URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID4
Thread Number: 4923
[ Go back to previous page ]

Original Message
"Decention in the ranks"

Posted by AvidRealityWatcher on 12-11-09 at 10:34 AM
Man did Monica stir up the pot or what? Russel is so rattled right now, and that is something he doesnt need. It will take his focus off the game, and put a bullseye right on his back. Sure he has the immunity idol, but how many people in the past have had one, and never used it to their own demise?

Its now day 34, and there are only 3 more TC's left. Russel can only use it up to day 36. If I were him, I would use it just to be safe, but I would tell everyone that I wasnt going to use it. Why, because if they believed me, and they all voted for me, I would be the sole vote as to who really left, and that may be the best move for Russel. That would bring it down to 4 others and if he still has Shambo on his side, and one other whom ever that may be, he would be safe till the end.

But he still has to convince the majority to keep him after the use of the idol, or he had better win some immunity challenges.

The decention between the former foa foa tribe is getting thick, unless we are being duped from a home viewer stand point, (for which i dont believe). I cant believe that it was a plan all along for the foa foa's to act like they are struggling to stay together and still voting out the galu tribe.

I was so worried that Russel was going home last night when I saw the votes coming out. I was really happy to see he made the right decision. He has already used the idol once and it wasnt necessary to use it at that time, and he has used it once to his gain. Last night showed he has patience and perseption.

A good point was brought up on the show. Which 2 would Russel have to take with him in order to win the million dollars. Of the 5 he has left to choose, which would you choose and do you think you would have a snowballs chance in #ell of winning?

ARW


Table of contents

Messages in this discussion
"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by jbug on 12-11-09 at 12:29 PM
Let me think.
Jaison
Mick
Natalie
Brett
Shambo


I can never figure out how the jury will vote. Some go for revenge against a final player; others vote who really played the game.

If they vote for game play, I think every one of the jury would give it to Russell.
Mick, Natalie & Jaison would really have to do some smart talking at the FTC to convince the jury they were making decisions - not Russell.

I don't know that Shambo has a chance with anyone. I just don't think any of the jury respect her game at all.

However, if they aren't rewarding game play, and Brett makes it to the finale, the Gulu's could all give it to him just because he is the only one of their own left.


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-11-09 at 12:30 PM
"Decention"?

What's that?


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by Max Headroom on 12-11-09 at 01:07 PM
I think ARW meant dissention.

Are you the top grammar cop now, Pepe?


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by AvidRealityWatcher on 12-11-09 at 08:30 PM
Well if we are going to be technical about the way I spelled 'Dissention', it wasnt a "GRAMMAR" error. Grammar errors are putting words together in a sentance that are not in proper sequence according to whatever language you are using. (Example: Putting a preposition at the end of any sentance would be bad grammar for the English language.)

The very definition of grammar according to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is: The characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language. I would know, because I looked it up.

Technically it was just a spelling error. My handy dandy pocket dictionary wasnt very handy when I made the post. I am sorry for making such an error.

As I have already posted below:

Hukt un fonix did werk fur me.

But I do want to thank you for coming to my defense. It was nice of you. Sorry to have to correct you, but I thought if you could... well you know.

I will try harder next time.

LMAO

ARW


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by Max Headroom on 12-12-09 at 06:25 PM
The guidelines say that we're not supposed to pick on newbies. All I was doing is reminding Pepe of that fact in a lighthearted manner.

Next time I'll leave you to defend yourself.


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by AvidRealityWatcher on 12-12-09 at 09:03 PM
Im laughing so hard, please dont take what I wrote defencively, as I meant it as a joke. I never read that the newbies were supposed to be picked on, but I would believe it.

On the other hand, if we cant take it when I shovel it back, then why post at all. Again I said I was sorry to pick on you, but the situation presented itself, and I couldnt help myself.

I hope you got some humor out of it too.

ARW


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-14-09 at 07:08 AM
>I think ARW meant dissention.
>
>Are you the top grammar cop now, Pepe?

Well, my first thought was "dissension" but it could also be "dissention" or "deception", who knows? Or maybe "distention" in relation to RussHell's ego. I came away confused as to precisely what the topic was about, so I was just asking to clarify.

(Interesting, "dissention" is not recognized by the spellchecker on here)


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by jbug on 12-11-09 at 12:33 PM
It looked like Jaison & Mick had already decided to vote Monica before they went to TC. It didn't seem that Russell's HII display made any difference.

I was surprised that they did not take the opportunity to get him off.
Jaison, Mick, Brett & Monica could have voted him off.
Even if he had played the HII and Monica went home?
He would have been mad, but they could have told him they were playing the game as they had to in order to win; that they were not there to give it to him. He would be mad about it but really he would have to see it as the smartest thing they could do.



"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by BrassFan on 12-16-09 at 09:56 AM
>I was surprised that they did
>not take the opportunity to
>get him off.
>Jaison, Mick, Brett & Monica could
>have voted him off.

I don't think voting off Russell would be a good idea for Mick and Jaison. I think their *ONLY* chance of winning the game now is to stay loyal to the FoaFoa 4, get rid of Brett and Shambo, and then let the chips fall where they may once they have to eat themselves.

Then, in front of the jury, they can profess that they stayed loyal to the end, and try to throw Russell under the bus for all his dirty work.

If they get rid of Russell, and keep Monica, then they can't even say they were loyal at the end of the game. They won't be able to point to any kind of strategic moves they made. And, if Monica or Brett sneaks out a couple of immunity wins, then Mick and Jaison end up losing anyway.


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by Max Headroom on 12-11-09 at 01:05 PM
I gotta hand it to Monica-- she went down swinging.

Will there be any long-term effects? Doubtful. The points she was making should be apparent to anyone playing the game (which excludes Shambo). Remember Jaison's comment to Russell, "Monica's just saying these things to stay in the game," complete with an unspoken Duh! at the end.

It's about time for the natural game shift into "pick my final 2/3 opponent" mode, where unpopular people like Shambo become threats to make it to the final TC because everyone else knows they can beat them. Monica was just pointing out the obvious.


agman's helping me survive


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by bullzeye on 12-11-09 at 03:24 PM
It will take his focus off the game, and put a bullseye right on his back.

Um, really not my type thankyouverymuch.


