Yes it is hard to accept because I'm pretty sure he would have limited support and people wouldn't be so vehemently defending him if it wasn't for his back story, as he contributed little in the house.

It's hard to take that seriously when I don't see it being made about lots of other posts that express an opinion about why a HM won.

And I'd still like to have it clarified whether you think that because you voted for Luke it's ok for you to say why other people voted for him, even though their reasons could have been different from yours, but it's not ok for someone who didn't vote for him to express an opinion on the subject?


The post was no more speaking for those who voted for him than any other post that expresses an opinion on why a HM won. I don't see anyone attacking all posts that express such views or holding back from expressing such views themselves.

Notice, btw, how you've droped the "claim" part. Because of course the post did not claim to speak for those who voted for him. "Claim" made it sound worse, but there was no such claim.


Nonetheless, you accept that people can be wrong about why they think as they do.


If you find it admirable to stay out of arguments even as a tactic to avoid nominations, fine. But that doesn't mean it can't be a tactic to avoid nominations. (Not that staying out of arguments is the only way to try to fly below the radar, of course.)


Note that I didn't say the HMs expected it to be shown. I even said "they couldn't be sure it would be shown".


So if a HM's looks were a big factor in why they were picked -- as in some of your initial examples -- then you think their looks cease to matter once they're in the house? Really?


You cannot possibly know that. And should you be speaking for all the viewers who formed a judgement?


What made him look like the obvious winner on day 1?

DId you also not know he'd been in X Factor? In any case, do you think no liking for Rylan carried over from X Factor? Because if some did, how can we know it wasn't enough to get him the CBB win?

That's enough for one post.

No one told you why you wanted Luke to win.

When someone speaks in general terms such as "people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories", it should not be understood as a claim about everyone with no exceptions.


You can't know that.

Oh Dear!

Firstly, people on here still vehemently defend other winners too, that's the nature of the forum, some people try to come up with reasons why Housemate A should or shouldn't have won and others try to argue their case for the opposite viewpoint. Secondly Luke was the most recent winner so is more likely than say Brian Belo to have people around to speak up for him.

And last but by no means least Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother.

Looking forward to seeing Luke again on BOTS

I accept that however, some of his fans seem incapble of acknowledging any of his negative aspects as a housemate and put him on a pedestal which does him or his fans no favours and if anything is quite patronizing towards him.

"Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother

Or in other words, promote himself on twitter. Also according to threads on here his relationship with his fans has become a bit clichey.

If he had said some people instead of just people and not used the word majority, then I wouldn't have read as including me! The post comes across to me as giving reasons why I voted as I did and I am entitled to read it this way.

people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories. In both cases the majority voting reflected the times where minorities are lauded just for being minorites,

me too - and two nights in a row

It shouldn't be necessary to explicitly say "some", and even a "majority" needn't have to include you.

You're entitled to read it any way you want, and I'm entitled to say you're reading it as saying something that it didn't.

I accept that some people will not accept any of his faults as a housemate although I myself struggle to find many and those that are listed can usually be explained by a mixture of editing, the singularly unpleasant atmosphere and Big Brother presenters who delighted in looking for anything remotely salacious to report.

No, promoting himself on twitter was not what I meant. In fact he has done very little to actually promote since leaving the house, most of the offers he could have taken up he hasn't ended up doing . I meant he has made himself so accessible that many people seem to think he has a duty to be there for them 24 hours a day responding to messages and has no right to a life of his own.

As regards some of his so-called Army being a bit cliquey that is true but it's probably because he is too nice and was not media savvy enough to have the sense to keep his followers at arm's length

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. People vote for lots of different reasons. When Luke was up against Ashleigh, Becky, and Deana, for example, some could have voted for him because they wanted one of the others out. I don't think I liked Luke at that point, but I may well have voted for him. (I say it like that because I don't remember for sure how, or even if, I voted that time.)

As we've seen in many discussions in this forum, some people care a lot about how much they like the HMs, and other people don't. Didn't you have a whole thread about that?


Often, it's just a distraction from the topic that's supposed to be under discussion. (Not that the post did vilify him, btw.)


"The others were just as bad" is not much of an argument for a HM, though, is it?


