I suppose many people will disagree with me but I think it is much better now. Bubble had a good exit (good for him).

Isn't it time (I've raised this before) we chose people we liked rather than those we dislike?

At the end of the weeks there is GBP70K at stake, enertainment is fun but I think most sensible people will, in the end choose sensibly.

I don't mean the vociferous people here, I mean the public.

Problem is you're a noisy lot in this forum -- further problem is you choices don't join with reality.

Will I be allowed to say that?

Of course you are allowed to say that.

Am I allowed to agree though? That's the real question.

In all fairness, of the two up for eviction last week I would definately have voted out Paul.....Bubble, despite first impressions, was a genuinely nice guy and very funny to boot (much funnier than Brian in my opinion, who is a conceited self centred little prick if you ask me, not at all funny).

Aside from that though, I think I agree with all the other evictions so far, and would like to see the nicer people there at the end. I do wish though that they would be a little more interesting with it....suppose I want to have my cake and eat it in a way.

Mark

--
I reserve the right to restrict my own freedom of speech

As far as agreement is concerned, I concur with just about every word Mark wrote above.

Be afraid, Mark. Be very afraid .

H.

Oh, I am.

Seriously though, that being the case, who do you want to win?

I would have loved to have seen helen, liz, bubble and (probably) brian at the end....althoguh I don't know which of those I'd want to win, other than "not brian".

I would have liked to see Brian and Bubble get to the end though, as I found Bubble especially funny around/towards Brian - I'm not sure whether this was due to some sort of uncomfortability or insecurity over Brians sexuality on Bubbles part, I'm tempted to say it wasn't and it was just bubble being bubble, but either way, it was funny.

Still, that not being the case, I really don't know who I want to win. Not dean. He really has been boring me recently, and while I liked him to start with, and still do, I really think he does need to start livening things up a bit.

Mark

I think I would have liked to have seen Amma, Bubble, Helen and X (see end of message) in the final weeks, again possibly with Brian for his interaction with Bubble. I don't think Bubble's treatment of him was primarily due to sexuality as his reaction to Josh was very different. I get the feeling that he quickly picked up on Brian's negative personality traits and extracted the urine from them in a manner that Brian could accept -- thus leading to a playful war that rarely crossed the line to argument. Unfortunately, he seems to think that those traits are minor irritations outweighed by Brian's "funny" puppy-queen persona. This is one thing that we disagree with him on.

I feel I'd like Liz and Dean as friends (being a thirty-something hippioid myself) but they generally lack entertainment value in the house setting. I don't really think that Dean is significantly less lively than Liz. I'd be tempted to blame your perception on his accent if I didn't know better . Anyway, about the only thing I agree with Brian about is that Dean's the most fanciable male in the house .

I've grown to dislike Paul more by the day over the last couple of weeks. Helen is fun, although I'm still not sure how "dumb" she really is. She regrettably shares many of Brian's negative traits, however, although she does seem more sensitive to the needs of others (Brian's getting there but he's proceeding too slowly for me to consider him likable by the end of the series). Amma, I feel, was largely misunderstood, but she did seem severely defensive due to her preconceptions of others' preconceptions of members of her profession[*]. I had gained the impression, long before he entered the house, that Josh was a conceited, self-obsessed gym queen. I've seen little since to change that opinion.

So, if the winner should be someone who strikes a good balance between likability and entertainment, I would have liked it to have been Bubble. He appeared to be, as far as might be possible within that environment, true to himself and truthful, respectful and kind to others. Out of the current lot, though, I'm afraid that I'd have to choose niceness over fun, toss a coin between Dean and Liz, and call the result "X" as my desired winner.

H.
[*] I hope that's readable. I've had a long, eventful night and have only recently returned home .

Indeed. Fair enough....I was just wondering about a couple of comments that Bubble made about Brian helping him overcome a number of his insecurities (about??)....Can't remember when he made that comment, but it made me think that perhaps in any other situation Bubble would have been the so-called "typical lad", i.e. slightly homophobic, racist, sexist, or whatever....or I could just be totally wrong.


In all seriousness though, my perception of Liz is probably based on the fact that (in my opinion) she is the most attractive female in the house....although I suppose there are only two to choose from now.


Indeed. I thought that after watching for a while, she had a wicked sense of humour, but she really didn't let herself get into the house - as you say she was very defensive which worked against her in my opinion.


hee hee. i think you could well be right there. I'd love to know what is keeping Paul in the house though. Some people must REALLY like him.