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by AvidRealityWatcher on 12-11-09 at 08:10 PM
LMAO, I wasnt meaning you. %ell I didnt even notice your identity here, as I rarely look at identities. Let me take you off his back and just say that everyone will be pointing fingers at him and not someone else.

your too funny.

PS. to the rest of the group

hukt un fonix did werk fer me.


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by bullzeye on 12-11-09 at 08:20 PM
No worries. Though you did insert a mental visual that may haunt me for some time to come.

Fonix is fun!


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by garcor on 12-11-09 at 08:26 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-12-09 AT 08:25 AM (EST)


Guess it depends on the voting rationale of the jurors. If the jurors don't like Russell (easy to believe) he might struggle to beat anyone but Shambo; provided his opponents make a good argument to the jury at final TC.


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by KuwabaraTheMan on 12-11-09 at 11:15 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-11-09 AT 11:17 PM (EST)

I think that telling Mick he was rich is going to be what dooms Russell. It's probably the one real error he has made. As we saw when Jaison went and talked to Monica and Brett, they basically thought that Russell would win against the Jury because of how strong a game he has played, and then they found out about his wealth. That's probably enough to sway the Jury in favor of Mick, Jaison or Natalie winning.

Right now, I actually think that with a Final 3, taking Shambo would be a bad move. If a number of Jurors move against him because of his wealth, they'd all flock to the 3rd option, because no one likes Shambo. His best bet at this point may be to take Mick and Jaison with him, and hope that those who vote from the rationale that 'Russell doesn't need it' split their votes between the two of them.


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by iltarion on 12-12-09 at 03:14 AM
There is much decention here... hahaha... we get our own words.
Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly that Russell's scarlet letter mistake was telling people he is rich. And he needed Monica's vote. He just lost it. People who tell you they won't vote for you so don't vote them onto the jury have a tendency to not vote for you, and I agree with Monica that her vote could have been the critical one for him. On the other hand, she had to go as all of Club Med would have voted for her.

>


"RE: Decention in the ranks"
Posted by Aruba on 12-12-09 at 02:14 PM
Russell would have been better served to keep his income and earning power a secret but in the end I honestly don't think that will matter much and I don't feel it was a "scarlet letter mistake." Russel was not the first (and probably won't be the last) castaway to blabber how much they're worth.

In Thailand when Brian got a video message from home, everyone saw his expensive cars in his garage and finished with a home tour showing a baby grand piano in the living room. This prompted Helen in a confession to declare she wouldn't give a million dollars to someone with that much obvious wealth. Well in the end even despite Brian's possessions and Helen's attack on Brian at FTC calling him something to the effect of a sleazy, lying car salesman, she ends up voting for him. Why? She didn't cite her dislike for Clay; she appropriately and honestly said in her parting words if not for Brian her tribe would never have gotten that far. Translation: She voted for the better player.

Even last season right from the getgo Taj announces she's Eddie George's wife which is pretty much a neon sign advertisement that she's worth millions. She makes the F4 and you know what?...If she wins even one IC down the stretch and JT is voted out she stands a good shot at sitting next to Stephen in the Finals and she probably wins DESPITE being worth millions and millions of dollars.

Even Jean-Robert in China telling players he is a Professional Poker Player. I'm not a huge Poker fan but I have watched enough on TV to know that they can make more in one tournament than the average Survivor castaway can earn in a decade. But there was never any resentment about his earning power and even when voted out no one even remotely indicated his status as a reason to boot him.

I guess the point I'm making is in the final analysis when a Juror at FTC must put marker to parchment and vote for the winner I truly believe how much one is worth doesn't add up to a hill of beans in their final decision making process. Although what it did do is provide a cop-out excuse for a Jury who would cast a sour grapes vote against Russell. Those who will not want to admit they are a sore loser or that Russell outplayed them could say...UMMM...AHHHHH...OK...I wouldn't vote for Russell because he's a millionaire. YEAH...YEAH...That's the ticket!!! LOL LOL


"Not really"
Posted by michel on 12-12-09 at 03:22 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-12-09 AT 03:24 AM (EST)

"The decention between the former foa foa tribe is getting thick, unless we are being duped from a home viewer stand point, (for which i dont believe)."

Well, I'm almost sure it's all make-believe!

Monica's comments were funny and it showed how Russell can be impulsive. But cause dissention? Not really. All that is just the editors using every bit of comments to keep us hooked on Russell's story.

Mick and Jaison would be extremely dumb to ditch RussHell now for an alliance with Brett who would certainly win a jury vote against anyone left.

Natalie understands very well that her best shot of winning is by opposing her social game to Russell's aggresive one. She has nothing to gain by facing someone else than Russell.

That would leave Shambutch but she will NEVER vote against Russell unless he starts laughing in her face. Remember, she was told that John was gunning for her and, even believing he was, she said she wouldn't have voted against him.

Mick and Jaison need to get Brett out of there. That breaks up any chance they have to get Russell because it would then be F5 and Russel would have Shambutch and Natalie locked up.

Right now, everyone is salivating at the thought of facing the jury against Russell so he's the safest person out there. Like Parvati and Jenna, he may not be the goat everyone thinks he is but he'll need a great jury performance to get the votes.


As for the following:

"As we saw when Jaison went and talked to Monica and Brett, they basically thought that Russell would win against the Jury because of how strong a game he has played"

Are you sure about that or was it Monica and Brett's way to rattle Jaison's cage? If Jaison had come to me and asked who I thought would win the jury vote, I certainly wouldn't have answered any other way no matter who I would vote for. Monica telling Russell that Shambutch would win the jury vote proves they were lying to Jaison and were ready to say anything. Shambutch couldn't win votes with Laura, Kelly, Dave and Monica on the jury. Russell should have known right there he was being hustled.



