitely don't like Chameleon". Stephen said they can change the sense of "adapting"; Lucy backed him up strongly, saying "I think you can pitch it as in that you can adapt it to your own style" - which is what they went with and were heavily criticised for.
Navdeep to her credit was 100% against using "Chameleon". Andrew quite reasonably said that Navdeep was criticising the idea without coming up with a workable alternative.
I don't share other people's opinion that Lucy's great. She could justifiably be held accountable for the failure of this task.
And it was Lucy who thought that the rear of the chameleon's head was a quiff!”
You say "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Actually, once the contradiction was pointed out (chameleons are known for blending in, not standing out), Andrew was strongly against using "Chameleon". It was Stephen and Lucy who persuaded him to change his mind.
Navdeep was, at that stage (after Andrew had been persuaded to change his mind), still strongly against it so credit to her for that (so I understand those who say she should not have been fired. The other side of the coin is that Navdeep didn't, in what we saw, raise this in the boardroom).
What I didn't say in my earlier comment was that Navdeep went further than standing her ground against using Chameleon. She predicted that if they used it they would be open to criticism in the pitch.
So there is an argument that Lucy was culpable enough to be brought back into the boardroom instead of Navdeep.
However my point is that it is untrue that "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Lucy and Stephen were to blame, and Andrew was in the firing line for being PM and going along with Lucy & Stephen.
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“With respect, I disagree with the part in bold. I wrote in an earlier comment:
You say "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Actually, once the contradiction was pointed out (chameleons are known for blending in, not standing out), Andrew was strongly against using "Chameleon". It was Stephen and Lucy who persuaded him to change his mind.
Navdeep was, at that stage (after Andrew had been persuaded to change his mind), still strongly against it so credit to her for that (so I understand those who say she should not have been fired. The other side of the coin is that Navdeep didn't, in what we saw, raise this in the boardroom).
What I didn't say in my earlier comment was that Navdeep went further than standing her ground against using Chameleon. She predicted that if they used it they would be open to criticism in the pitch.
So there is an argument that Lucy was culpable enough to be brought back into the boardroom instead of Navdeep.
However my point is that it is untrue that "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Lucy and Stephen were to blame, and Andrew was in the firing line for being PM and going along with Lucy & Stephen.”
“With respect, I disagree with the part in bold. I wrote in an earlier comment:
You say "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Actually, once the contradiction was pointed out (chameleons are known for blending in, not standing out), Andrew was strongly against using "Chameleon". It was Stephen and Lucy who persuaded him to change his mind.
Navdeep was, at that stage (after Andrew had been persuaded to change his mind), still strongly against it so credit to her for that (so I understand those who say she should not have been fired. The other side of the coin is that Navdeep didn't, in what we saw, raise this in the boardroom).
What I didn't say in my earlier comment was that Navdeep went further than standing her ground against using Chameleon. She predicted that if they used it they would be open to criticism in the pitch.
So there is an argument that Lucy was culpable enough to be brought back into the boardroom instead of Navdeep.
However my point is that it is untrue that "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Lucy and Stephen were to blame, and Andrew was in the firing line for being PM and going along with Lucy & Stephen.”
shhh I got told off last week for blaming Lucy in Task 5
Originally Posted by ilovenicnacs:
“shhh I got told off last week for blaming Lucy in Task 5”
“shhh I got told off last week for blaming Lucy in Task 5
”
Ha! I didn't know that.
People on here have commented about her looks. They seem to be blind to her performance.
I've watched the buying/negotiating task today. Lucy had no idea how to pronounce candelabrum or how to pronounce it. She looks bright but I don't think she is.
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“I've watched the buying/negotiating task today. Lucy had no idea how to pronounce candelabrum or how to pronounce it. She looks bright but I don't think she is.”
“I've watched the buying/negotiating task today. Lucy had no idea how to pronounce candelabrum or how to pronounce it. She looks bright but I don't think she is.”
