BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Big Brother 2006

  
  

Page: 1 ... 979899100101(102)103104105106107... 130

 
 
Smoothly
17:07 / 16.07.06
Ganesh - quite possibly they've taken that risk to alienate the viewer.

What business wants to alienate its customers? I suppose it's possible one might, but is it likely?
 
 
Peach Pie
17:09 / 16.07.06

I should have thought they would have hope to do it without being detected.
 
 
Smoothly
17:14 / 16.07.06
Okay, since we're never going to discover that Jayne is a plant, even if she is one, can we drop the debate? I don't see how we can possibly resolve it.
 
 
Peach Pie
17:17 / 16.07.06

I should be more than happy to end this discussion, provided my right to continue to refer to her as a "houseplant" is no longer questioned - nor my right to point out that her future actions are contrived.

also - on here I'm the only one who thinks this was, with the possible exception of A.G. On every other BB board I've seen the possibility is being openly entertained - as indeed it is with the people who have lived with her around the clock for the last week.
 
 
Ganesh
17:18 / 16.07.06
Ganesh - quite possibly they've taken that risk to alienate the viewer. I haven't been part of previous BB discussions, and there remains no excuse for anyone to be rude to me now.

Well, if they think you're persistently advancing a sloppily thought-through line of pseudo-reasoning, they're quite possibly entitled to express that - although yes, name-calling is rather off. Now that you're aware of the context within which you enter this discussion (peddling a commonplace everyyear conspiracy theory on a slender-to-nonexistent evidence base) that might inform your own style of interaction.

And yes, perhaps Endemol have taken that risk. I don't see what they've have to gain in terms of viewing figures by surprising/deceiving the viewing public thus far.

You might like to consider that condesceding to people and calling them a "plank" is not a good look.

I might, particularly if I were the person who'd made the "plank" comment. Condescension? Well, now you know the context, you might understand why your theory's not being taken terribly seriously.

lastly, the official website telling you "But the fact remains... she's not a mole, she's just a very naughty girl" (when my and others' suspicion is that officials have not let the viewers in on the story) - what is that supposed to prove?

It's an official source stating as "fact" that Jayne is not a mole - and I cannot, off the top of my head, recall another time when Endemol might do this then reveal that they'd lied to the public. Which, as I've said, doesn't invalidate the possibility but, I think, diminishes its likelihood.

What's nebulous suspicion "supposed to prove"?
 
 
Smoothly
17:26 / 16.07.06
I should be more than happy to end this discussion, provided my right to continue to refer to her as a "houseplant" is no longer questioned

Who said you couldn't call her whatever you want? I don't see 'Houseplant' catching on, you might have to keep explaining who you're referring to, but knock yourself out.

On the 'every other board' front, well, where to begin? Suffice to say, being like every other board is not something Barbelith is generally that interested in.
 
 
Ganesh
17:30 / 16.07.06
The housemates themselves think there are good grounds for speculating she is a plant. So do I. That you or anyone else does not is no excuse to display hostility or "other" a poster forwarding a minority viewpoint in any other way.

If you're sensing hostility, SG, I don't think it's one-way. I rather resent your assumptions regarding what I do and don't think, and that, to me, is edged with hostility - as is your "NOW". But hey ho, that's BB discussion.

I feel you're in danger of conflating individual posters who have disagreed with you for different reasons into a monolithic "you or anyone else" who are setting out to 'other' you. I think your reasoning on Jayne is poorly thought-through (which is not to say there's no possibility that you're right), and I'm happy to say so. I've also laid out my reasons. You're welcome to refer to Jayne however you like, but I strongly suspect people will continue to take the piss out of the H**s*pl*nt stuff.
 
 
Ganesh
17:32 / 16.07.06
On every other BB board I've seen the possibility is being openly entertained - as indeed it is with the people who have lived with her around the clock for the last week.

Perhaps you'd have a happier time on those boards, then?
 