"So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by AvidRealityWatcher on 12-12-09 at 08:37 AM
That the 2 safest people for anyone to take to the final TC would be natalie and shambo. Well shambo is a given. Brett would win against anyone, so that takes 2 out of the equation.

keep: Shambo

vote out: Brett. he has that boyish charm that cant be ignored. he doesnt offend anyone, and has been neutral most of the game. By not alienating himself, all he has to do is make it to the final 3, and he is a millionaire.

vote out: Jaison too, not because he has what it takes to win this, but if he kept the right 2 he would have a shot. He doesnt have the killer instinct to win this, but his resolve to be able to stay in the game without a vote for him to leave since the merge says alot to a jury.

vote out: Mick for sure. If he went to the final, he could win even against Russel. The reasons would be he was voted a leader and people dont forget that. Most leaders are voted out because of incompetance. He has shown no incompetance. He has shown loyalty and works hard to make life at camp better.

vote out: Russel if they were smart, because he would have the same defence as Riohard Hatch. He was the puppet master, and when they all realize it, that gives him respectability. Sure he lied and manipulated, but wasnt that Richards game too.

undecided about natalie: With the right 2 at her side she could defend herself, but would it be enough? Did she play a good enough social game and use the right people to get to the end, or will the jury see through all that, and award the one that best deserves it?

rightfully so, I do believe that it would be a wrong move on anyones part to vote out Shambo, not because she deserves the money, but because Nobody would vote for her.

Your opinion is a very good one. I think if Russel is to win the money, he would have to keep Natalie, and Shambo. But by doing so, he also takes a risk that Natalie will win. Against anyone else, Russel has lower odds of winning especially against Brett.

ARW


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-12-09 at 11:13 AM
Shambutch is a goat. A Goat is great to have in your pocket like Brian realized with Clay. Russell needs her because she's the only one with a worse social game than his own.

That makes her very dangerous as Cirie realized with Courtney and Shane. Cirie's line: "Right now, Courtney is more dangerous to me than Terry" was brilliant in its profound implications.

The players that have good social games should be gunning for her. They need to limit Russell's option because he'd take Shambutch before anyone else.

If I were Mick, Jaison or Natalie, I wouldn't vote out Russell. Sure he can win the votes if the jury sees him like Todd but his character has been much closer to Boston Rob. He relishes in his victories and I'm sure people see that.

As for your assesment, I'd say the 3 players Russell would have the most problems beating are Brett, Jaison and Natalie. He'd win against Shambutch and Mick. Yes, Mick. Russell could destroy him by simply saying: "Mick was a terrible leader. He did nothing. I had to step in and, if he's here, it's because of me, nothing else." Would it work? I think this argument has more weight against Mick than he would have against Natalie.

To sum up my opinion, I think that the jury votes first and foremost for the person they feel was their friend out there and who will be a friend afterwards.

Show me someone that says I didn't come here to make friends and I'll show you a loser. You need to make and break friends. The problem is in how you break those friendships. Russell has no friends.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by AvidRealityWatcher on 12-12-09 at 12:14 PM
You make a good point with Mick. The only thing I think that differs from my opinion and yours is, that although Russel could say that about Mick and therefore beat Mick and Shambutt, Mick could argue back and say that Russel was the hangman, while he himself tried to keep a social side to all this too. Russel never tried to make friends, just shoot them down like prize turkeys and devour them as needed.

Your right when you say that Russel has no friends, but did Richard Hatch? Did he need friends? I dont think you have to have friends on the jury to get votes, but rather a sound strategy that all can see worked and therefore good enough reason to win. The one thing that may be his downfall is to talk about how much money he already has. Maybe he doesnt really want to win the money, but rather just make it to the final 3 so he can say I could have won it, but didnt need it so I decided to let someone else who could use it, win it. That would be respectable to me at least.

The only strategy Mick has had so far was to live in the shadows of Russel and anyone else not pointing fingers at him while being the leader. The one thing that could help him was like so many have posted so far, that he could tell the jury of how much money Russel already has, and how the money shouldnt go to those who deserve it but those that could use it better.

As for Natalie, the same could be said of her living in the shadows, with one small difference, she was never leader, and therefore not as much as a threat as some of the others.

Brett is just too likeable, how could anyone not want to give him the money?

ARW


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-12-09 at 02:28 PM
Good points all except No, you don't need friends to win. There are plenty of winners who were lucky to have more than one "friend" on the jury. Of course, having friends who will vote for you for no other reason doesn't hurt!

Obviously, no one wants to bring Brett to the Finals, and they needn't worry because the editing has shown us clearly that he isn't going there.

Shambo is the best goat remaining. However, I do think she's capable of getting Erik, John and Dave's vote. So, she might not be as good of a goat as you'd think. John and Dave almost certainly vote for Russell; so losing either one of their votes could be disastrous for Russell.

As we've seen many times in the past, loyalty has its rewards. All of Foa Foa would be better off sticking together. IF Mick had indeed made a big move, then he might have been able to distinguish himself from the others and won this. Without a big move, I don't see any difference between Jaison, Mick and Natalie.

Natalie might get a slight voting edge due to better relationships with the women, but we can't be too sure about that either. Monica seemed to have a decent relationship with both Jaison and Mick. And though Laura acted like she hated Russell, I think she might respect his game by the end.

Russell's best chance is probably with Jaison and Mick because neither is a clear cut choice over the other. Even if they get a couple votes, Russell just needs to get more than either of them.

How much will the jury knowing Russell is rich affect things? I don't know. In seasons long ago, that definitely would have made a difference. Not so sure anymore. If it costs him even one vote though, it could make the difference. Monica was right about that. If that does make a difference, then the Foa Foa's should all stick together. If not though, then Mick or Jaison would be better off making a big move and being seen as the "Russell slayer." That could win them the game.


>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by garcor on 12-13-09 at 08:32 AM
If Dave's "exit" interview on this site is any indication of how the other Galu's feel about Shambo, no way does she get any of their votes, with the possible exception of Erik's. Maybe she could get a Foa Foa vote or two, if the voted out Foas are vengeful, but even that seems doubtful. Most likely no one votes for her.

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-12-09 at 02:39 PM

>To sum up my opinion, I
>think that the jury votes
>first and foremost for the
>person they feel was their
>friend out there and who
>will be a friend afterwards.

There have been Juries where you are right on the money with your assessment. And based on how the Jurors are reacting during all the TCs up to this point, it leads one to assume that most likely that will be the case this season. But there have been Juries where that was not the case.

You can bet the house that Helen wouldn't even want to be in the same time zone as Brian as she voted for him to win Thailand. But her reason for voting him was because he was the best player that season and her (and her tribe) probably not even get a sniff of the F4 if not for Brian.

How many wanted to be friends with Chris after the Vanuatu season? None. Even at the Reunion Show Eliza went off on what type of person Chris was. Jeff, never missing a trick, quickly asked Eliza who she voted for? She said Chris. After some snickering and laughter in the audience she appropriately stated he was the better player and deserved to win even though she didn't like him.