I think I'd agree with your assessment though, a nice combination of Dean and Liz would be good. Although I have to say I don't think Liz needs the money

Mark

Friends have expressed similar impressions about Bubble but they seem to picked up on his "laddish" attitude rather than listening to what he actually said. He appears to oppose extreme Political Correctness and token "positive discrimination". This can seem slightly bigoted in our current climate but it's a view that I (being at least partially a member of every group the Nazis internally persecuted except one[*]) tend to agree with. There's a difference between tokenism and encouraging fair consideration, and if the road to Hell is paved with good intentions then the patronising and censorious attitudes of excessive PC dogma are the Devil's tarmac. Bubble seems to judge people on their own merits and appears to dismiss special treatment in favour of equal treatment.

I'm afraid that the only comments I recall Bubble making about Brian's insecurities were after his eviction. I do disagree with his idea that winning would help Brian overcome those insecurities. Firstly, there is little that can increase insecurity more than intense media attention and secondly, someone raised in what seems to have been a constant mollycoddling and ego-massaging environment would probably be better able to deal with the real world after a kick up the arse than being given the impression that half the country loves him .

I do wonder if we would have seen a more entertaining side to Josh if he hadn't had Brian snapping at his heels almost from the moment he entered the house. Paul's continued residency is also a mystery to me, although I have suggested a possible reason for it elsewhere.

There are many reasons to prefer a winner and I suppose that financial "worthiness" might be as valid as niceness or entertainment value. I'd be reluctant to prejudge anyone's financial status though; there are many "posh" people (even aristocracy) in financial difficulty just as there are many "common" millionaires. If we can popularise that criteria, though, at least we could eject the bloke who spent almost as much on some trousers as I live on for a year .

I think you could have solved the problem of the final week's overcrowding. After the last eviction Dean and Liz will merge into a Final-Programmesque Super Diz who everyone will fancy .

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR]
[*] Blacks, criminals, Gypsies, homosexual men, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, political activists and those with physical or mental disabilities. I've never been a Jehovah's Witness .

Aaaaaaaaaah (mark slaps head)

Do you see what I've done there? I took bubbles comment about Brian and insecurities to mean that being in the house with Brian helped bubble get over some of his insecurities (presumably about gay men), however from what you've said there (and I'm sure you're right as I've only heard the comments third hand), he actually said that winning would help Brian overcome Brian's insecurities.

In which case, I take it all back, and agree totally with you about Bubble, and agree with the whole anti-positive-discrimination thing too. Political correctness is a real pain in my opinion, and goes against what I largely believe about freedom of speech and the like - my favourite quote of all time (and I've got no idea who said it, but I still love it) is "I disagree totally with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it". If you stop people speaking there minds, it implies you cannot give a reasoned argument against it, and if you can't give a reasoned argument against it, then why is it wrong to say it?

You write very eloquently on the subject, I have to say. Paticularly....

...which would probably go in my "top quotes" list somewhere.

Mark
p.s. I've got the strangest mental picture of you now Harlequin....a criminal black jewish gypsy political activist gay man with a disability....

Eeek! What are you doing up at this time in the morning? I'm unemployed with a sleep pattern best described as "fractal" but you're supposed to have a job . You caught me in the middle of re-editing that post, so you may have missed the final paragraph.

I seem to recall Paul making comments similar to those you thought Bubble made, relating to the experience of sharing a bedroom with Brian in the first couple of weeks. Paul does appear to be overloaded with sexual insecurities though, as further demonstrated by his recent reaction to Josh's bisexuality.

The line you're thinking of, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," is ascribed to Voltaire (although he actually wrote something slightly different). I can rarely, if ever, find a good excuse for censorship of any kind. It's far better, I feel, to give people enough rope to hang themselves with. Thanks for the comment on the quote, BTW. The core of the last phrase came to me in bed a couple of days ago (while thinking about a post-Stonehenge chat I had with a friend last month) and I did consider adding a copyright mark after it .

Heheh... Don't forget that I'm also a hippioid, thespian, criminal, black... . Actually, I have some Romany and African/West Indian (my mother seems uncertain which) ancestory on my mother's side, and Jewish on my father's (although he's a fractionally Spanish Irish Catholic South London villain), have a criminal record (mainly for cannabis possession), fancy many blokes but haven't yet fancied a woman for long enough to make physical contact (sexual pigeon-holing is another thing I can rant for pages about), have participated in various demonstrations as well as being a member of the Mark Thomas mailing list, and am on the sick for depression. But then, are we not all many things?

Oh, I'm also a computer geek (accidental FAQ maintainer for the world's premier "hackers'" newsgroup), so I might consider a job at Digital Spy if the working hours are as liberal as yours seem to be .

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR]

I'm supposed to have a job? Erm....well, I suppose I'm self employed then. Not technically unemployed, but I certainly haven't been doing the 9-5 thing recently. And likewise, my sleep patterns could also be described as "fractal" I was up 'til 4am last night writing a review of Evolution....I find writing reviews of mediocre films possibly the hardest thing on earth, and I was also practising writing from the "we" perspective (a la the computer game reviews on channel 4 teletext).

