Just Say No

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Sarge

I know and I explained what I dislike about these "games". As for the "misunderstanding": I'm sorry but that explanation appears strange to me.

I think both yourself and Caryl have explained your thoughts quite clearly. I don't understand why there should be confussion


For me, the differences between CA and CBB................

In CA, contentants are free to come and go as they please. They can go out, talk to people, be kept up with current events, speak to their loved ones.

In CBB their movements and interaction with the outside world are much more restricted, turning the whole thing into a self contained goldfish bowl.
Contestants are often picked who will wind each other up (or sleep together). Lock people like that up together and watch the fireworks seems to be the ethos of the whole show.


In CA there is a task to do that depends on judgement, imagination, adaptability to a situation, and good business sense.
If you lose you are ejected.


In CBB there is a task to do that involves a garden swimming pool, 500 tins of custard, and a snorkel.
If you lose you don't get anything to eat for 48 hours.


In CA you are ejected from the show (based on proffessional judgement)because your team lost, and after careful consideration of the merit of the team members, it would seem that your performance and choices were the weak link in the chain.

In CBB you are ejected from the show (based on public vote) because people want to watch Peter Andre and Kerry Katona f*ck


In CA you keep in the game by using your savvy to show that you are a valuable player.

In CBB you stay in the game by screwing in the hot tub (or even better, keep giving the public the impression that you will screw in the hot tub next week if you're still around )


When terminated from CA you take the lift down with your suitcase, quietly get into a cab, and share a few reflective moments with the camera as you go home to see your family.

In CBB you have half the world screaming, cheering, and booing (all at the same time) and some bint who always seems to be pregnant bouncing up and down like Scoobie after a six pack of Red Bull (I don't give Scoobie Red Bull ) and screaming into a mic.
You are interviewed in front of a baying crowd and shown your "best bits".
Your best bits are a mixture of you looking silly, being pissed off, and having a nervous breakdown.


In CA celebs back a charity close to their hearts to benefit from their appearance on the show.
That Trump and his organization probably makes much more than the charities is wrong. There's no denying that, and things should change.

In CBB the celeb is the charity close to their own hearts.
Half of them haven't worked for so long they look like the've gone on the show just for the hot food and the luxury of having a roof over their head.
The other half are not celebs, and never will be (when you get the wife of someone who was once a polititian going on the show, you know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel).

Originally Posted by chairboys

(I think that was his name)

Everything you need to know about Big Brother right there

Originally Posted by duke knooby

I have never watched it
and i'd like to keep it that way..

If Meat does it I might look in from time to time, but i'm not going to be glued to the telly.

I never knew until I read this post back how much of a problem I have with that show

Thre are probably good things (and reasons) for Meat to do CBB, but I think the good is outweighed by the bad.

As I said before though, whatever he decides to do, i'll back him 100%

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

After watching "You've Been Trumped" my opinion of Donald Trump couldn't be any lower

I've just watched the show in question, and i've gotta say, I think Trump is a cucking funt

I don't think he knows everything that was going on on that site (I think a lot of the intimidation, such as cutting off water to peoples homes, was more to do with the contractors and the local authorities who seemed horrendously biased in Trump's favour) but likewise I don't think he's squeeky clean.
He said enough on camera to show his disreguard for the rights of others.

Shameful.

As the shows themselves are concerned, I do still think there is more merit in the CA format than CBB, but I still think it's wrong that Trump makes so much money from the show rather than have the charities make more money.

[carole]

Originally Posted by CarylB

I watched bits of a couple of the opening CBB series Germaine Greer was in .. never want to repeat the horror

Germaine Greer, say no more. What a nightmare she must have been for the other housemates. She is an absolute nut case. A pity as in her early years she did a lot for women's rights and feminism. Now, she has lost the plot.

Carole

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Like Andrew, I fail to understand how CA is that much different from (better than?) than CBB.

It's also pretty odd to compete with and work against each other to do something for charity, in my opinion. The constant competition causes unnecessary conflicts and the "losing" team usually don't benefit from the effort they put in their project. I'd rather see people work together to achieve something good, without the necessity of some of them being "losers" and someone getting "fired" each week.

If you didn't have conflicts than Reality TV wouldn't be interesting. I have yet to see a RTV show in which conflict was not the bread and butter. Which is part of the reason why I don't like these shows.

I like REAL reality TV. Like COPS, The First 48, Intervention, etc... I understand that stuff can get contrived on those shows as well, but it's a lot closer to 'reality' than CE, CBB, The Real World, etc...

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

As the shows themselves are concerned, I do still think there is more merit in the CA format than CBB, but I still think it's wrong that Trump makes so much money from the show rather than have the charities make more money.

Than he wouldn't do it. The point of the show is to make money.

There's lots of things that people do that they think a 'good' but they're really just lining peoples pockets. With almost any charity the majority of the money goes to the people running the organization. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it should be clear.