And as ARW stated, who wanted to be friends with Hatch with likable Kelly sitting next to him...well likable to all but Sue who became the poster child for a sour-grapes sore loser.

The point I've made all along is Jurors have historically taken two approaches: Vote for the best player in the true spirit of the game or vote for the one I want to be friends with. I'm not going to get into whether one approach is "right" or "wrong" but my contention all along has been it is impossible to know in the beginning of the game when you are putting your strategy in motion who will be on the Jury and what criteria those Jurors will use.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-12-09 at 06:44 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-12-09 AT 08:02 PM (EST)


Let's first address Hatch: The key to Hatch's win was his friendship with Rudy. Hatch also was much closer to Sean (who took him on reward) than Kelly was. Sue was Kelly's friend until the betrayal. Greg became close to Hatch after the merge, not Kelly. That's the 4 votes Hatch needed. The ones he didn't get were the ones that were friendly with Kelly: Colleen, Jenna and Gervase.

Brian is even more clear cut: He never wins if Helen, Ted and Jan hadn't considered him a friend first. He even had is famous counting of the friends on his fingers scene. The jurors realized too late that Brian was a snake. Clay got Penny's vote because he was friendly with her. He lost Jake's vote because he wasn't a friend to him.

Chris had 3 great friends on the jury: Sarge and Chad especially but also Julie who thought of him as an older brother. Eliza hated Twila so that gave Chris all the votes he needed.

BTW: After the season, Eliza, Julie and all were still friends with Chris. Eliza herself said so.

Jurors have always voted for friends first. They consider game first only if the people they have to judge were equally good friends or equally despicable. It's normal that they think that way because social game is part of the strategic game. You can't separate the two like we often do sitting at home. In the game, you have to get close to people to get them to vote with you and, later, for you.

ETA: Iltarion, I really have to ask on which planet does Dave vote for Shambitch? Erik is her only possible vote.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-13-09 at 01:24 AM
Calling Helen, Ted, and Jan "friends" of Brian's is a stretch. When she made her vote for Brian, Helen admitted Brian was the better player, hence her vote. Those three voted for Brian because they recognized they would all have been pagonged post merge if it weren't for Brian. Jake voted for Brian because he and Clay openly hated one another. Brian was counting off his "soldiers" on his fingers, as he put it, not his friends.
I wouldn't say anyone who voted for Amber were her friends when she beat Rob.
The only jurors who could be counted as friends by Yul were Sondra and Jonathan, maybe.
Anyway, like I said, having friends certainly doesn't hurt. Parvati certainly won thanks to her friends.
Dave is an unlikely vote for the Sham, admittedly. I could see it though if Sham, Jaison and Mick were in the Finals.
You are forgetting John though. He could certainly vote for Shambo if Russell isn't around.

>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-13-09 at 02:50 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-13-09 AT 02:51 AM (EST)

During the game, Jan thought of Brian as her Survivor son, Ted saw him as a brother and Helen really liked Brian. In the end, their votes were mainly decided because they had liked Brian and hated Clay throughout. If Clay had been likable, Brian's good game could, would, have been forgotten. A good indication of that: Most think Jan would have beaten Brian if he had taken her to the end.

(thanks for the "soldier" reminder. Yes, the Iceman didn't consider them friends but they had considered him that way which is the important thing.)

Rob lost friends during A$$. That explained the Lex and Tom votes. Kathy voted for Rob because she still considered him a friend after all was said and done. Alicia was friends with Amber since Outback and Shii Ann got closer to Amber.
Rupert is a strange animal!

For Yul, you are forgetting Brad who stayed such a close friend he attended Yul's wedding. Candice liked Yul but didn't like Ozzy. That leaves only Adam who voted for different reasons than friendship. He simply didn't like one that much more than the other so he went with Yul who had kept his word about voting out Jonathan.



"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Tublecane on 12-16-09 at 12:36 PM
"Alicia was friends with Amber since Outback and Shii Ann got closer to Amber."

Shii Ann voted for Rob.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-16-09 at 07:22 PM
No. Jenna, Rupert and Kathy voted for Rob.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_All-Stars


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Tublecane on 12-17-09 at 09:25 AM
"No. Jenna, Rupert and Kathy voted for Rob."

Oh, right. I thought I remembered she had that whole "I love snakes" thing going.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-13-09 at 06:09 AM
Good post, Iltarion. But I must say you were quite generous with your use of the word "stretch." Being the "tell it like it is" type of guy I am, allow me to expand and say I know a very good rotator cuff surgeon!

Seriously, none of Brian's votes were players who would consider wanting to remain friendly with him AFTER Survivor. After the Reunion Show Clay said in an interview that he knew he would never get Jan, Ted, and Helen's votes because he acknowledged Brian as a "better all-round player" than himself. HMMM...now where did we hear that before? But was surprised Jake voted for Brian. Jake admitted afterwards he was not really close to either player and even said he had a closer tie to Clay for nothing more than geographical reasons. But in the end he voted for the castaway who was the best player.

Yeah...if there was ever a season/Jury where the majority of the votes were based on the true spirit of the game and not who you would want to invite for next Thanksgiving dinner it was Thailand.

The Perv "won" Skankivor: Micronesia because a majority of the Jury were castaways she simply spent more time with than Amanda (Ilatrion's OTHER girl...LOL.) And why were more of Perv's former tribemates on the Jury??? WARNING: Michel should cover his eyes before he reads the next line...

Because they won more team ICs!!!

OK Michel...you can uncover your eyes now. LOL

Seriously, out of the five who voted for the skanky HO, the only one I could see as wanting to forge any kind of "friendship" after Survivor is gNatalie. And that's because I have always speculated that the Perv promised some sexual favor to Nat in exchange for her vote. Yes I know it's pure speculation but it would fit Perv's MO and would partially explain Nat's FTC statement. But I suspect no one will ever know that for sure...unless Natalie is stupid enough to leave a Tiger Wood's-like message on the Perv's cell phone...


