Originally Posted by primer:
“its more of a lawless hillbilly backwoods sort of place”
“its more of a lawless hillbilly backwoods sort of place”
Yee haw.
I do not believe it!
9 of 9
Originally Posted by primer:
“yes but with extra toes and fewer teeth.”
“yes but with extra toes and fewer teeth.”
(I don't have this many teeth irl)
Originally Posted by Gerry_Sheldon:
“I was responding to bettyboom43's apparent claim that only those willing to go on the Tour could be risked as finals fodder, and then I gave another disgruntled poke with my perceived belief that Claudia was underappreciated (by the judges in particular!)”
“I was responding to bettyboom43's apparent claim that only those willing to go on the Tour could be risked as finals fodder, and then I gave another disgruntled poke with my perceived belief that Claudia was underappreciated (by the judges in particular!)”
The 2 statements seemed to contradict each other.
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“Seconded!
There seems to be disbelief that [1] Louise must have topped the public vote at the weekend; [2] Claudia couldn't galvanise sufficient number of the pubic to vote for her; and [3] Danny isn't as popular as many seem to think he should be. Yet they are obvious for all to see.
The hysteria on here by everyone screaming 'fix', just because they don't like what has happened - which has now been turned into newspaper headlines by the anti-BBC Sun - is ridiculous and also unjustifiable. It only damages Strictly, and if that's what some FMs want, they should at least be honest about it.
There's always overmarking/undermarking in SCD - and always has been. This year, the problem is that the apparently semi-pro Danny is leagues ahead of everyone else technically - which leaves the producers with a problem: how to maintain the illusion of 'who's going to win'? And the judges are the perfect means to do that. But this isn't new - and it's actually a LOT less blatant than what happened in SCD6.”
“Seconded!
There seems to be disbelief that [1] Louise must have topped the public vote at the weekend; [2] Claudia couldn't galvanise sufficient number of the pubic to vote for her; and [3] Danny isn't as popular as many seem to think he should be. Yet they are obvious for all to see.
The hysteria on here by everyone screaming 'fix', just because they don't like what has happened - which has now been turned into newspaper headlines by the anti-BBC Sun - is ridiculous and also unjustifiable. It only damages Strictly, and if that's what some FMs want, they should at least be honest about it.
There's always overmarking/undermarking in SCD - and always has been. This year, the problem is that the apparently semi-pro Danny is leagues ahead of everyone else technically - which leaves the producers with a problem: how to maintain the illusion of 'who's going to win'? And the judges are the perfect means to do that. But this isn't new - and it's actually a LOT less blatant than what happened in SCD6.”
No hysteria - no screaming - just opinions.
Are saying there has been some ............ manipulation?
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“How do you know Ore is the least popular celeb? How do you know what the voting patterns are?
You can't possibly answer those questions with anything other than speculation - and Monkseal is right.
The fact is we have no idea how popular/unpopular Danny has been. There's just an assumption that he must have the public vote, but when he's topped the leader board so often, maybe that's not the case. Indeed, what if the judges have been over marking Danny in previous weeks to protect him?
Just saying …
”
“How do you know Ore is the least popular celeb? How do you know what the voting patterns are?
You can't possibly answer those questions with anything other than speculation - and Monkseal is right.
The fact is we have no idea how popular/unpopular Danny has been. There's just an assumption that he must have the public vote, but when he's topped the leader board so often, maybe that's not the case. Indeed, what if the judges have been over marking Danny in previous weeks to protect him?
Just saying …
”
Not............manipulation?
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“Claudia already lost to Ore once, at Blackpool. She's also now lost to Louise (twice), Ed, and Judge Rinder. Why her fans are still trying to present her as some sort of public vote juggernaut that got denied by a sliver, just because they personally got overexcited by a half-decent Argentine Tango, is beyond me.”
“Claudia already lost to Ore once, at Blackpool. She's also now lost to Louise (twice), Ed, and Judge Rinder. Why her fans are still trying to present her as some sort of public vote juggernaut that got denied by a sliver, just because they personally got overexcited by a half-decent Argentine Tango, is beyond me.”
Eh?
Originally Posted by philltee:
“Because Louise is dull as dishwater and dances like a Mum who has just cooked the kids some dinner and is bopping to radio 2, and Ore is an over-marked cry-baby who cannot hold it together and makes me want to run onto the show and slap him round the face and shout "pull it together man!"”
“Because Louise is dull as dishwater and dances like a Mum who has just cooked the kids some dinner and is bopping to radio 2, and Ore is an over-marked cry-baby who cannot hold it together and makes me want to run onto the show and slap him round the face and shout "pull it together man!"”
So why didn't you say that on Saturday before over marking both of them Darcey?
No good coming on here with your real opinions 2 days late.
Originally Posted by MaggieMcGee:
“Like 'Deliverance'?”
“Like 'Deliverance'?”
That's a thought.
Kevin and Louise show dance to duelling banjos dressed as hillbillies.
Squeal, piggy, squeal!
It'd be fun watching the smoke coming from the fingers of Dave Arch's banjo players
It'd be fun watching the smoke coming from the fingers of Dave Arch's banjo players
9 of 9
