If you have ever had to transcribe a REAL conversation (as I have, many times), you would realise how unnatural that transcript is: the remarkable lack of hesitation, self-correction, interjections and interruptions make it look like what it actually is - a script!

The message or content of the alleged conversation may be plausible, but the structure and format are obviously not.

The content most certainly was not plausible. Not the important parts anyway...

For reasons outlined above, I did not read very much of it. I assumed the content was plausible because a lot of idiots seem to believe it was real!

It was so clearly a spoof. Hilarious, really. But not as hilarious as the posters who were staking their life on its authenticity and on squirrel always being spot-on and bona fide. Funny how all those angry torch carrying villagers are suddenly nowhere to be seen

Faux Outrage

BiB:

I thought it was real - I could imagine Biggins coming out with some of that stuff and he has been removed from the house for upsetting Katie, with some inappropriate joke about Jews? (allegedly)

Just because some of us thought it was authentic does not make us angry, torch carrying villagers.

The hoaxer was secret squirrel if I remember right. And a lot of posters went on to say he was always spot-on with his insider information.

The name of the poster who posted the satirical transcript was Secret Squirrel or something.

or idiots either

But people WERE getting genuinely angry. There were pages and pages of people saying "that's disgusting, I'm outraged, this definitely isn't fake and neither is my outrage, outrage outrage OUTRAGE!!!".

The torches were definitely out in full force last night.

I'm certain some people may have even been burnt at the stake for having doubts. I smelt burning at one point.

I'm still convinced the OP of that thread is dead from laughter at the replies hence why he never came back.

And whose catchphrase is something along the lines of "Mark my words, you'll see I'm right" whenever s/he "predicted" someone would leave the house next and totally failed every time.

A total fantasist that had some very gullible people fooled for years and years. It's laughable.

I take it you didn't see anything then because there was nothing like you describe at all.

Most people were disgusted at some of the comments on the thread.

Nope, I read the whole thread and contributed regularly.

There was PLENTY of outrage in that thread with people saying they were disgusted at Biggins for his comments.

Still not seen any apologies to Biggins on here.

Yes I'll confess I did skip a lot of the posts that weren't debating the autheticity of the transcript and instead were getting into people's personal feelings on who 'runs' america and so forth...

If there's anything remotely positive to be taken from squirrel-gate though, its that everyone who would never engage in hypotheticals whenever the concept of free-speech was brought up, found themselves engaging in one without even knowing! And rather hearteningly did seem to admit there were lines that could be crossed after-all. So humanity isn't quite ****ed yet it seems.

He was removed from the house for saying something so why should people apologise.

He was removed from the house for offensive comments so for all we know what he said may be even worse than or just as bad as that transcript (doubt it but you never know). So I think people should wait until tonight before being apologetic.

Although I didn't comment on that thread, I also felt it could well be real for precisely the same reason as you: that I didn't find it shocking or surprising because it fitted my longtime perception of national treasure Biggins.

I've transcribed real BB conversations and I've read transcripts others have made of BB conversations I've heard, and I don't agree. It's up to the person who's typing it in how much of the messiness they include. There mere lack of messiness doesn't mean the conversation didn't occur pretty much as reported.

Why would someone write a fake transcript knowing that they could be sued for slander.

Agree. Putting aside the alleged 'fakeness' of it (which TBH I'm still on the fence about), objectively, as a transcript, I thought it provided a very rounded and authentic picture of the conversation on the part of everyone involved.