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by garcor on 12-13-09 at 08:35 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-13-09 AT 08:36 AM (EST)

Didn't Parvati spend time with Alexis and Natalie due to some type of swap, giving her the opportunity to make an alliance with them. What also had to hurt Amanda was the she was so close to Ozzy, she didn't even know about the biggest game changing move from that season, while Parvati (and Cirie) were heavily involved in it.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-13-09 at 10:00 AM
Right you are, Garcor.

The tribal swap put Alexis, Natalie, AND Jason with Perv on the same tribe. Consequently, those were three votes she had in the bag. Throw in Cirie, whom Amanda unilaterally booted out of the game, and Eliza, whom Amanda drops the ball with, and the season became forever known as Skankivor: Micronesia. Well at least in my book. LOL


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-13-09 at 12:25 PM
>Seriously, none of Brian's votes were
>players who would consider wanting
>to remain friendly with him
>AFTER Survivor.

Certainly not. But, when they cast their votes, yes, they liked Brian more than Clay and that clinched it. Like I said, Jan would have beaten Brian.


>After the Reunion Show...

Sorry to be rude but what they think after seeing the show is worth crap to Brian's bank account and to this argument. It's how they feel when they cast their votes that matters.


>The Perv...

Man! Do I have a surprise for you!
I don't have hang-ups about sex. I didn't see anything wrong with what she did. She did less than Romber and OzzManda and a hell of a lot less than many BB contestants. It was all healthy fun.


>..."won" Skankivor: Micronesia because
>a majority of the Jury
>were castaways she simply spent
>more time with than Amanda

So many things wrong with this:
- First, it also meant that Parvati needed to break more promises which could have hurt her.
- Second, if that was such a problem then Amanda could have chosen to go with Cirie instead.
-Third, Amanda still had nearly 20 days to bond with Alexis and Natalie. How much time is neccessary?
- Fourth, Amanda could have kept Ami which would have given her Eliza's loyalty and vote.

>And why
>were more of Perv's former
>tribemates on the Jury??? WARNING:
> Michel should cover his
>eyes before he reads the
>next line...
>
>Because they won more team ICs!!!

Aruba, you should cover your eyes: NuAirai won those challenges because NuMalakal decided to throw the challenges. That's what challenges are worth in Survivor: OFTEN, it's better to lose than to win. Even Yul realized that.

>Seriously, out of the five who
>voted for the skanky HO, (You make me laugh!)
>the only one I could
>see as wanting to forge
>any kind of "friendship" after
>Survivor is gNatalie.

Completely false. They were still all friends afterwards. Amanda even did some charity work with Parvati.

Here's visual proof for you of their friendship and a treat for others:

The rest of your post, I'll ignore as it should be.



"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-13-09 at 02:53 PM
Oh Brother...

Brian did NOT get votes because he was likable...he won because the jurors who voted for Brian acknowledged him as a better player.

The reason NuAirai won those challenges was because Eliza's superb puzzle-solving skills was the difference maker.

Thanks for the pics...but once again you don't read what I posted. I said "OUT OF THE FIVE WHO VOTED FOR THE SKANKY HO..."
How on God's Green Earth could Amanda have voted for Perv if she was sitting next to her in the Finals???? So other than providing a visual treat for all what does Amanda and Perv's charity work together prove in regard to my claim??? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The five votes Perv received were Eliza, Cirie, Alexis, Natalie and Jason. I don't see any of them them in those pics. Perhaps my ENTIRE post should have been ignored by you if you say my post is "completely false" when your rebuttal did not respond to what I said.

BTW...all selected for Survivor agrees to do appearances, charity work, etc. in the name of Survivor after their season is over. So, once again, thanks for the visual threat, but it doesn't prove a thing.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by AvidRealityWatcher on 12-13-09 at 04:21 PM
Guys, Guys!

Cant we all just get along. The two of you are arguing about former Survior contestants. Before either of you tell me "Well he stated it." let me make it clear, I started it. lmao

Your both a little right, jury's in the past have voted for the right person because of social game, and they have voted for the person who was the best survivalist.

Remember: The motto for survivor Outwit, Outlast, Outplay. Its more like rock paper sissors.
Those that win because of outplay are warrior survivalists. Those that outwit are social survivalists.
And those that outlast are longterm survivalists.

What the jury has to weigh in order to come up with a winner is which of these 3 conditions did each of the finalists display, and of those 3, who represented their accomplishment the best.

This season is filled with all 3 representing. Russel has represented both Outwit, and Outlast. In some fashion you may even consider that he has Outplayed as well simply by understanding the game and past history. He used that information to help him strategize finding the II 3 times and using it to his political game. He is the perfect trifecta.

JMHO

ARW


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-13-09 at 04:48 PM
Aruba, read my post also. I said: They are ALL still friends. I just didn't have pics of Eliza, Cirie, Alexis and Nat with Parvati handy. Eliza and Cirie posted on Sucks and wrote about their friendships. And no, the charities aren't all sponsored by Survivor.

ARW: My point is that Outwit, Outlast, Outplay is a nice motto but that's not the jury's primary concern. They vote first for who they like or against who they dislike. The player who managed to be liked by the most members of the jury wins the game.

Only for the occasional juror, when the finalists are equally likable or hated, will game come first.

Russell's only chance is that he could be up with members of the minority and face a huge majority of voters from the other tribe. That's rare because usually members of your own tribe form a sizable part of the jury or tribe shuffles enabled some finalists to bond with the other side.

Galu could form 8/9 of the jury and have to decide between 3 players from the other tribe. Personal feelings may play a smaller role but I seriously doubt it. Russell ignored personal feelings so, if he loses, it will be entirely his fault.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-14-09 at 02:52 AM
I am not getting into the argument.
I am just going to say that Jan never beats Brian. Whoever thinks that is bitter about something and/or delusional. Brian gets more votes against Jan.


>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-14-09 at 05:27 AM

>I am just going to say
>that Jan never beats Brian.
>Whoever thinks that is bitter
>about something and/or delusional.

Once again Iltarion, right you are. Jan never beats Brian...and I think delusional is a good call.

Michel:
I never talked about ALLLLL players and I'm not talking about ALL players on this thread. My focus was on JURY MEMBERS casting votes for the finalists.

I also never stated ALLLL charities are sponsored by Survivor. With all due respect could the Spin Doctor please leave the Hosue? LOL
Seriously, it is a fact that all players must agree to appear in a variety of venues for a set amount of years after their season. Appearing together does NOT indicate "friendship." I can personally recall Hatch and Sue Hawk appearing in a few venues together after Bonera. There was one in particular (that was not sponsored by Survivor) where all they did was argue with each other. So why did they appear...because they are attention whores. Period!