No, that won't do. Do I have to quote the posts in which the amount of time they spent smoking was treated as the issue? Even in the post in this thread that I was answering, you said -- for example -- "I asked Luke afterwards when Ashleigh smoked, since we almost never saw her; he said in some surprise that she spent as long sitting smoking in the garden as he did." Even in the post I'm answering now, you say "Lisa, who managed to give the impression that she sat and smoked all day"; and you say Luke's 'story' was "sits in the garden smoking". That's about how he spent his time, not about whether he had a larger share of the tobacco.

But now I wonder even more exactly what Luke said about Ashley smoking, and exactly what he was asked. Because if it was about the amount of tobacco, then when you've reported it as about time, that was your inference rather than what he said.

Indeed, if your point is and was about the amount of tobacco, that makes your argument worse, not better. I don't think i've ever seen anyone say the problem with Luke was that he smoked more of the tobacco than other HMs. The amount has a role, but it's in showing something about the time -- as in your Lisa example: "Lisa, who managed to give the impression that she sat and smoked all day even when they were on a ration of two cigarettes a day. The limited ration is supposed to show that it could not be true that she spent all day sitting and smoking.

Now, if what we have is that Luke and Ashleigh smoked the same about of tobacco, they could have spent different amounts of time doing it, so that "sat and smoked for months" is a fairer description of Luke than of Ashleigh. Of course, it could be argued that they couldn't have spent hugely different amounts of time smoking.

Ok; but the point isn't literally about how much time Luke spent actually smoking. Consider the difference between (a) someone who goes to the smoking area, has a quick cigarette, then goes back to their friends, and (b) someone who spends a lot of time in the smoking area, sometimes smoking, sometimes chatting, or just sitting there, while others smoke, or while others sit there too, or alone. People aren't going to sum up (a)'s time as "sat and smoked for months", but they might so sum up (b)'s. Similarly for Lisa. Sure, she wasn't literally smoking all day. Still, even though she couldn't literally have smoked all day when the ration was so little, she could still have spent most of the day in much the same place, doing nothing else of note (or else bitching or grumbling).

As I said, if BB picked scenes at random, how active would Luke have seemed? I suspect we'd still have seen a lot of him sitting in the smoking area. If much the same result can be had by picking times at random, it doesn't take an editing trick. I don't think many viewers thought Ashleigh didn't smoke. They may well have thought she didn't spend a lot of her time sitting in the smoking area, but it could be true that she didn't spend much of her time that way.

Also, there's often simplification and exaggeration when someone sums up a HM. No one thinks Luke literally did nothing but sit and smoke, as if he didn't even eat or sleep or take part in tasks. There doesn't have to be an editing trick that accounts for simplified and exaggerated descriptions.

One further problem with the "editing trick" idea is that it suggests BB deliberately tried to create a false impression by using editing techniques with that end in mind. A milder version is that BB has made up some stories and edits to fit the stories rather than what actually happened.

BB has people whose job is something like 'story editor'. Guilty as charged? Well, I was watching Springwatch last week, and one of the shows went into how it was produced. Springwatch has story editors too. (I'm not sure of the exact job titles for either show, but they're at least close to 'story editor'.) The process of extracting stories probably does distort to some extent. For example, long stretches in which nothing much happens will tend to be left out or covered very briefly. However, I think it would be misleading to describe the process as an editing trick. (I am not, btw, saying you did or would describe it as such.)

I think that what may have happened was this: When editing whole days down to less than an hour each, and trying to make an interesting show, so consequently trying to select the more significant scenes and moments, few of Ashleigh's were when she was in the smoking area, but many of Luke's were while he was there. Even something like a HM sitting alone in the smoking area can be significant, and the significance doesn't have to be "that's all this HM does" even though it might nonetheless reinforce any such beliefs among viewers.


Gos was often lying on the sofa (or was similarly inactive) when the others were active, and even when cooking he wasn't very energetic. I really don't think he qualifies as one of the most physically active housemates in bb4. (I didn't dislike him btw and didn't mind his physique.)


Did you, btw, vote for all of those HMs, so that it's ok for you to "speak for" those who did?


Ok.