 
Peach Pie
17:33 / 16.07.06

Well, if they think you're persistently advancing a sloppily thought-through line of pseudo-reasoning, they're quite possibly entitled to express that - although yes, name-calling is rather off. Now that you're aware of the context within which you enter this discussion (peddling a commonplace everyyear conspiracy theory on a slender-to-nonexistent evidence base) that might inform your own style of interaction.

this is in the context of you only accepting some sort of declaration from endemol as proof. i maintain they would not do that. there woudl only ever be circumstantial evidence - as opposed to hard proof. I note that you failed to note first my choice not to respond to the initial hostility - then my unfailingly polite request that it stop. Yet when I felt I had little option to put my foot down rather harder than I would have liked - you take issue with it. name calling isn't a little off. it's completely off.

And yes, perhaps Endemol have taken that risk. I don't see what they've have to gain in terms of viewing figures by surprising/deceiving the viewing public thus far.

heightened viewing figures? heightened phone revenues? galvanising the public against a pantomime villain figure?

I might, particularly if I were the person who'd made the "plank" comment. Condescension? Well, now you know the context, you might understand why your theory's not being taken terribly seriously. it's of no real consequence to me that you don't accept it - you to your views I to mine - particularly as it appears to be being taken seriously in the house itself and on numerous message boards. Name calling on the other hand - well, see above.

It's an official source stating as "fact" that Jayne is not a mole - and I cannot, off the top of my head, recall another time when Endemol might do this then reveal that they'd lied to the public. Which, as I've said, doesn't invalidate the possibility but, I think, diminishes its likelihood. Arguably it does diminish the likelihood. It remains likely to me.

What's nebulous suspicion "supposed to prove"? To you only an official statement from endemol will prove anything. Which in my view, they would not do.
 
 
Ganesh
17:37 / 16.07.06
I should have thought they would have hope to do it without being detected.

If you're seriously suggesting that Jayne is a m*l* of such deep cover that there's to be no eventual big reveal, then I'd have to congratulate you on a perfectly watertight conspiracy theory that's effectively squeezed out all possibility of being proved or disproved.

Please tell me this isn't what you're proposing. I'm already trying not to think about lizards.
 
 
Peach Pie
17:37 / 16.07.06

If you're sensing hostility, SG, I don't think it's one-way. I rather resent your assumptions regarding what I do and don't think, and that, to me, is edged with hostility - as is your "NOW". But hey ho, that's BB discussion.

Good lord. see above for your bias on that argument - minimising an ally's involvement in an argument(that they themselves started) and maximising an opponent's is not objective analysis! Also, I'm making noassumptions as to what you do and don't think - going instead on what you've written.
 
 
Peach Pie
17:39 / 16.07.06
If you're seriously suggesting that Jayne is a m*l* of such deep cover that there's to be no eventual big reveal, then I'd have to congratulate you on a perfectly watertight conspiracy theory that's effectively squeezed out all possibility of being proved or disproved.

if you're suggesting I have powers of future vision, then perhaps it's you who fantasises about reptilian agenda. what i have said is that I believe jayne could well be a mole, as do the housemates themselves.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:45 / 16.07.06
Yeah, it has rather got to the stage where we have to in-fight to make Big Brother engaging.
 
 
Peach Pie
17:46 / 16.07.06

Touche.
 
 
Ganesh
17:53 / 16.07.06
this is in the context of you only accepting some sort of declaration from endemol as proof. i maintain they would not do that. there woudl only ever be circumstantial evidence - as opposed to hard proof.

Never? You think they'd put in a professional actor and never tell the viewing public? Is that what you're theorising here?

I note that you failed to note first my choice not to respond to the initial hostility - then my unfailingly polite request that it stop. Yet when I felt I had little option to put my foot down rather harder than I would have liked - you take issue with it. name calling isn't a little off. it's completely off.