She wasn't the only one who didn't know that. None of the candidates on either team knew that. In fact, at least one of the people they phoned had no idea what it was either.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“She wasn't the only one who didn't know that. None of the candidates on either team knew that. In fact, at least one of the people they phoned had no idea what it was either.”
“She wasn't the only one who didn't know that. None of the candidates on either team knew that. In fact, at least one of the people they phoned had no idea what it was either.”
Only because none of the candidates could pronounce Candelabrum! and at their age they really should have known what a candelabrum was. I admire your dedication to Lucy, (carried over from last week
) but I'm not going to get into argy with you about whether she was bad or not, as you think the sun shines out of her wotsit, and that is your perogative.
Originally Posted by ilovenicnacs:
“Only because none of the candidates could pronounce Candelabrum! and at their age they really should have known what a candelabrum was. I admire your dedication to Lucy, (carried over from last week) but I'm not going to get into argy with you about whether she was bad or not, as you think the sun shines out of her wotsit, and that is your perogative.”
“Only because none of the candidates could pronounce Candelabrum! and at their age they really should have known what a candelabrum was. I admire your dedication to Lucy, (carried over from last week
) but I'm not going to get into argy with you about whether she was bad or not, as you think the sun shines out of her wotsit, and that is your perogative.”
Steven spelt it for someone down the phone, and they didn't know what it was.
I don't think the sun shines out of her wotsit! I just think that she's the best of the group, nothing wrong with that. If she does something fundamentally wrong next week, I might change my mind. But surely the whole point of these forums is to discuss the show and the characters on it, if we're not going to talk about that what's the point of being here?
Originally Posted by ilovenicnacs:
“Only because none of the candidates could pronounce Candelabrum! and at their age they really should have known what a candelabrum was. I admire your dedication to Lucy, (carried over from last week)but I'm not going to get into argy with you about whether she was bad or not, as you think the sun shines out of her wotsit, and that is your perogative.”
“Only because none of the candidates could pronounce Candelabrum! and at their age they really should have known what a candelabrum was. I admire your dedication to Lucy, (carried over from last week
)but I'm not going to get into argy with you about whether she was bad or not, as you think the sun shines out of her wotsit, and that is your perogative.”
I misread that as "I'm not going to get into an orgy about it"!
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“She wasn't the only one who didn't know that. None of the candidates on either team knew that. In fact, at least one of the people they phoned had no idea what it was either.”
“She wasn't the only one who didn't know that. None of the candidates on either team knew that. In fact, at least one of the people they phoned had no idea what it was either.”
George, I think you missed it. The other team bought the candelabrum - they showed it in the programme.
I did wonder (just wonder) if people in the shops they were going to had been asked not to say what it was, if they knew. I was just surprised that they never found out.
... and, when collecting the boots, the team asked the salesmen if they knew what a candelabrum was but they completely pronounced it wrongly. The salesman said "Do you mean bandana?". Lucy replied "No they're bandelodrums or something".
I'm not impressed with Lucy.
If you are going to ask people if they know what a word means, wouldn't you write the word down if you couldn't remember it?
I'm not impressed with Lucy.
If you are going to ask people if they know what a word means, wouldn't you write the word down if you couldn't remember it?
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“I did wonder (just wonder) if people in the shops they were going to had been asked not to say what it was, if they knew. I was just surprised that they never found out.”
“I did wonder (just wonder) if people in the shops they were going to had been asked not to say what it was, if they knew. I was just surprised that they never found out.”
It's an idea, I suppose, but I doubt it. Someone else suggested that they may have been barred from doing what Zara did last year, and phoning a library. Which begs the question, if no one on the team knows what a product is and no one is allowed to tell them, how exactly are they supposed to find it?
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“... and, when collecting the boots, the team asked the salesmen if they knew what a candelabrum was but they completely pronounced it wrongly. The salesman said "Do you mean bandana?". Lucy replied "No they're bandelodrums or something".
