Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
They've already been warned, BB should just take the opportunity to kick them out, it was an error to put them in the house in the first place.
Don't know why it was a mistake to put them in the house, after all BB had no idea they would create a fake romance (if that is actually the case and I am not convinced either way)
HH
quote:
Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
They've already been warned, BB should just take the opportunity to kick them out, it was an error to put them in the house in the first place.
Don't know why it was a mistake to put them in the house, after all BB had no idea they would create a fake romance (if that is actually the case and I am not convinced either way)


Because they are both as dull as dishwater.
Comrade Ogilvy
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
quote:
Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
They've already been warned, BB should just take the opportunity to kick them out, it was an error to put them in the house in the first place.
Don't know why it was a mistake to put them in the house, after all BB had no idea they would create a fake romance (if that is actually the case and I am not convinced either way)


Because they are both as dull as dishwater.


They may have acted differently if they hadn't hooked up together.
HH
quote:
Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
quote:
Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
They've already been warned, BB should just take the opportunity to kick them out, it was an error to put them in the house in the first place.
Don't know why it was a mistake to put them in the house, after all BB had no idea they would create a fake romance (if that is actually the case and I am not convinced either way)


Because they are both as dull as dishwater.


They may have acted differently if they hadn't hooked up together.


I doubt it.
Comrade Ogilvy
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
quote:
Originally posted by bozzimacoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
They've already been warned, BB should just take the opportunity to kick them out, it was an error to put them in the house in the first place.


i think their lust is genuine Smiler


If you mean their lust for mag deals, then yes. Wink


Laugh
bozzimacoo
Typical selective enforcement of the rules because the presumably the producers think we find those dullards tacky heat mag rehearsal entertaining, I suppose the producers reason that if they weren't doing that they'd be sitting like furniture talking drivel, or in other words they are useless HMs.

Now if BB called them to the DR and evicted them on the spot no interview etc, not only would that be entertaining, it'd be poetic justice.
Comrade Ogilvy
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
Typical selective enforcement of the rules because the presumably the producers think we find those dullards tacky heat mag rehearsal entertaining, I suppose the producers reason that if they weren't doing that they'd be sitting like furniture talking drivel, or in other words they are useless HMs.

Now if BB called them to the DR and evicted them on the spot no interview etc, not only would that be entertaining, it'd be poetic justice.


It seems to me that you want rules enforced based upon which housemate you do not like.

Personally, i think there is enough interference from BB already. Would it be practical to eject housemates everytime nominations were discussed? Would you be happy if your favourite housemate was ejected for discussing nominations, for instance?

The dullards obsessed with magazine deals do not appear to be the housemates...
Cold Sweat
quote:
Originally posted by Cold Sweat:
Personally, i think there is enough interference from BB already. Would it be practical to eject housemates everytime nominations were discussed? Yes, it would. there are plenty of wannabes waiting in the wings to replace them. Would you be happy if your favourite housemate was ejected for discussing nominations, for instance?Yes, because rules are rules.
Demantoid
quote:
Originally posted by Cold Sweat:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
Typical selective enforcement of the rules because the presumably the producers think we find those dullards tacky heat mag rehearsal entertaining, I suppose the producers reason that if they weren't doing that they'd be sitting like furniture talking drivel, or in other words they are useless HMs.

Now if BB called them to the DR and evicted them on the spot no interview etc, not only would that be entertaining, it'd be poetic justice.


It seems to me that you want rules enforced based upon which housemate you do not like.

Personally, i think there is enough interference from BB already. Would it be practical to eject housemates everytime nominations were discussed? Would you be happy if your favourite housemate was ejected for discussing nominations, for instance?

The dullards obsessed with magazine deals do not appear to be the housemates...


No I would like the rules enforced for all of the housemares all of the time, either that or don't have rules.

Edit: For the reason given by Demontoid in the post above, ejection of persistent rule breakers would not be a problem. Let's face it those two are just taking up space anyway.
Comrade Ogilvy

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×