I "noted" the name-calling. If you think the way you've been treated is "completely off", I suggest you start a Policy thread about it, and let us return to discussing Big Brother as opposed to your own sense of grievance.

heightened viewing figures? heightened phone revenues? galvanising the public against a pantomime villain figure?

All of the above - if the public had been in on it from the start, in which case there would've been an ongoing we-know-something-the-Housemates-don't intrigue. Othewise, I suspect there might well be a strong feeling of the GBP having been taken for fools.

it's of no real consequence to me that you don't accept it - you to your views I to mine - particularly as it appears to be being taken seriously in the house itself and on numerous message boards. Name calling on the other hand - well, see above.

As I've said, if you feel you have a legitimate grievance, take it to Policy. The thread's in danger of becoming about how 'othered' you feel.

To you only an official statement from endemol will prove anything. Which in my view, they would not do.

You oversimplify my viewpoint, again. I'm open to the possibility but if you're suggesting that it's likely that Endemol would have a pl*nt and never reveal that this were the case, then you'd have successfully protected yourself from ever being proved wrong, and we'd be in the realms of faith, fauxmosexuality and shape-changing paedophile lizards from Planet X.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:02 / 16.07.06

Never? You think they'd put in a professional actor and never tell the viewing public? Is that what you're theorising here?

I'm theorising that it's a possibility.

I "noted" the name-calling. If you think the way you've been treated is "completely off", I suggest you start a Policy thread about it, and let us return to discussing Big Brother as opposed to your own sense of grievance.

No - you took issue with comments I had made - I was explaining the context in which I had made them, as you did not seem to be entirely aware of it.


All of the above - if the public had been in on it from the start, in which case there would've been an ongoing we-know-something-the-Housemates-don't intrigue. Othewise, I suspect there might well be a strong feeling of the GBP having been taken for fools. Maybe the "we-have-a-common-enemy" camaraderie would have been stronger. Maybe the GBP have been taken for fools. I suggest that this inevitable conclusion if Jayne were a plant is a greater reason for your hostility toward me than any poverty in the quality of my argument.

You oversimplify my viewpoint, again. I'm open to the possibility but if you're suggesting that it's likely that Endemol would have a pl*nt and never reveal that this were the case, then you'd have successfully protected yourself from ever being proved wrong, and we'd be in the realms of faith, fauxmosexuality and shape-changing paedophile lizards from Planet X. on your own terms, the likelihood is impossible to asess, as you think it's an unprecedented move. It's a possibility that they would never reveal it on it's own terms. Manifestly it is - how could it be anything other?
 
 
Ganesh
18:03 / 16.07.06
if you're suggesting I have powers of future vision, then perhaps it's you who fantasises about reptilian agenda. what i have said is that I believe jayne could well be a mole, as do the housemates themselves.

Let me expand on this.

I think the likelihood of a m*l* or pl*nt is unlikely, for reasons stated above. If such a thing were to be considered, I can only really imagine it in the context of Davina et al eventually saying something along the lines of, "Big Brother has another secret up his sleeve: what the Housemates don't know is that Jayne is an actor!" etc. I thought you were arguing that a reveal would eventually happen ie. we'd know whether this speculation were correct.

It hadn't really occurred to me that there might be such a thing as a 'deep cover' m*l* whose thespian identity would never be revealed. I'm attempting to clarify whether this is a possibility that's seriously being mooted here.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:10 / 16.07.06

Not a thespian - but an actor- someone who had been sent in instructions to cause a ruckus.
 
 
Ganesh
18:14 / 16.07.06
I'm theorising that it's a possibility.

One corollary of which is that it can never be proved or disproved - if the 'deep cover' is never revealed. Which is well and good, but puts it on a par with all those other watertight conspiracy theories, which may be why you're getting short shrift here.

No - you took issue with comments I had made - I was explaining the context in which I had made them, as you did not seem to be entirely aware of it.

Take your grievance to Policy, please.