I do like the idea of a SuperDiz dean and liz combination, although what do we do for all the people who don't fancy either of them? I think I must have confused Paul and Bubble somewhere down the line. That'll teach me not to pay attention. Paul strikes me as someone who isn't sure if he's gay straight bi or whatever (and given what you've said about pigeon holing sexuality, perhaps that's no bad thing), but he is also insecure about it as you say.

I think I have to agree on the censorship front, but I do think classification is a good thing. I actually think the American system of film certification has the right gradings, but because of the CMAMM (close minded american moral minority) they never ever use the top ratings as it's classed as somehow immoral. The top NC-17 rating, basically described as "anything goes, as bad as porn but not porn as that's got it's own special rating that means the same thing but we'll have a different one to keep them separate" is a fantastic rating, allowing mature adults to see anything at all. I feel we need a similar rating on films and that here. And it be used, too, unlike in America.

On TV I find it more difficult to justify though....but again, I think if broadcasters exercise restraint with the times of broadcasting, pretty much anything should be showable. Especially with digital TV, and the measures that can have to prevent unauthorised viewing by children (pin numbers and the like).

In the freedom of speech style of censorship though, I cannot stand any of it. Much though it pains me to say it, I wouldn't even get rid of the Daily Mail if I had the choice. If just for the amusement it provides

You have got to be one of the most unlikely combinations of minorities ever. I always thought I was pretty unlikely, as there are about ten different things that only seem to affect one in ten people, and I seem to have all of them (left handed, colour blind, red headed, and a load of others I keep forgetting but keep intending to write down so i can list them off), but you really are super-unlikely-man!

Thanks for letting me know who it was who said that line....Voltaire you say. right. I'll have to remember that. What did he originally say, out of interest?

Hackers? as in you're bona fide nice hackers that do things like write freebsd and linux, or as in your cracker type that does naughty things when no-one is looking?

Mark

Ah! So you're in the freelance category then? I'd avoid the "we perspective" if I were you. I think it's like a cross between the Royal We and the way some people use the second person to disassociate themselves from their thoughts and actions. Evolution isn't that bad, though, is it? It may not be as innovative as Ghostbusters but still... .

No problem regarding SuperDiz. If you're familiar with Michael Moorcock's The Final Programme, the merged Jerry Cornelius/Miss Brunner being was irresistibly attractive to everyone on Earth. If you also consider that the merging would instantly counter all previous criticism about Dean and Liz's monotony, SuperDiz couldn't fail to win!

There's a difference between not pigeonholing oneself and refusing to acknowledge one's feelings. I sense that Paul may sometimes be attracted to other men but wants to think of himself as "totally straight", although it might be that he's conscious of his desires but is suppressing them because he knows that his mates are watching. Whatever the case, it appears to be causing some internal conflict that, among other peculiarities, occasionally manifests as irrational outbursts against the behaviour of the homosexual males in the house (Contrast his "not trying to get into Helen's knickers" excuse with his comment about "knocking Brian's head off" if he turned out to be straight). Incidentally, it's widely reckoned that such conflicts are a primary root of homophobia[0].

What I disagree with censorship-wise is denying open access to information, opinions and images to the general adult public. I'm not much bothered by classification or scheduling as long as the material is obtainable (although I could easily play Devil's advocate in a debate on how much protection children really need). For example, certain words and URLs are not permitted in this forum, but that's fine as people are free to publish them in millions of other places on the Net. I'm not certain how film classification works in Britain, but I know that rules have recently been relaxed to allow the sale of previously illegal hardcore porn videos (and don't you dare ask me how I know that ).

I would defend the right of the Daily Mail to publish (despite injustices it's committed against my own family), the right of the National Front to march and the right of Sinn Fein members to speak with their own accents, as long as the same rights on the same terms are granted to those with opposite views. Again: equal rights rather than special rights.

I'm almost certain that everyone is a combination of minorities; it just happens that many in my mix have a notable history of persecution. Journalists suffer much mistreatment around the world (as Amnesty International will attest), left-handed people have been exposed to more subtle bigotry in the past (the corruption of the word "sinister" being one indication of this), and my ex had an odd prejudice against redheads .

What Voltaire actually wrote, in a letter in 1770, was (translated): "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" (according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary of Quotations).

I mean "hackers" as in both types . Many of the older inhabitants of alt.2600 are themselves system administrators and the like, and much of the computer-related discussion[1] concerns Perl, network topology and 8-bit nostalgia. There are, of course, hundreds of "script kiddies" and "1337 h4ck3rZ" but "malicious hacking" is generally frowned upon and virus/trojan creation and DOS attacks are generally considered childish, petty and unknowledgable. Not that I know an awful lot about that sort of thing, you understand. My reputation as one of the "elite" came about purely because I started maintaining the FAQ when nobody else could be bothered .

