Archive through September 25, 2000

The ClubHouse: Big Brother 2000: General - Archives: Houseguests: Eddie: Eddie's Unfair Advantage: He's Censored: Archive through September 25, 2000

Kuh

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 02:55 am Click here to edit this post

Donnalea - You obsession with my penis is going too far, get help.

Remus

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 04:05 am Click here to edit this post

Kuh - are you Russ? Did you change your name to get a jump start on some relevance?

I do not mind the Eddie Hating...no matter what they say, we can at least retort.."At least He is being Real!"

Jamie and her fans will evaporate on Wednesday night

Kuh

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 04:42 am Click here to edit this post

Remus - Jamie will go on Wednesday night, but be assured, I'll still be here to defend your next target.

Affinity

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 06:03 am Click here to edit this post

There will be no target next Duh, I mean, Kuh
(you vote for the winner)

Creamynougat

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 07:32 am Click here to edit this post

I try to be an equal-opportunity defender and critic. It's simply not the case that Eddie can do no wrong or Jamie can do nothing right (or visa versa). One can glance at a person's alias and have a pretty good idea where they'll stand before even reading their posts. And having a single standpoint can become boring after awhile -- but to each his own.

I do not believe that Eddie has an unfair advantage due to network censorship of bad language. All HGs are treated equally and anyone using improper language would be similarly censored.

Whatever

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 07:41 am Click here to edit this post

From casting, to coaching, to editing, CBS/producers have assisted Eddie to stay in the house.

From the beginning, CBS and producers have suggested that having Eddie as the winner will make a better story for Big Brother.

If Eddie was a two-legged person with the same behavior, he would not have been cast, let alone stayed in the house.

Eddie was coached by CBS not to use banned racial terms and to stop making racially insensitve remarks.

Eddie has been edited favorable by silencing his continual cussing, rather than bleeping or partially editing language offensive to viewers.


CBS has had to continually make difficult decisions regarding every houseguest.

Ultimately, some of these decisions will necessarily affect the outcome in one way or another. Sometimes it is intentional, and other times unintentional on the part of CBS and the producers.

They have tried to be ethical to viewers and houseguests, while also doing their job to make the show entertaining.


With regard to Eddie, you can choose to accept or reject these facts. And, either way, you can still decide to ignore it altogether, or consider it relevant as you wish.

In any event, well-reasoned discussion on the topic is probably more convincing and meaningful than the thoughts, or lack thereof, that some have been posting.

Creamynougat

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 07:50 am Click here to edit this post

I do think Julie Chen's pronouncement that she favors Eddie to win was highly improper.

Soweird

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 08:44 am Click here to edit this post

If Eddie was a two-legged person with the same behavior, he would not have been cast, let alone stayed in the house.

So what you really have against Eddie is that he has only one leg. That explains a lot.

Eddie was coached by CBS not to use banned racial terms and to stop making racially insensitve remarks.

And George was prevented from appearing in blackface and from wearing a Klan-like outfit. Are you complaining about CBS, or the houseguests who were coached?

Eddie has been edited favorable by silencing his continual cussing, rather than bleeping or partially editing language offensive to viewers.

And Karen's full moon in the bathroom was blurred out. Aren't you glad they don't show us everything?

Nishy

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 10:06 am Click here to edit this post

While I'm not sure Eddie would've been nominated less if he had two legs and I don't think he has "played up" his handicap, I do think that a guy with two legs who did some of the things Eddie has done might be less popular with the viewers. I don't think musing about that possibility means one is biased against Eddie because he has but one leg.

Soweird

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 10:40 am Click here to edit this post

I don't think musing about that possibility means one is biased against Eddie because he has but one leg.

Maybe not, but I certainly disagree with the suggestion (not yours, I know) that having a leg amputated gives someone an unfair advantage. I believe a person's motives would be questioned if he asserted that "If Cassandra was white with the same behavor, she would not have been cast, let alone stayed in the house as long as she did".

Nishy

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:07 am Click here to edit this post

All I am saying is that it's not hard to imagine that some viewers might tend to cut Eddie more slack than someone else who behaved the way he sometimes does. Read the other threads and see if some posters don't do exactly that. They say "yes, he's foulmouthed, but who wouldn't be after all he's been through?" Or, more subtly, "Yes, he's foul, but I still like him because of all he's been through". Fair or not, that opinion is out there.

Soweird

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:24 am Click here to edit this post

Nishy, I understand your point. But I also have to point out that this probably only seems significant because you singled it out. There are any number of reasons people cut the HGs slack. He's young, she's young, he's a family man, he's worked hard his entire life, his mother died, she has nobody her age in the house, she is the only minority in the house, she's Miss Washington USA, she's insecure about her looks, he has a high IQ, she's in a bad marriage, etc. What makes any of these a more "fair" reason for cutting a HG some slack?

Spright

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:29 am Click here to edit this post

Nishy, I agree with your post.

Soweird, Nishy can make one point without having to make the same point for all the other HGs, I think. You or other posters can go ahead and make those points but that doesn't invalidate Nishy's point.

Soweird

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:40 am Click here to edit this post

Spright, my point is this. If the suggestion is that Eddie is the only one with personal attributes or experiences that influence the way people feel about him and that it's somehow unfair, I disagree. It's that simple.

I also think it isn't out of line to speculate on why someone would pick a single one and label it an "unfair" advantage. If I said "Jamie would not have been cast if she wasn't Miss Washington USA", particularly in the context of a negative post about Jamie, it would not surprise me if people suspected my feelings about beauty pageants.