Maybe the "we-have-a-common-enemy" camaraderie would have been stronger. Maybe the GBP have been taken for fools. I suggest that this inevitable conclusion if Jayne were a plant is a greater reason for your hostility toward me than any poverty in the quality of my argument.

And I'd disagree with your suggestion. For me, anyway, the quality of your reasoning is very much the problem.

on your own terms, the likelihood is impossible to asess, as you think it's an unprecedented move.

No. Again, you reduce nuances to black and white. Inserting a professional actor is unprecented; I said it diminishes the likelihood of this currently being the case - not that it's "impossible".

It's a possibility that they would never reveal it on it's own terms. Manifestly it is - how could it be anything other?

Of course it's a possibility - as is anything else that can never be disproved. Richard being straight, Marco shape-changing, paedophile lizards, the existence of God.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:16 / 16.07.06

This is a posting from Digital Spy. I get the impression it's not your favorite board - and yes - it might be completely untrue - but just hear it out:

Jayne & Spiral were both test housemates together

Apologies to all if this has already been covered......

I've resisted temptation to post until now, but something is seriously amiss with the BB selection process. My husband's sister auditioned this year, and it now transpires (as she had kept it secret) that she was a test house mate back in April. And guess who 2 of her fellow housemates were? Jayne and Spiral. Apparently they were inseparable in the house.

Whilst I have no problem with dry run people making the programme, it seems that the rule of not knowing each other before entering is obviously complete hash. For what it's worth, my sister-in-law is also adamant that Jayne is an Endemol plant (a quick check with companies house shows she's never had her own recruitment company as she claims) and believes Spiral is a loose cannon waiting to explode - I have tried getting more information out of her but it's difficult to do it in a subtle way as she told me not to tell anyone.
 
 
*
18:16 / 16.07.06
Is it possible to be an actor and not a thespian?
 
 
Ganesh
18:16 / 16.07.06
Not a thespian - but an actor- someone who had been sent in instructions to cause a ruckus.

Perhaps you'd better define what you understand by "plant" here. I'm now somewhat confused as to what you think might have happened with Jayne.
 
 
Ganesh
18:21 / 16.07.06
the rule of not knowing each other before entering is obviously complete hash

I think that's already been established, with various Housemates having known each other from auditioning together this or previous years. Likewise, CVs are frequently buffed. What I don't get is how this then = "Endemol plant" - and now I'm confused as to what people mean when they use the term.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:22 / 16.07.06


One corollary of which is that it can never be proved or disproved - if the 'deep cover' is never revealed. Which is well and good, but puts it on a par with all those other watertight conspiracy theories, which may be why you're getting short shrift here.

out of my hands.

Take your grievance to Policy, please.

I don't need to take it to them. You were the one who took issue with what I had said - so it was to you I wanted to explain the context of what I had said. That's about it, really.

And I'd disagree with your suggestion. For me, anyway, the quality of your reasoning is very much the problem. well, you've made that clear. but you're also trying to put an impossible burden of proof on my shoulders - namely an endemol declaration - which is out of my hands. it should come as no surprise to you that I reject it for that reason.


Of course it's a possibility - as is anything else that can never be disproved. Richard being straight, Marco shape-changing, paedophile lizards, the existence of God. well there ya go. unlike Richard being straight and God's existence, I have suggested there are rather a lot of circumstantials to suggest Jayne might be a plant.

You reject them out of hand on the basis that endemol "just doesn't do plants".

what would convince you? an endemol declaration.

i feel perhaps it's you who's being rather too black and white in their outlook.
 
 
Ganesh
18:40 / 16.07.06
out of my hands.

Of course it is. What I'm trying now to establish is what you actually mean when you say "plant". I'm still unclear. If you don't mean an actor, what do you mean? What kind of ruckus-causing advice might earn an otherwise ordinary Housemete the label "plant"?