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR]

[0] One well-known experiment demonstrated that acknowledged homophobic men were physically more aroused by gay porn than heterosexual men who expressed no prejudice.

[1] I tend to stick around groups that rarely stay on topic, thus creating a more friendly, "anything goes", family-like atmosphere (in alt.babylon5.uk it's customary to place "OT" in the Subject: lines of posts that mention Babylon 5 to indicate that such messages are on-topic). This thread is straying toward my more typical kind of conversation .

Massive applause to both Harlequin and Mark for their very intelligent and reasoned arguments, and long may you continue to educate us........No, I'm not being sarcastic. I genuinely mean that!

What what? you mean other people are reading this thread too? scary...

It's a good job I'm a moderator, or we'd probably have been shot by now for being off topic

*mark dodges heavy item thrown by the rest of the mods*

Seriously though, I'm enjoying this thread immensely, but I may move it to the General Chat/Off topic forum if it goes on much longer, so if it goes missing you know where it's gone!

Mark

Good thread-I'm so busy reading it, its preventing me working. So Harlequin, the Nazis wanted to wipe out Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe they weren't all bad!
Actually that comment is definately politically incorrect which takes us on to the discussion about censorship etc. I'm broadly against censorship (if I want to see hot anal sex between consenting adults, thats nobodys business but mine). As long as its not an illeagal act etc etc
But as I get older I start to think that maybe a liberal attitude is not the best thing. Should we allow the BNP or whoever to stir up riots in the north.
Should we allow religious groups to be allowed to put their 'beliefs' be they homophobic, racist or sexist? I think not. Should we have religious schools? NO! Children should not be indoctrinated with that garbage. How many rational , intelligent people do you know who "don't really believe in it" but cant bring themselves to use the word athiest. (There's a doubt lurking in their subconscious that maybe that mish mash of superstition etc has some merit).
Enough already! Just a few thoughts.

Great thread guys, thought I'd add my two-pence worth. I'm not as well educated in the topic as others seem to be but I know what I think so...


Yeah, in principle I agree with what you're saying. There are certain things that most people would agree shouldn't be encouraged. But the problem is, where is the line drawn? By saying "we won't allow x to say y", who are we to then say "but we're open-minded enough to let a say b". Because isn't that the essence of censorship? I'm afraid it's all or nothing. Otherwise "society" is simply implying a set of rules that compliment "their" (or "our") values.

The real question in my opionion is, do we agree allowing me the right to watch hardcore porn is worth it if we're also giving party x* the right to influence children with their homophobic and racist beliefs?

*Merely meant as an example, not referring to any group in particular, as I don't believe it's necessary.

Surely we need to differentiate between Hedonism, anarchy and society.
Hedonism is clearly wrong. If someones pleasure is to sexually abuse children they cannot be allowed "freedom" to do that.
I dont think it is all or nothing. I think society makes its laws. Therefore if the majority feel that pornography is okay as long as its legal and as long as its not forced on anyone then thats okay. If the majority feel racism or whatever is wrong then it is quite proper to legislate and say that inciting racial or religious hatred is a crime. Therefore if an evangelical preacher were to speak badly of Muslims or Buddhists ("heathens", "godless")-I've heard worse coming from Christian churches in Bradford, where they saw the building of a Mosque as a challenge from the devil- it should be quite proper to prosecute them.
Amen!

Uncle Bob - Indeed, it's a very difficult distinction to make. How do you make a distinction between freedom of speech and not allowing incitement to racism/violence....

I think the best way is to have "no platform" for people who intend to incite violence. You don't even need a special law to cover it, simply say that everyone has the basic right to freedom of speech through peaceful protest - if they cause violence then this ceases to be peaceful protest and so can be banned. You are not banning them from saying what they like, merely the way that they are saying it.

Indoctrination of children is a difficult subject too....I've got no idea how you could legislate on that and maintain freedom of speech, so I suppose in the end you've got to just hope that people are generally sensible, and as long as a majority of people are then everything will end up okay, as the majority will in the end prevail. However, the vocal minority needs a vocal majority to curtail it - the whole P.C. thing seems to be a few up tight people telling us what we should and shouldnt' be allowed to say and do. The majority should stand up and say "get lost".

It's like these anti-capitalist protestors, whether you agree with them or not I'm sure they are vastly in the minority in their views, but because they are the only ones who bother protesting. Watch this space for marks "People's front for Globalisation and Capitalism", campainging against farmers anarchists and generally all the people who protest at the moment. Taking up our right to protest

Mark