Creamynougat

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:41 am Click here to edit this post

Eddie may have an advantage, of sorts, due to his missing leg. But I don't think there's anything unfair about it. I don't think Soweird was necessarily making the same point for all the other HGs as much as pointing out that *any* characteristic could be similarly labelled "unfair" -- e.g., intelligence (or lack thereof), age, sex, race, etc.

Creamynougat

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:42 am Click here to edit this post

You beat me to it, Soweird. LOL.

Soweird

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:54 am Click here to edit this post

Thanks Creamynougat. I know we don't agree on some things, so I appreciate that you understood and helped clarify the point I was trying to make.

Whatever

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:59 am Click here to edit this post

Soweird- "But I also have to point out that this probably only seems significant because you singled it out"

Actually, Nishy quoted Eddie supporters who are the ones "singling it out" in their attempts at justifying or excusing Eddie's unacceptable behavior.

There is "unfairness", or just plain ignorance, in the notion that Eddie supporters use his past or disability to excuse his actions, and then claim that they do not consider that fact in their judgements.

Such circular logic is akin to your effort to express your ignorance by posting flames, then contradicting your own position by restating as your own the thoughts which you were attacking.

Chris

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 12:25 pm Click here to edit this post

Creamynougat:
> Eddie may have an advantage, of sorts,
> due to his missing leg.

It could also be a disadvantage, the way some people think. They don't want to see it, and would rather he not be there. There is also one poster on this board, who is handicapped, and is incensed that Eddie did not develop into the same kind of person s/he is. If Eddie was not handicapped, I doubt s/he would be so agitated.

Soweird

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 12:30 pm Click here to edit this post

Whatever-

I think I understand the point you're trying to make: you don't like me. You could have just said that and saved yourself a lot of typing.

Whatever

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 12:50 pm Click here to edit this post

Soweird-

I have no reason to dislike you. Thanks for sharing how you feel.

I thought you were being extremely inconsiderate by posting thoughtless flames, and responded accordingly.

Attacking ideas without understanding them is foolish. It's probably wiser to ask questions nicely first, if you are sincerely trying to understand someone else's point of view, and then engage in debate thereafter, if desired.

There are far too many posters here who make the assumption that any ideas different from their own must be incorrect, or less informed. Usually, that assumption is wrong.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

Whatever

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 12:57 pm Click here to edit this post

Soweird-

(couldn't edit my previous post, but want to add the following.)


I usually give all people the benefit of the doubt, unless I have reason otherwise. Try reading my post as if we were friends or like each other, and see what conclusions you agree or disagree with. I think your response would be different than what you posted.

Hope there are no longer any bad feelings. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

Whatever

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 06:37 pm Click here to edit this post

A rather large number of discussions started by both Eddie supporters and those opposed to Eddie winning have been deleted from the BBFC website.

Some were inappropriate to begin with, but a number of discussions had valid discussions which were flamed, mostly by Eddie's so-called supporters, and apparently deleted on that basis.

I am sure the moderators have been doing a good job, as they always have. I hope that other anti-houseguest threads were deleted with the same policies applied.

While the huge and uncensored "clothesline" thread remains, it has degenerated into meaningless spam, primarily from Eddie "supporters", negating any previous serious conversation.

it must be a difficult job balancing the various interests here. Neil's wife has expressed her support of Eddie, and Eddie's mom apparently is an occasional poster. Despite this, I imagine the policies here are applied relatively fairly.

It does seem a bit unusual, however, that so many deleted threads were Eddie-related.

Novasea

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 06:47 pm Click here to edit this post

To the topic: Eddie's Unfair Advantage: He's Censored - Why aren't they showing this weeks behavior? Why don't they show how he spent most of Friday night hollering so loud half the live feed posters had to switch feeds, where was the swearing (bleeped of course)?

The TV audience aren't getting the full SENSE of his distasteful loudness, hardly any of his farting episodes, only a burp or two, none of the disrespectful things he's directed to his mother "BRING IT ON WOMAN" (in response to his mother soaping his mouth), swearing for his Grandmother (who'd ask him not to swear.... etc.

Where was the talk of how the kemo ruined his kidneys as he was 'sick' from a hang over?

If this isn't censoring OUT, and not giving the TV viewers the full/real picture of what is going on in there, with Eddie, then what is.

Just as this need issue gets to be a factor in deciding who to vote for.... they show him in the RR talking about loosing his leg immediately after they've shown his conv. about how it happend.

A similar conv. happend earlier in the show, I recall hearing it. SO why are they playing it now, again?

Wow, is this program skewed, & is showing favoritisium.

I wonder the percentages of voters that have only TV to go by and those that have computers AND TV.

Bigbored

Monday, September 25, 2000 - 07:01 pm Click here to edit this post

Eddie is not talking about sex in some liberating way, folks. I would support someone who actually had something to say about sex, whether humorous or daring or frank. Eddie's vulgarity has no point or substance. It's just junk. He's interjecting obscenities into other discussions, enlightening and liberating no one.

Eddie's vulgarity is censored by CBS, and that minimizes the impact of this large flaw of Eddie. If CBS censored all Curtis's witticisms, that would be unfair too. That would hide or minimize a real trait of one of the contestants in a popularity contest. If CBS censored all the signs of Curtis's intelligence, that would be unfair too. If CBS blocked out Josh's cute face or his bare chest, that would be unfair too.

If there were no censorship, Eddie would be long gone from the house. The public would have voted him out.

I oppose censorship. Let those who want to listen to Eddie, do so. Their numbers would dwindle quickly, once they caught an earful.