I don't need to take it to them. You were the one who took issue with what I had said - so it was to you I wanted to explain the context of what I had said. That's about it, really.

Good.

but you're also trying to put an impossible burden of proof on my shoulders - namely an endemol declaration - which is out of my hands. it should come as no surprise to you that I reject it for that reason.

At present, I'm trying to pin you down to the meaning of "plant" - because if you simply mean a bog-standard Housemate told "cause a ruckus" then anyone given potentially disruptive 'secret missions' would be in the same category.

I'm pushing for some joined-up logic, really.

unlike Richard being straight and God's existence, I have suggested there are rather a lot of circumstantials to suggest Jayne might be a plant.

No, you haven't. They've been unpicked by various posters upthread. You appear also to be saying that, if Endemol never do a big reveal, then it's likely that Jayne could still be a m*l* - which puts it very much up there with the Great Unproveables.

You reject them out of hand on the basis that endemol "just doesn't do plants".

I reject them on the basis that they don't hang together, they're predicated on such-and-such 'not sounding right' or being 'the sort of thing a plant would do' - and I see that as sloppy reasoning. Lack of precedent is just one additional factor.

what would convince you? an endemol declaration.

Yes - because I don't put much credence in what Jayne herself says and does, or logic-lite interpretations of her behaviour 'not sounding right'. What is it that's convinced you? If you're convinced.
 
 
Ganesh
18:44 / 16.07.06
Actually, scrub all that. I'll happily go with Smoothly's suggestion

Okay, since we're never going to discover that Jayne is a plant, even if she is one, can we drop the debate? I don't see how we can possibly resolve it.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like, even if I do have little or no respect for the logic processes involved. On y'go.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
18:45 / 16.07.06
Another really strong reason why Endemol wouldn't do this. The tabloids would have a field day. Seriously SG, did you see the large amounts of "Suzie was a fix" speculation in The Sun?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
18:47 / 16.07.06
This "deep cover" notion seems unprecedented in all reality TV I can remember ~ I may be missing some obvious example.

It's as though "Space Cadets" had been based around letting the audience think that a dozen naifs and nitwits were going up into orbit, and either... what? sprung the surprise on the viewers as well as the contestants in the final episode that it was all a hoax, or never told us, and let us believe that there really was a shuttle launch?

As Ganesh suggested, these shows are often built around dramatic irony, and the viewers having superior knowledge to the participants. Trying to hoax the viewers too seems to suck most if not all the drama and pleasure out of a reality programme.

As for the BB housemates thinking Jayne is a plant ~ on Friday they were convinced there was a third secret house and that Nikki was going to Australia.

As for Digital Spy thinking Jayne is a plant ~ Digital Spy thought that Aisleyne and Sam would be "two African twin brothers", as I recall.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:48 / 16.07.06


What kind of ruckus-causing advice might earn an otherwise ordinary Housemete the label "plant"? someone with a brief to stir up trouble above all else.




At present, I'm trying to pin you down to the meaning of "plant" - because if you simply mean a bog-standard Housemate told "cause a ruckus" then anyone given potentially disruptive 'secret missions' would be in the same category.

I'm pushing for some joined-up logic, really.

whether an actress or someone else, someone who has has a brief to stir up trouble solely.

No, you haven't. They've been unpicked by various posters upthread. You appear also to be saying that, if Endemol never do a big reveal, then it's likely that Jayne could still be a m*l* - which puts it very much up there with the Great Unproveables. I disagree. other posters have refused to come to the same conclusions i have. their relevance hasn't therefore been undermined as a matter of necessity.

You reject them out of hand on the basis that endemol "just doesn't do plants".

I reject them on the basis that they don't hang together, they're predicated on such-and-such 'not sounding right' or being 'the sort of thing a plant would do' - and I see that as sloppy reasoning. Lack of precedent is just one additional factor. you said a couple of pages back "I maintain that endemol just doesn't do plants". I'd suggest however slppy you thought my reasoning, it would be a secondary factor in relation to that.

what would convince you? an endemol declaration.