I'm not impressed with Lucy. ”
“... and, when collecting the boots, the team asked the salesmen if they knew what a candelabrum was but they completely pronounced it wrongly. The salesman said "Do you mean bandana?". Lucy replied "No they're bandelodrums or something".
I'm not impressed with Lucy. ”
That's a fair point. She's not perfect, but then no one is. I don't think there are many good people this year actually, Lucy is just arguably the best of a bad lot.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“... That's a fair point. She's not perfect, but then no one is. I don't think there are many good people this year actually, Lucy is just arguably the best of a bad lot.”
“... That's a fair point. She's not perfect, but then no one is. I don't think there are many good people this year actually, Lucy is just arguably the best of a bad lot.”
I'm only pointing out Lucy's flaws because so many people on here like her yet to me she was just an anonymous person in the background. No spark.
Due to those people's comments, I've paid attention to what she does and been surprised at her culpability while not being chosen for the boardroom. She was even slipping under my radar (but then to me she was nothing special rather than a contender).
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“I'm only pointing out Lucy's flaws because so many people on here like her yet to me she was just an anonymous person in the background. No spark.
Due to those people's comments, I've paid attention to what she does and been surprised at her culpability while not being chosen for the boardroom. She was even slipping under my radar (but then to me she was nothing special rather than a contender).”
“I'm only pointing out Lucy's flaws because so many people on here like her yet to me she was just an anonymous person in the background. No spark.
Due to those people's comments, I've paid attention to what she does and been surprised at her culpability while not being chosen for the boardroom. She was even slipping under my radar (but then to me she was nothing special rather than a contender).”
I suppose, but I think the overall winners tend to be in the early episodes. Helen appeared to be that at the start of Series 7. I noticed her very early on, because she didn't come to the forefront, and yet she didn't appear to be sitting on the fence. Every time we did see her, she appeared to be working really hard and suggesting good ideas, and after Episode 2 I wanted her to win, even though she hadn't had a very strong edit. Then, she went on to break lots of records in the series and eventually finished as runner-up, stopped from winning only by her business plan.
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“George, I think you missed it. The other team bought the candelabrum - they showed it in the programme.
I did wonder (just wonder) if people in the shops they were going to had been asked not to say what it was, if they knew. I was just surprised that they never found out.”
“George, I think you missed it. The other team bought the candelabrum - they showed it in the programme.
I did wonder (just wonder) if people in the shops they were going to had been asked not to say what it was, if they knew. I was just surprised that they never found out.”
I think some of the people they didn't spell the word to might have known, but were thrown by their pronounciation.
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“With respect, I disagree with the part in bold. I wrote in an earlier comment:
You say "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Actually, once the contradiction was pointed out (chameleons are known for blending in, not standing out), Andrew was strongly against using "Chameleon". It was Stephen and Lucy who persuaded him to change his mind.
Navdeep was, at that stage (after Andrew had been persuaded to change his mind), still strongly against it so credit to her for that (so I understand those who say she should not have been fired. The other side of the coin is that Navdeep didn't, in what we saw, raise this in the boardroom).
What I didn't say in my earlier comment was that Navdeep went further than standing her ground against using Chameleon. She predicted that if they used it they would be open to criticism in the pitch.
So there is an argument that Lucy was culpable enough to be brought back into the boardroom instead of Navdeep.
However my point is that it is untrue that "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Lucy and Stephen were to blame, and Andrew was in the firing line for being PM and going along with Lucy & Stephen.”
“With respect, I disagree with the part in bold. I wrote in an earlier comment:
You say "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Actually, once the contradiction was pointed out (chameleons are known for blending in, not standing out), Andrew was strongly against using "Chameleon". It was Stephen and Lucy who persuaded him to change his mind.
Navdeep was, at that stage (after Andrew had been persuaded to change his mind), still strongly against it so credit to her for that (so I understand those who say she should not have been fired. The other side of the coin is that Navdeep didn't, in what we saw, raise this in the boardroom).