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-14-09 at 08:10 AM
Erin, Penny and Ken still vote against Brian and Helen joins them in voting for Jan = Brian loses.

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-14-09 at 02:13 PM
Helen would not have voted for anyone above Brian. And we don't know what Penny, Ken or Erin would have done.


>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-14-09 at 08:11 PM
Funny because Brian and Clay knew:

RNO: When Brian brought you into the final two, did you think he did it out of loyalty or because he felt you would be easier to beat than Jan?

Clay: I believe it was out of loyalty and also because we both knew that either of us could lose to Jan... Although she got on our nerves with some of the things she did, she did not make any enemies... therefore if in the final two more people would have voted for her...

RNO: At that point, did you think you could beat him?

Clay: Yes, Jake and I had talked about our flare up and I felt that was worked out. Jake also made a statement to me that he wanted the oldest person in the final two to win, leading me to believe that he would vote the older of the two...Brian never tried to get to know or have any kind of relationship with Penny, Erin, or Ken so I felt they would possibly vote for me. I knew that...Ted would feel very angry and betrayed by Brian and that I might possibly get Ted's vote. (At that time I knew nothing about the race card tactic started by one of the tribe members.)/


Jan got even closer to Penny and Erin than Clay did and Ken said he would have never voted for Brian. Helen liked Jan a hell of a lot more than Clay but she said she almost voted for Clay. Jan even had a shot at Jake and Ted's votes (older player, no racist comment). What about Clay's vote if Brian had betrayed him? Brian loses.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-15-09 at 03:02 AM
First of all, Clay can only speak for himself. He can't talk for Brian. So, Clay saying Brian believed this or that I give no credence to. So, that leaves us with Clay believing that Jan could beat them. This is the same Clay that thought he could get Jake's vote. So he was mistaken about a couple things. If he was merely wrong about Jake's vote again, then he would be wrong in his belief that Jan could beat Brian.
Helen never votes for anyone but Brian. Even if Helen HERSELF said she would have voted for Jan, I wouldn't believe it unless she said it BEFORE THE VOTE. So, unless there is video of that laying around, this point isn't worth arguing.


>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-15-09 at 07:39 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-15-09 AT 07:58 AM (EST)

The problem was that Brian didn't speak for himself either. He was boring in interviews, answering: yes, no, that's right...

Whatever you refuse to believe, Clay TALKED directly to Brian and to every juror so he knows much more than any of us. Yes, Clay was wrong about Jake's vote but that doesn't mean he was wrong about Jake's intentions. He didn't imagine Jake saying that, it's just that he blew it with his poor TC answer to Jake.

Even without considering Jan, mastermind Brian winning by only 1 vote against uberGoat, coattail-riding, do-nothing Clay shows that voters vote how they feel first and foremost. 3 players still liked him more than Brian and it got him 3 votes.

(And you can't deny that Ted's vote was influenced by the racist comment he was told Clay made.)


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-15-09 at 06:40 PM
Sure, but if you disregard the faux merge, which I do, Erin was with Brian and Clay for 3 days, probably technically less than that if you consider time of merge to TC. Ken was with them for 6. Did they vote for Clay because they "liked" him or were "friends" with him? Or did they just not like Brian? So, in that case, it had nothing to do with making friends or having a personal connection.
Clay basically bought Penny's vote, though he never gets credit for being perhaps the first to do so.
Brian ignored Erin, Penny and Ken because he didn't need them. He had a plan and he executed it. No one has ever been more efficient and in control on Survivor. I wouldn't be surprised if Brian didn't know their names. Hahaha...

>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-15-09 at 08:58 PM
"if you disregard the faux merge, which I do..."

If you disregard facts you could also say the earth is flat.

That was another full week to show compassion, interest and all that crap that could have gotten Brian a 7-0 win. Instead, he was seriously sweating, especially when it looked like Helen wasn't voting for him.

I already said that people vote for who they like or against who they dislike. So saying that they voted because they didn't like Brian proves my point, it certainly doesn't refute it as you seem to think when you write:

"Did they vote for Clay because they "liked" him or were "friends" with him? Or did they just not like Brian?"


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-15-09 at 06:54 PM
Mastermind Brian won by one vote over uberGoat due largely to the stentch of sour grapes. Everyone on the Jury was aware of the fact that Brian's challenge prowess was the main reason Chuay Gahn pagonged Sook Jai. The three Chuay Gahn jury members rewarded Brian for his outstanding play with their votes and three Sook Jai jury members, still smarting over not getting a sniff of the F4, voted AGAINST Brian. Only Jake proved not to be a sore loser and voted for the deserving and dominant player that season.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...I know Penny said Clay knew where she lived and Brain didn't...Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...Blah, Blah, Blah...
I have stated numerous times on these Boards and will say again here, sore losers generally won't admit they're sore losers and no one wants the tag of a crybaby. So to hide the scent of sour grapes they come up with a cop out excuse as a meager attempt at self-preservation.

There have been Juries who voted mostly on like/dislike, but the Thailand season was not one of them. The vote can down to either Brian who was appropriated recognized as the best player that season or votes against Brian because he was mostly responsible for Sook Jai's demise after they opened the door with their infamous thrown challenge.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by garcor on 12-15-09 at 06:57 PM
easy to believe that people will try not to appear petty or vindictive, even when they are.

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by KuwabaraTheMan on 12-14-09 at 03:08 AM
It certainly comes down to how well liked they are sometimes, but it's not always the case. I think that aspect is most prevalent when either someone sitting at the Final 2/3 is either extremely well liked (such as JT), or extremely disliked (such as Twila). With the exception of Brett and Shambo, I don't really think anyone left in the game right now fits into either category. Russell might not be BFFs with anyone out there, but I don't think there are really very many people who actively dislike him. Most of the Galu members seem to blame their own tribe for its collapse, and players like Erik and John have given him the proverbial 'tip of the cap'.

