Originally Posted by snickypoo:
“If bl@@dy Gemma wins, I swear I will boil my head!
”
“If bl@@dy Gemma wins, I swear I will boil my head!
”
that's the thing with these vapid z- listers, they're all as bad as each other.
What John did......
3 of 3
It blew his game apart, though. As did his sloppy errors earlier on about currying favour with the public. So while he remains in the house, it's still relevant IMO.
Originally Posted by GrozzyGirl:
“I don't think that's being said, just that he's doing whatever he can to win, no matter how desperate it reveals him to be or how unconvincing he is.
Why do people keep reading into opinions , things that aren't there.
It's like they've only come on here for fight.”
“I don't think that's being said, just that he's doing whatever he can to win, no matter how desperate it reveals him to be or how unconvincing he is.
Why do people keep reading into opinions , things that aren't there.
It's like they've only come on here for fight.”
Seeing as you have responded to my comments, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you are intimating that I am looking for a fight
)GrozzyGirl, please allow me to reassure you that a "fight" in print or otherwise is not on my agenda. Where do you get that from btw.
Anyhoo... I'm happy to disabuse you of your risable and mistaken notion.
Originally Posted by Scarlett Berry:
“Seeing as you have responded to my comments, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you are intimating that I am looking for a fight)
GrozzyGirl, please allow me to reassure you that a "fight" in print or otherwise is not on my agenda. Where do you get that from btw.
Anyhoo... I'm happy to disabuse you of your risable and mistaken notion.”
“Seeing as you have responded to my comments, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you are intimating that I am looking for a fight
)GrozzyGirl, please allow me to reassure you that a "fight" in print or otherwise is not on my agenda. Where do you get that from btw.
Anyhoo... I'm happy to disabuse you of your risable and mistaken notion.”
Basic compression skills would show you that the remark is a general comment using the term people and referring to repeated behaviour. So clearly not you as I don't say you. And I'm only referring to one comment of yours.
In your case you did use specific terms regarding comments made to describe Johns behaviour that have not been said on this thread. Ergo, I'm sure you can understand that I'm correct to correct your (shall we say) error.
But as for specifically accusing you, no I'm not and that should be clear as I put it very simply.
I'm imistaken about nothing deary.
I shan't be back for your aplology so I shall take it as read.
Originally Posted by GrozzyGirl:
“Basic compression skills would show you that the remark is a general comment using the term people and referring to repeated behaviour. So clearly not you as I don't say you. And I'm only referring to one comment of yours.
In your case you did use specific terms regarding comments made to describe Johns behaviour that have not been said on this thread. Ergo, I'm sure you can understand that I'm correct to correct your (shall we say) error.
But as for specifically accusing you, no I'm not and that should be clear as I put it very simply.
I'm imistaken about nothing deary.
I shan't be back for your aplology so I shall take it as read.”
“Basic compression skills would show you that the remark is a general comment using the term people and referring to repeated behaviour. So clearly not you as I don't say you. And I'm only referring to one comment of yours.
In your case you did use specific terms regarding comments made to describe Johns behaviour that have not been said on this thread. Ergo, I'm sure you can understand that I'm correct to correct your (shall we say) error.
But as for specifically accusing you, no I'm not and that should be clear as I put it very simply.
I'm imistaken about nothing deary.
I shan't be back for your aplology so I shall take it as read.”
Just as well, as one won't be forthcoming.
Falling off your risable , sanctimionious "high horse" can be traumatic, so please be careful.
You might see my concern, if you decide to deign us with your presence
Keep at it, GrozzyGirl - I've been lurking for just a few hours and it's extremely noticeable that supporters of John don't like what you're saying and are attacking you subtly in various threads.
I think John's arrogance has cost him the win. He can play the game in the house but he thinks little of the average viewer's intelligence.
I think John's arrogance has cost him the win. He can play the game in the house but he thinks little of the average viewer's intelligence.
Originally Posted by GrozzyGirl:
“Basic compression skills would show you that the remark is a general comment using the term people and referring to repeated behaviour. So clearly not you as I don't say you. And I'm only referring to one comment of yours.
In your case you did use specific terms regarding comments made to describe Johns behaviour that have not been said on this thread. Ergo, I'm sure you can understand that I'm correct to correct your (shall we say) error.
But as for specifically accusing you, no I'm not and that should be clear as I put it very simply.
I'm imistaken about nothing deary.
I shan't be back for your aplology so I shall take it as read.”
“Basic compression skills would show you that the remark is a general comment using the term people and referring to repeated behaviour. So clearly not you as I don't say you. And I'm only referring to one comment of yours.
In your case you did use specific terms regarding comments made to describe Johns behaviour that have not been said on this thread. Ergo, I'm sure you can understand that I'm correct to correct your (shall we say) error.
But as for specifically accusing you, no I'm not and that should be clear as I put it very simply.
I'm imistaken about nothing deary.
I shan't be back for your aplology so I shall take it as read.”