What I didn't say in my earlier comment was that Navdeep went further than standing her ground against using Chameleon. She predicted that if they used it they would be open to criticism in the pitch.
So there is an argument that Lucy was culpable enough to be brought back into the boardroom instead of Navdeep.
However my point is that it is untrue that "...Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course...". Lucy and Stephen were to blame, and Andrew was in the firing line for being PM and going along with Lucy & Stephen.”
Fair enough. My memory was at fault.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“Steven spelt it for someone down the phone, and they didn't know what it was.
I don't think the sun shines out of her wotsit! I just think that she's the best of the group, nothing wrong with that. If she does something fundamentally wrong next week, I might change my mind. But surely the whole point of these forums is to discuss the show and the characters on it, if we're not going to talk about that what's the point of being here?”
“Steven spelt it for someone down the phone, and they didn't know what it was.
I don't think the sun shines out of her wotsit! I just think that she's the best of the group, nothing wrong with that. If she does something fundamentally wrong next week, I might change my mind. But surely the whole point of these forums is to discuss the show and the characters on it, if we're not going to talk about that what's the point of being here?”
I agree Totally George, but the last couple of weeks whenever I have pointed out flaws and/or mistakes in all the Candidates (not just Lucy) you seem to let most of them go but jumped on me when I said anything bad about Lucy
as in the play club ep. we did 10 Rounds arguing the toss about Lucy and David's contributions, I said Lucy could have tried harder and was lucky to excape the Boardroom (as she has several times) and you almost burst a blood vessel defending her. (not just you I know, but you did your fair share ), Im more than happy to discuss all the Candidates flaws and talents with you on here
just less of the Lucy love?
I think Lucy is the best of a bad bunch and if anyone wants to suggest that's because she's pretty, or I think the sun shines out of her wotsit, then I'm insulted. She's ok looking but so what, she just happens to be the best candidate in a lot of people's opinions. Some people seem more obsessed with hating her than anyone is with admiring her...
Originally Posted by ilovenicnacs:
“I agree Totally George, but the last couple of weeks whenever I have pointed out flaws and/or mistakes in all the Candidates (not just Lucy) you seem to let most of them go but jumped on me when I said anything bad about Lucy as in the play club ep. we did 10 Rounds arguing the toss about Lucy and David's contributions, I said Lucy could have tried harder and was lucky to excape the Boardroom (as she has several times) and you almost burst a blood vessel defending her. (not just you I know, but you did your fair share ),
Im more than happy to discuss all the Candidates flaws and talents with you on here just less of the Lucy love?”
“I agree Totally George, but the last couple of weeks whenever I have pointed out flaws and/or mistakes in all the Candidates (not just Lucy) you seem to let most of them go but jumped on me when I said anything bad about Lucy
as in the play club ep. we did 10 Rounds arguing the toss about Lucy and David's contributions, I said Lucy could have tried harder and was lucky to excape the Boardroom (as she has several times) and you almost burst a blood vessel defending her. (not just you I know, but you did your fair share ), Im more than happy to discuss all the Candidates flaws and talents with you on here
just less of the Lucy love?”
I think you've misunderstood the points of what I've been saying. If I think that someone is good, and someone else on here is saying something bad about them that I disagree with, of course I'm going to defend them. What's wrong with that? I don't think I'm jumping on you, I'm just disagreeing with you and saying why. The whole point of the forums is to discuss The Apprentice, I don't understand why you're getting offended just because people disagree with you on here.
I don't mind when people disagree with me. If you've been reading my posts, you'll see that I've been quite vocally critical of Andrew. There are some people who think that he is one of the best, and they disagree with me when I criticise him. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just what the discussion is for. I'm not blindly supporting Lucy, I just think she's the best because of what I've seen. I don't see why you're taking this so personally.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I think you've misunderstood the points of what I've been saying. If I think that someone is good, and someone else on here is saying something bad about them that I disagree with, of course I'm going to defend them. What's wrong with that? I don't think I'm jumping on you, I'm just disagreeing with you and saying why. The whole point of the forums is to discuss The Apprentice, I don't understand why you're getting offended just because people disagree with you on here.