Not every Juror votes with 'how well they played the game' as their first thought, but very few vote solely based on how much they liked or disliked someone, either. It often tends to be a mixture of a number of things, and I don't think any of the Foa Foa Four (who barring an Immunity Run from Brett will make up the Final 3 in some fashion) have inspired such strong feelings amongst the Jury.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-14-09 at 05:12 AM

>Not every Juror votes with 'how
>well they played the game'
>as their first thought, but
>very few vote solely based
>on how much they liked
>or disliked someone, either.

Correct...and that has been my case all along. Actually it was not I who initiated this whole "like" vs. "dislike" nonsense. I stated in the beginning (before any Spin Doctor could twist my words around) that Juries generally are divided by voting in the true spirit of the game for the best/dominant player vs. sore losers crying sour grapes. You don't have to HATE someone to be jealous of their dominant play that put them in the Finals and/or be resentful that they were responsible for putting you on the Jury.

Quite frankly I don't give a hoot whether players want to remain best friends with each other after the Reunion Show. If that's the reason a player applied to be on Survivor then the casting crew are even more brain dead than they have proven over the years.

My pet peeve is I do not like or respect sore-losing crybabies. Of course as a meager attempt at self-preservation, you'll rarely get a sore-loser to admit they cried sour grapes when casting their disgrunted vote...they'll more than likely cop an excuse to mask their poor sportsmanship.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-14-09 at 08:59 PM
You may think it's non-sense but that's how the game is played. Jeff always says that the game is about voting out people in such a way that they will still want to give you the money. People aren't pawns.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-15-09 at 07:05 PM

>People aren't pawns.


Those are only three words, but I had to reread them about 10 times just to make sure I saw what I saw.

Surely you must be joking considering they were posted in the Survivor Forum. In the game of Survivor that's exactly what they are.

Anyone who signs on the dotted line and agrees to partake in the game of Survivor and believe they aren't or shouldn't be pawns are either hypocritical, ignorant, or most likely a combination of both. And when a crybaby on the Jury votes against a Finalist because he/she treated them like a "pawn," they are sore losers. Nuff Said.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-15-09 at 08:42 PM
No, not sore losers, human beings with feelings. If someone doesn't take that into account, they're not playing a good game.

Only Burnett and his team of editors get to treat everyone like pawns but he has them under a contract that strangely stipulates just that!

A player is a fool if he lets it be known that he considers his opponents as pawns. Russell's expressions at TC tell them just that.

And before you say it's just because Survivor casts stupid people that complain how they were treated on the way out, you should consider that even in pro sports there is an etiquette that says you shouldn't rub it in your opponent's face. In Football, you shouldn't run up the score needlessly. In baseball, a player that steals a base with his team up by 10 runs will get a fastball under the chin during his next at bat in retaliation.

I would think that, with the losers deciding who gets the million, it would be obvious to everyone that how you vote someone out is of utmost importance.

There is a right way to win and being a gracious winner is even more important than not being a sore loser.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by dabo on 12-15-09 at 11:08 PM
Don't take this personally, anyone, but I think this thread has reached the point of pointlessness. Let's all just agree to drop it and move on.

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-16-09 at 08:01 AM
Pointlessness is our specialty! Now, what will we do until Thursday?

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-17-09 at 06:45 AM
I agree Dabo...it's ridiculous that this thread digressed to the horrors of wounding someone's inner child.

Simply put, Survivor is not a game for thin-skinned individuals who are afraid of getting their feelings hurt.

Over and out.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by MizJazmine on 12-17-09 at 05:46 AM
>No, not sore losers, human beings
>with feelings. If someone doesn't
>take that into account, they're
>not playing a good game.
>
>
>Only Burnett and his team of
>editors get to treat everyone
>like pawns but he has
>them under a contract that
>strangely stipulates just that!
>
>A player is a fool if
>he lets it be known
>that he considers his opponents
>as pawns. Russell's expressions at
>TC tell them just that.
>
>
>And before you say it's just
>because Survivor casts stupid people
>that complain how they were
>treated on the way out,
>you should consider that even
>in pro sports there is
>an etiquette that says you
>shouldn't rub it in your
>opponent's face. In Football, you
>shouldn't run up the score
>needlessly. In baseball, a player
>that steals a base with
>his team up by 10
>runs will get a fastball
>under the chin during his
>next at bat in retaliation.
>
>
>I would think that, with the
>losers deciding who gets the
>million, it would be obvious
>to everyone that how you
>vote someone out is of
>utmost importance.
>
>There is a right way to
>win and being a gracious
>winner is even more important
>than not being a sore
>loser.


THANK YOU!!! Russell has played a very predatory game, and he has shown himself at times to be arrogant in TC's. That's why he's going to lose this game. Yes I said it...LOSE. Survivor is as much strategic as it is social. Russell failed on the social part of this game. It hasn't really mattered until now but with the Jury, it's gonna show up. Russell ain't winning this, and all the Russellites will be hollerin' about how he got robbed especially those with "bromances". But I guess their outcry will be anything but sour grapes huh? Yeah...right....


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-17-09 at 07:38 AM
And thank you for showing it wasn't pointless after all!

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Belle Book on 12-17-09 at 04:38 PM
I agree with you. Although I'd probably agree with Aruba that RussHell is the best strategist this season, the game is just as much about social skills as it is about strategy, and the social aspect is something RussHell never paid attention to. I've compared RussHell to Yul a few times and always found Yul better -- and it's because Yul paid attention to both the strategic and the social aspect of the game. That's one reason why Yul won -- and RussHell's failure in this area is why he's going to lose -- most likely to Natalie.



"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by garcor on 12-17-09 at 06:56 PM
you never know for sure until Jeff reads the votes.

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-18-09 at 02:43 AM
Give me a concrete example of Russell being an ungracious winner. I don't see it. I haven't seen him celebrate once. I seem to remember Earl, among many others, laughing his ##### off watching people get voted off. Russell has smiled. That is about it. So I'm wondering where this "ungracious winner" notion comes from.


>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-18-09 at 06:16 AM
Agreed. I don't see any "concrete" examples, although there are inferences where one can "interpret" an ungracious winner. His smile can be looked upon as a smirk depending on how you spin it. Granted this last episode aired before your post, but keeping his HII as a "souvenir" may be regarded as "ungracious" yet he earned that HII so he can do with it as he pleases.

But rest assure those inferences will be spun by jurors as an "excuse" not to vote for Russell when in reality it will be an attempt to mask their bitterness and try to escape the sore-loser label.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-18-09 at 07:21 PM
I see this horse still has life!