Than again I see celebrities who are trying raise money for charity, but I rarely see one of them pulling out their own chequebook and donating their own money.

Than you have Louis CK. He pledged $25,000 of his own money to have a photo taken with Al Pacino and donated the majority of the money that he made from selling his New Comedy Special for $5 through his website. He never even said that he was going to do that, he just did it.

[JennaG]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Than again I see celebrities who are trying raise money for charity, but I rarely see one of them pulling out their own chequebook and donating their own money.

I can see the point you're trying to make as I have thought it myself occasionally but we don't actually know that they don't donate privately off of their own backs.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by JennaG

I can see the point you're trying to make as I have thought it myself occasionally but we don't actually know that they don't donate privately off of their own backs.

You know what? You are correct. If I ever donate money to charity, NOBODY will ever hear about it. I believe that something given out of charity should be private and you shouldn't make light of it in order to gain the adulation of others, especially when you're a celebrity.

I believe that there is no truly selfless act, as even acts of extreme charity. The feeling you get from doing the act can be more beneficial to you than the recipient. Whenever possible, anonymity increases the feeling of benevolence.

This isn't the case with most people, especially celebrities. Not to say that I'm better, I just have a different view on things. Many disagree with me.

[CarylB]

I think there are some truly selfless acts of love and of charity .. you don't hear of them often because those undertaking them don't brag about it But many acts of great courage are selfless, the person just doing what they believe to be right, or needs to be done, and doing this with no thought of reward or good feelings.

As far as "celebrities" go, they often donate their time and resources to raise money, and not keeping it quiet frequently goes hand in hand with it being successful .. but as Jenna says we don't know what else they do that we hear nothing of.

And if someone gives their time or their money to help another/others, the fact that they may take some quiet pleasure in being able to do this, whilst it may not in your terms be 100% unselfish, it doesn't negate the value of that gift.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Than again I see celebrities who are trying raise money for charity, but I rarely see one of them pulling out their own chequebook and donating their own money.

Celebs giving money to charities is a bit of a no win situation for the celeb concerned.

On one hand, if they donate money and make it known, they are looking for popularity.
If they don't make it known, nobody knows and they are labelled a tight arse
Especially when they urge others to give.

I believe the reason famous people publicly support charities (i'm not talking donations here) is to create public awareness of the charity.
I'm no expert, but I would say most charities would say the awareness and publicity is more important than the coin coming out of the celebs pocket.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I believe the reason famous people publicly support charities (i'm not talking donations here) is to create public awareness of the charity.
I'm no expert, but I would say most charities would say the awareness and publicity is more important than the coin coming out of the celebs pocket.

Without a doubt .. and that PR in itself will help raise money. Meat's support of The Painted Turtle is a perfect case in point.

Of course some acts of charity are beyond price and value .. for eg if you Mouse were to remove 90% of Warrio's polls

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Of course some acts of charity are beyond price and value .. for eg if you Mouse were to remove 90% of Warrio's polls

[CarylB]

However, I would agree completely with Ernie were he to say that would not be a wholly unselfish act of charity

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

On one hand, if they donate money and make it known, they are looking for popularity.
If they don't make it known, nobody knows and they are labelled a tight arse
Especially when they urge others to give.

It's really nobodies business IMO. If anybody truly cares about what a celebrity donates, than I would say that they have an emptiness in their lives that they need to fill with useless facts about other human beings.

[chairboys]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Of course some acts of charity are beyond price and value .. for eg if you Mouse were to remove 90% of Warrio's polls

And the other 10% are left out of pure spite?

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

It's really nobodies business IMO. If anybody truly cares about what a celebrity donates, than I would say that they have an emptiness in their lives that they need to fill with useless facts about other human beings.

But be fair .. it was you who raised the issue here..

Than again I see celebrities who are trying raise money for charity, but I rarely see one of them pulling out their own chequebook and donating their own money.

Than you have Louis CK. He pledged $25,000 of his own money to have a photo taken with Al Pacino and donated the majority of the money that he made from selling his New Comedy Special for $5 through his website. He never even said that he was going to do that, he just did it.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

It's really nobodies business IMO. If anybody truly cares about what a celebrity donates, than I would say that they have an emptiness in their lives that they need to fill with useless facts about other human beings.

Same about the artists political leaning, as we can see on the Romney thread.
I'm baffled that the people who seem to be most effected by Meat's personal political choice are the people who claim that their only interest in Meat is his artisic output.

End of the day, donate or not, speak up or keep quiet, you're damned every which way but loose

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by CarylB

But be fair .. it was you who raised the issue here..

I also said that charity should be a private thing.

There's a difference between caring and casual observations. While I may give a thumbs up to someone who donates a large sum of his own money I also understand why many don't want to donate, even with large sums of money.

Charity is a trait not all possess. Similar to wit or intelligence.