New Posts For Thread: saturdays stalkershttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkerseveningC'mon Chomps, we both know it's poor and lazy use of the English language. I expect better from youhttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462952361#462952361C'mon Chomps, we both know it's poor and lazy use of the English language. I expect better from youSat, 21 Aug 2010 22:25:48 -0500deejayric Joined: 26 Feb 02Replies: 821 21 Aug 10 22:37 Chompy_imoAnyone that STILL thinks putting (XXnew) after a new topicThat should be 'anyone WHO' Chomps, not 'anyone that' - 'that' would be used to refer to an inanimate object.Just somethinghttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462935045#462935045deejayric Joined: 26 Feb 02Replies: 821 21 Aug 10 22:37 Chompy_imoAnyone that STILL thinks putting (XXnew) after a new topicThat should be 'anyone WHO' Chomps, not 'anyone that' - 'that' would be used to refer to an inanimate object.Just somethingSat, 21 Aug 2010 18:55:08 -0500Im happy to be fickhttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462926725#462926725Im happy to be fickSat, 21 Aug 2010 17:39:00 -0500haha DJ my knight in shining armour, thanks matehttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462921029#462921029haha DJ my knight in shining armour, thanks mateSat, 21 Aug 2010 16:49:01 -0500Chompy_imoAnyone that STILL thinks putting (XXnew) after a new topicThat should be 'anyone WHO' Chomps, not 'anyone that' - 'that' would be used to refer to an inanimate object.Just something you need to know. To learn if you will.https://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462919685#462919685Chompy_imoAnyone that STILL thinks putting (XXnew) after a new topicThat should be 'anyone WHO' Chomps, not 'anyone that' - 'that' would be used to refer to an inanimate object.Just something you need to know. To learn if you will.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:37:32 -0500topperthis is the 1st one ive watched all the way through since BB1 and BB2 apart from a week in the middle where jjj spent the entire time under the covers and the camera's were glued to the duvet...its been quite good, well up until now..tuesday cahttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462916973#462916973topperthis is the 1st one ive watched all the way through since BB1 and BB2 apart from a week in the middle where jjj spent the entire time under the covers and the camera's were glued to the duvet...its been quite good, well up until now..tuesday caSat, 21 Aug 2010 16:16:49 -0500chompy im going to down a bottle of whisky, stick around palhttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462916445#462916445chompy im going to down a bottle of whisky, stick around palSat, 21 Aug 2010 16:12:52 -0500being an ugly bast ard certainly does'nt help in this world...i should knowhttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462916265#462916265being an ugly bast ard certainly does'nt help in this world...i should knowSat, 21 Aug 2010 16:11:11 -0500Come on lets get to 50 the excitement is killing meHow sad are we still watching this garbage.https://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462916105#462916105Come on lets get to 50 the excitement is killing meHow sad are we still watching this garbage.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:09:49 -0500OK Armaramper, I know we've moved on but there's something you need to know. To learn if you will.It's would have, should have, might have. Not would of, should of, might ofThe belief that it's 'of' springs from thickets thinking should've is, in fachttps://community.betfair.com/big_brother_11/go/thread/view/110169/25678821/saturdays-stalkers?post_id=462916033#462916033OK Armaramper, I know we've moved on but there's something you need to know. To learn if you will.It's would have, should have, might have. Not would of, should of, might ofThe belief that it's 'of' springs from thickets thinking should've is, in facSat, 21 Aug 2010 16:09:19 -0500