You cannot draw a parallel between Russell and Earl. Earl was a gentleman and if he laughed at the 3 horsemen it was because everyone was laughing. Anyway, Earl had his fall guy: Dreamz. The horsemen were looking and blaming Dreamz, certainly not Earl. Who is Russell's fall guy? Russell himself as he's proven he's in charge.

You want examples: - Laura losing immunity was accompanied by Shambo and Russell whooping it up.

- Russell going to Dave and telling him: "You should have come talk to me. That would have been your best move. We'll vote Shambo." (arrogance and needless lie)

- Russell telling Monica: "I'm in the best position in the game right now. Why would I jeopardize that."

- His deals right after the merge with Laura, John and Monica were equal to Boston Rob making a deal with Alicia. Out of desperation, a F2 deal was struck but was never intended to be kept.

And if that isn't enough, I'll go back to Earl who played Survivor with a poker face. Russell has no poker face and the proof of that is the number of secrets he revealed with no reason. His smug attitude in confessionals most probably surfaces time and again around camp.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-18-09 at 07:40 PM
HOLY SMOKES...we may agree! You're right...Russell has a bad poker face. As a matter of fact after he collects his winnings from Survivor I'd love to invite him over for a heads-up poker match with me. LOL

Couldn't some of Russell's "smugness" toward the Galus be a little bit of a payback for Laura's boast of her and Galu holding "80% of the power" post-merge and throwing Russell (Foa-Foas) 20% of the crumbs???


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-18-09 at 09:43 PM
And that boast came after Russell ordered Laura to vote out one of her own: "It has to be one of your guys".

Russell had asked Laura to help him at the merge. You don't ask for help and then give orders to the one you are hoping will help you.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Aruba on 12-19-09 at 05:09 AM
And wasn't Russell telling Monica he was in the "best position now" and wouldn't want to "jeopardize that" come after Monica saying he should vote out Shambo when feeding him the line that Shambo would get more Jury votes???

Interesting when Monica does it she gets heralded as a savy player who is "stirring the pot," yet when Russell does it it's your example to Iltarion as an "ungracious winner."


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Belle Book on 12-19-09 at 12:21 PM
Part of it could be timing. Monica was the next one on the chopping block, so she was in a desperate position. If you're trying to stir the pot when you're in a desperate position, it would arouse sympathy and make people herald her as a savvy player who was just "stirring the pot". I think quite a bit of RussHell's actions came when he was on top, so when he did his antics it would be seen as being an "ungracious winner".

Also, part of it depends on whether you like a person or not. I don't like RussHell even if I do see him as a very good strategic player, so I might be less likely to see his actions in a great light.



"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by michel on 12-19-09 at 12:30 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-19-09 AT 12:40 PM (EST)

ETA: You should read my post again because I didn't even use Russell's orders to Laura as an example to Iltarion. Only the F2 deal he didn't mean to keep. You're the one that brought up that scene, not me.

Anyway, Monica didn't give Russell orders. She suggested Shambutch to save her own skin. Russell was trying to gain control right there and then.

Totally different situations AND totally different outcome.

- IF Monica had been successful
- IF she had gone on to gain control from Russell
AND
- IF she hadn't done any damage control to earn Russell's vote afterwards,

THEN I'd be as hard on Monica as I am on Russell.

As far as I know, Monica isn't in the running to earn a million right now so I don't have to analyze her jury potential.



"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by iltarion on 12-19-09 at 08:38 PM
I don't see any of the examples you cited as actions of an "ungracious winner." The celebration after Laura didn't win immunity is the only one that is close. The other actions could be described as overconfident, arrogant, or just foolish, but not those of an "ungracious winner." Erik has been 10 times as demonstrative at TC as Russell, though I'm aware that isn't saying much. What do you want Russell to do? Be like Yul? Didn't you criticize Yul for being duplicitous to the jury, saying they would see right through that? Maybe that was someone else. Regardless, other than maybe with Laura, Russell has not shown any overt joy at seeing anyone booted.

>


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by dabo on 12-14-09 at 02:41 PM
Brian got Helen's vote because they were the workhorses of their tribe. The two of them were the ones who got things done and kept things going on a daily basis. She still resented having been blindsided but there was no way she was going to vote for a goldbricker like Clay.

"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by Tublecane on 12-16-09 at 12:32 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-16-09 AT 12:33 PM (EST)

"The key to Hatch's win was his friendship with Rudy"

Rudy was only one vote. Maybe Sean's was a friendly vote, but who knows what he was ever thinking, besides "I like bowling." Greg was "close" to Hatch on purpose, if you'll recall. And Sue's vote was not for Hatch but against Kelly.

At best, that's two friend votes and one possible "I like you better than Kelly," or at least "I find you oddly fascinating," vote (Greg).

"He even had is famous counting of the friends on his fingers scene."

That was really more of a "counting of the people I've manipulated" scene.

"Chris had 3 great friends on the jury: Sarge and Chad especially but also Julie who thought of him as an older brother"

I'm sure Sarge and Chad liked Chris, but it was one of those cases where outside forces glued them together, much like with Foa Foa this season, which makes it hard to tell what's friendship and what's staying in the game. Julie was a friend, or little sister or whatever, but bear in mind that his "betrayal" of her weighed heavily (or at least she pretended it weighed heavily). Did she vote for him nonetheless because he was a good friend or because she respected him in spite of it all?

Oh, and Sarge was real close with Twila before she damned her son to hell. Also, Julie was an ally with Twila as well.


"RE: So it would be you opinion then..."
Posted by KuwabaraTheMan on 12-16-09 at 06:28 PM
I know both Sarge and Julie mentioned after the game that they remained close with Chris, although I'm unsure on Chad. Chris was a legitimately well-liked contestant, and probably one of the best social players ever. Even folks like Julie and Eliza who were back stabbed by him still spoke about how much they liked him after the fact.

Remember that it was Julie who got them to keep Chris in the game rather than voting him out (which ultimately lead to him winning). The only real 'anti-Twila vote' I think Chris picked up was from Lee-Ann, who probably votes for Scout if Chris takes her to the end. But he had four close bonds in Sarge, Chad, Julie and Eliza, despite voting three of them out. Not unlike how everyone who JT voted out still lined up to vote for him because they liked him that much.