Yes - because I don't put much credence in what Jayne herself says and does, or logic-lite interpretations of her behaviour 'not sounding right'. I suspect she's a sham. her character is simply unbelievable. she seems to be pushing the programme's agenda at the expense of her personal gain. she's being allowed to get away with things when noone else has been. it's a cumulative effect of her cringingly, deliberately trying to break every rule she can that fuels my suspicions.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:51 / 16.07.06

p.s. clearly the housemates do too. and while your stated unacceptance of anything other than hard fact isreasonable as far as it goes, it seems unduly intransigent not give any weight to their suspicions.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:52 / 16.07.06
anyway - I'm going now. I suggesr we resume this argument some other time. Enjoy your holiday.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
18:58 / 16.07.06
Yes, but this has been a year of paranoia about motives from the housemates.

Why is this any more pertinent than Lea's view that everyone had changed except her?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
19:00 / 16.07.06
Every year. Every. Fucking. Year.
 
 
Ganesh
19:10 / 16.07.06
Oh, sod it. This is weirdly like arguing the Bible with my Baptist aunt. (Apologies for perceived hostility there: I quite like my Baptist aunt.)

someone with a brief to stir up trouble above all else.
...

whether an actress or someone else, someone who has has a brief to stir up trouble solely.

So... someone who may be an actor (although this would carry specific implications of its own) told, "solely cause trouble". Bit non-specific, that, particularly where motivation and method are concerned.

other posters have refused to come to the same conclusions i have. their relevance hasn't therefore been undermined as a matter of necessity.

Other posters did not 'refuse' to draw the same conclusions as you; they simply didn't draw the same conclusions as you. Here's your 'evidence' again:

1) Jayne was allowed to continue breaking rules even though her rulebreaking had been noted. No other housemate was.
2) She has shown none of the self-consciousness ever other housemated who have been guilt tripped.
3) it's strange that only every other housemate was punished for what she did, while she was protected
4) some of the things she says "hands up who doesn't like aisleyne" sound like an act. would someone who was genuine show that lack of caution, when it was so likely to get back to aisleyne?

1) and 3) are explicable in terms of Endemol applying military punishment tactics in order to crank up viewer feeling. Yes, they're inconsistent in their punishments; they always have been. 2) and 4) are explicable in terms of Jayne being faintly Cluster B in terms of personality.

From this, it's something of a logical leap to 'Jayne = pl*nt'. The fact that others have made this leap does not necessarily make it more credible.

you said a couple of pages back "I maintain that endemol just doesn't do plants". I'd suggest however slppy you thought my reasoning, it would be a secondary factor in relation to that.

Nope. Lack of precedent is a big thing but, ultimately, it's the lack of logic in the argument for that diminishes that argument for me.

I suspect she's a sham. her character is simply unbelievable. she seems to be pushing the programme's agenda at the expense of her personal gain.

She's not "unbelievable" in the slightest. Have you met people with psychopathic personality traits? Believe me, Jayne's toward the mild 'functional' end of the spectrum.

she's being allowed to get away with things when noone else has been. it's a cumulative effect of her cringingly, deliberately trying to break every rule she can that fuels my suspicions.

As I say, Big Brother has always been inconsistent in applying punishments - particularly in the case of individuals who clearly evoke strong public feeling. Suggesting that Jayne "deliberately" breaks every rule she can infers knowledge of her motivations, which none of us possesses. She may well be - in common with other people with psychopathic/narcissistic/histrionic traits - self-centred to the extent that she barely registers rules, or forgets/disregards them in the face of immediate gratification. None of this is unusual or implausible.
 
 
Ganesh
19:11 / 16.07.06
Every year. Every. Fucking. Year.

Yyyep.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 979899100101(102)103104105106107... 130

 
  
Add Your Reply