I don't mind when people disagree with me. If you've been reading my posts, you'll see that I've been quite vocally critical of Andrew. There are some people who think that he is one of the best, and they disagree with me when I criticise him. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just what the discussion is for. I'm not blindly supporting Lucy, I just think she's the best because of what I've seen. I don't see why you're taking this so personally.”
“I think you've misunderstood the points of what I've been saying. If I think that someone is good, and someone else on here is saying something bad about them that I disagree with, of course I'm going to defend them. What's wrong with that? I don't think I'm jumping on you, I'm just disagreeing with you and saying why. The whole point of the forums is to discuss The Apprentice, I don't understand why you're getting offended just because people disagree with you on here.
I don't mind when people disagree with me. If you've been reading my posts, you'll see that I've been quite vocally critical of Andrew. There are some people who think that he is one of the best, and they disagree with me when I criticise him. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just what the discussion is for. I'm not blindly supporting Lucy, I just think she's the best because of what I've seen. I don't see why you're taking this so personally.”
Im not taking it personally George
and I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, honestly, I do think Lucy could be a viable Finalist, the matter I was referring to was when someone in the Task 5 thread asked why David had been bought in and not Lucy as they were equally to blame, and when I said Lucy was not bought in because David was easier to blame due to his track record but that Lucy was just as much to blame, you posted several posts just asking what Lucy had done wrong, and no matter how I tried to explain, you just kept asking why I was blaming Lucy, it just seemed you could see no wrong in Lucy and no matter what I said no were determined to get me to admit Lucy was the Golden Child I actually said at the time I wished Ashleigh had gone as I did nt think Lucy or David deserved to go on that task.I have no problem with a little disageement, but it seemed to go on forever with you pushing Lucy without acknowledging hardly anything I said.Norrin, I have never said I hate Lucy!! where did that come from? the "wotsit" comment was to George, (see above). Im sorry if I have offended anyone, but Im entitled to my opinion too, and while I think she is a good candidate, she is very good at getting herself out of scrapes.
Originally Posted by ilovenicnacs:
“Im not taking it personally George and I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, honestly, I do think Lucy could be a viable Finalist, the matter I was referring to was when someone in the Task 5 thread asked why David had been bought in and not Lucy as they were equally to blame, and when I said Lucy was not bought in because David was easier to blame due to his track record but that Lucy was just as much to blame, you posted several posts just asking what Lucy had done wrong, and no matter how I tried to explain, you just kept asking why I was blaming Lucy, it just seemed you could see no wrong in Lucy and no matter what I said no were determined to get me to admit Lucy was the Golden Child I actually said at the time I wished Ashleigh had gone as I did nt think Lucy or David deserved to go on that task.I have no problem with a little disageement, but it seemed to go on forever with you pushing Lucy without acknowledging hardly anything I said.
Norrin, I have never said I hate Lucy!! where did that come from? the "wotsit" comment was to George, (see above). Im sorry if I have offended anyone, but Im entitled to my opinion too, and while I think she is a good candidate, she is very good at getting herself out of scrapes.”
“Im not taking it personally George
and I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, honestly, I do think Lucy could be a viable Finalist, the matter I was referring to was when someone in the Task 5 thread asked why David had been bought in and not Lucy as they were equally to blame, and when I said Lucy was not bought in because David was easier to blame due to his track record but that Lucy was just as much to blame, you posted several posts just asking what Lucy had done wrong, and no matter how I tried to explain, you just kept asking why I was blaming Lucy, it just seemed you could see no wrong in Lucy and no matter what I said no were determined to get me to admit Lucy was the Golden Child I actually said at the time I wished Ashleigh had gone as I did nt think Lucy or David deserved to go on that task.I have no problem with a little disageement, but it seemed to go on forever with you pushing Lucy without acknowledging hardly anything I said.Norrin, I have never said I hate Lucy!! where did that come from? the "wotsit" comment was to George, (see above). Im sorry if I have offended anyone, but Im entitled to my opinion too, and while I think she is a good candidate, she is very good at getting herself out of scrapes.”