Again with the the patronising posts, are you hoping to be banned from the forum in some way?
Originally Posted by trevvytrev21:
“Keep at it, GrozzyGirl - I've been lurking for just a few hours and it's extremely noticeable that supporters of John don't like what you're saying and are attacking you subtly in various threads.
I think John's arrogance has cost him the win. He can play the game in the house but he thinks little of the average viewer's intelligence.”
“Keep at it, GrozzyGirl - I've been lurking for just a few hours and it's extremely noticeable that supporters of John don't like what you're saying and are attacking you subtly in various threads.
I think John's arrogance has cost him the win. He can play the game in the house but he thinks little of the average viewer's intelligence.”
Sadly, she won't see your support, as if she stated, she won't be around .
Oh and those that proffer their opinions that differ with "GrozzyGirl, are not automatically fans of John. What a silly, lazy assumption.
Originally Posted by trevvytrev21:
“Keep at it, GrozzyGirl - I've been lurking for just a few hours and it's extremely noticeable that supporters of John don't like what you're saying and are attacking you subtly in various threads.
I think John's arrogance has cost him the win. He can play the game in the house but he thinks little of the average viewer's intelligence.”
“Keep at it, GrozzyGirl - I've been lurking for just a few hours and it's extremely noticeable that supporters of John don't like what you're saying and are attacking you subtly in various threads.
I think John's arrogance has cost him the win. He can play the game in the house but he thinks little of the average viewer's intelligence.”
Same as Gemma and Tiffany then.
Originally Posted by Scarlett Berry:
“Sadly, she won't see your support, as if she stated, she won't be around .
Oh and those that proffer their opinions that differ with "GrozzyGirl, are not automatically fans of John. What a silly, lazy assumption.”
“Sadly, she won't see your support, as if she stated, she won't be around .
Oh and those that proffer their opinions that differ with "GrozzyGirl, are not automatically fans of John. What a silly, lazy assumption.”
I agree.
Originally Posted by reader123:
“Because Gemma and Tiffany don't want it forgotten, it is how the control the HM's and indeed those of the GBP who cannot see what they are up to. Shame, was really warming to Tiffany.”
“Because Gemma and Tiffany don't want it forgotten, it is how the control the HM's and indeed those of the GBP who cannot see what they are up to. Shame, was really warming to Tiffany.”
Tiffany has NEVER mentioned it even once. It was Gemma who nominated him for it and Stephanie who dug in after that. Also Darren whined about it to the girls ad infinitum for days and days and in the face to face Darren nominated him for it weeks after it happened.
Originally Posted by Heatherbell:
“Not seen darren mention it since he explained his nom to john in the bedroom on noms night .
Other than that the only ones going on about it are john supporters on bots etc trying to justify his shameful trashing of a pal . So yeah , they need to get over it really .”
“Not seen darren mention it since he explained his nom to john in the bedroom on noms night .
Other than that the only ones going on about it are john supporters on bots etc trying to justify his shameful trashing of a pal . So yeah , they need to get over it really .”
Darren mentioned it in the F2F nominations and then again afterwards and then again later on. It's the only thing Darren has talked about since it happened. He is a massive whiner. And that's just what made the highlights. It's been Darren's only talking point since it happened. He needs to grow up already.
Originally Posted by Scarlett Berry:
“Sadly, she won't see your support, as if she stated, she won't be around .
Oh and those that proffer their opinions that differ with "GrozzyGirl, are not automatically fans of John. What a silly, lazy assumption.”
“Sadly, she won't see your support, as if she stated, she won't be around .
Oh and those that proffer their opinions that differ with "GrozzyGirl, are not automatically fans of John. What a silly, lazy assumption.”
Didn't say that.
Keep your silly, lazy assumptions thanks. I'd just noticed quite a number of posts that were very salty in nature. The most bothered were definitely John fans. I like that he's divisive but his lack of morals/empathy for others is a big turn off.
Originally Posted by trevvytrev21:
“Didn't say that. Keep your silly, lazy assumptions thanks.
I'd just noticed quite a number of posts that were very salty in nature. The most bothered were definitely John fans. I like that he's divisive but his lack of morals/empathy for others is a big turn off.”
“Didn't say that.
Keep your silly, lazy assumptions thanks. I'd just noticed quite a number of posts that were very salty in nature. The most bothered were definitely John fans. I like that he's divisive but his lack of morals/empathy for others is a big turn off.”
BIB..havent a scooby what you mean, so do feel free to enlighten me. Moreover, I wasn't responding to any post you had contributed to, so why you felt the need to get arsey...well....knock yourself out pal!
What does "salty in nature mean". I'd love an explanation, but only if you care to give one.
Thanks.
Originally Posted by GrozzyGirl:
“Oh and don't forget that pathetic crying in the DR about gay adoption.
Soooo hammy.
And in public too”
“Oh and don't forget that pathetic crying in the DR about gay adoption.
Soooo hammy.
And in public too
”
Would you like to be viewed as a child abuser for wanting children
3 of 3
