You're correct when you said that the other players
didn't "initially" see Charla as a threat. When they
all returned the first time to give the 4some a bad
time and had been able to view the shows of Charla
scheming with Dave...they ALL were SHOCKED that she
wasn't Miss Innocence, like they'd thought.Charla definitely did Dave wrong at the end by not
sharing the winnings. Up until then, I thought all
the winning 4some group were CLASSY people. That
one fateful decision of Charla's to keep all the
winnings changed my mind about her.
From what I've heard, Charla bought herself a home
near St. Paul and invested the rest of the monies.
She's sitting pretty...with a huge karma debt to pay,
one day. Lisa
I liked Dave. I still like Dave. In post show interviews I admire Daves' character. He's the same guy off the show as he was on the show. I thought he was one of the shows' few admirable characters. Of the men I only liked 3 of them, Dave, Keith, and Scott, the rest of the men were pretty boys, or just really immature, ranging from Andon 7th grade immature, down to zack juvenile delinquent. However, of the 3 I like, Keith is first by a mile. In my opinion all 3 played like men. Keith though played by MY OPINION of what a real man is supposed to play like. He was straightforward, honest, direct, and not afraid to do the unpopular thing. I put Dave in 2nd over Scott because although Scott played a bit more maturely than Dave most of the time, Scott also tried to play too middle of the road and under the radar. That's fine and I don't dislike him for it, it just isn't my IDEAL of the most manly way to play.
As much as I like Dave though; I don't have a problem with Charla not sharing the money with him. There are several other reasons, but my main reason IS Dave's melt-down and, in my opinion, fatal mistake at the end when he basically tried to backstab Keith and Tara. They were the FAB4. Many people try to say it was 2 teams, keith-tara, and dave-charla. That however is not true, and if it were true then dave-charla would NOT have made it to the end because keith would have chosen scott over dave due to daves' backstab. right? (in other words, if you want to say that it was merely dave-charla, then dave caused her to lose). Does anybody disagree that keith would have chose scott over dave if it was 2 2somes instead of 1 4some?
it was k-t-d-c, NOT k-t, and d-c. The 4 had agreed they wanted to be the final FOUR. I never once heard a discussion by any of them about a preference for which TWO should win. OBVIOUSLY they all knew that at some point they'd have to play against each other. However, due to the alliance, it should have gone without saying that they would not play against each other UNTIL it was down to the 4 of them, right or wrong? Of the four of them; THREE of them kept that promise, DAVE did not. He began to play against Keith while there were still 6 players. Surely you noticed how badly that upset Charla. SHE felt betrayed too. Rightfully so In my opinion. Dave messed up and I bet she would have shared the money if he had not done that.