Are you sure that was me? I've looked back through my posts on the Week 5 thread, and I don't remember going on and on about Lucy... You said you didn't think David should have been in the boardroom, and I asked if you thought Lucy should be in there over David. You said you didn't think either David or Lucy should have been there (which wasn't a decision Ashleigh was able to make), and I explained why I thought Ashleigh was within her rights to bring back David over Lucy. If anything, I was defending Ashleigh more than Lucy.
Thanks for your 'hope we are friends again' comment on the other thread. I haven't intended to say anything that would undermine your opinion or anyone else's, I just try to state my own and discuss it. If you have felt that way as a result of anything I have said then I apologise for that, as I know a lot of people who try to make others feel small when they don't agree with them, and it's a trait I really dislike in people. But for the record, I don't bare grudges against anyone on these forums, or indeed in my life most of the time; I find that quite childish. So no hard feelings
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“Are you sure that was me? I've looked back through my posts on the Week 5 thread, and I don't remember going on and on about Lucy... You said you didn't think David should have been in the boardroom, and I asked if you thought Lucy should be in there over David. You said you didn't think either David or Lucy should have been there (which wasn't a decision Ashleigh was able to make), and I explained why I thought Ashleigh was within her rights to bring back David over Lucy. If anything, I was defending Ashleigh more than Lucy.
Thanks for your 'hope we are friends again' comment on the other thread. I haven't intended to say anything that would undermine your opinion or anyone else's, I just try to state my own and discuss it. If you have felt that way as a result of anything I have said then I apologise for that, as I know a lot of people who try to make others feel small when they don't agree with them, and it's a trait I really dislike in people. But for the record, I don't bare grudges against anyone on these forums, or indeed in my life most of the time; I find that quite childish. So no hard feelings”
“Are you sure that was me? I've looked back through my posts on the Week 5 thread, and I don't remember going on and on about Lucy... You said you didn't think David should have been in the boardroom, and I asked if you thought Lucy should be in there over David. You said you didn't think either David or Lucy should have been there (which wasn't a decision Ashleigh was able to make), and I explained why I thought Ashleigh was within her rights to bring back David over Lucy. If anything, I was defending Ashleigh more than Lucy.
Thanks for your 'hope we are friends again' comment on the other thread. I haven't intended to say anything that would undermine your opinion or anyone else's, I just try to state my own and discuss it. If you have felt that way as a result of anything I have said then I apologise for that, as I know a lot of people who try to make others feel small when they don't agree with them, and it's a trait I really dislike in people. But for the record, I don't bare grudges against anyone on these forums, or indeed in my life most of the time; I find that quite childish. So no hard feelings
”
I like you and appreciate your comments on here. I'm sure others do too.
Originally Posted by hawk001:
“I like you and appreciate your comments on here. I'm sure others do too.”
“I like you and appreciate your comments on here. I'm sure others do too.”
Thanks
You've made quite a lot of positive remarks about my comments, they're really lovely to read and they mean a lot to me.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“Are you sure that was me? I've looked back through my posts on the Week 5 thread, and I don't remember going on and on about Lucy...”
“Are you sure that was me? I've looked back through my posts on the Week 5 thread, and I don't remember going on and on about Lucy...”
There were two or three of us who liked Lucy; it maybe left an impression that there was one person going on endlessly about her.
Nor do I recant; I'm still struggling to find any real weaknesses, especially compared to the other contestants.
travesty of justice that navdeep went
andrew should have gone..thorn just has it in for some people if he thinks they dont have a spark
andrew should have gone..thorn just has it in for some people if he thinks they dont have a spark
16 of 17
