LAST EDITED ON 12-18-05 AT 02:00 PM (EST)

First of all, you're double-posting. You started a thread this morning with the exact same text. That is a no-no. But since I disagreed, but did not respond to your new thread, I'll do so with your post.

>What Rebecca was demonstrating was the
>ability to stand up for
>an underdog under enormous pressure.
>That's separate from "personal feelings"
>that involve subjective, negative observations
>intended to harm another person
>and advance your own position.

'Personal feelings' can be negative or positive. They are just that - personal. BTW, Rebecca is not the first person on the Apprentice to stand up for the 'underdog' (even though Toral was NEVER an 'underdog'. An incompetent, yes, but no an underdog). The only true example of courage under fire on The Appretice would be Jenn M from Season 2. She stood up for Stacy J in the boardroom when the entirety of the Witches Coven sought to, and DID, paint Stacy J as worthless in DT's eyes. And what made her truly courageous, a woman of her convictions (NOT friendship!), was that she and Stacy J were NEVER friends. Jenn M stood up for courage,
integrity and on the strength of her convictions.
Rebecca stood up for her friend.

>What Rebecca did was something
>totally different from that, and
>far more complex. What Rebecca
>did is extremely rare in
>the corporate world.
>
>Under ordinary circumstances in the corporate
>environment, someone like Toral will
>be treated as though she
>has cooties, whether or not
>she has something to contribute
>(and she very well may
>have).

Possible. If she ever learns how to use a TV remote control, at any rate.

Her abilities will be
>totally overlooked because she conveniently
>gave everyone else an excuse
>to feel superior toward her.

Were we looking at the same show? Toral despised the other women, looked down on them ("they could be mine and Rebecca's secretaries"), ridiculed them for not having as 'good' an education as she and Rebecca had, said in the boardroom they were all "jealous" of her because she was beautiful. Toral was not underdog, and if anyone demonstrated a feeling of superiority toward others, it was Toral. Plus, she told lies.

>The fact that Donald joined
>in and took every opportunity
>to keep Toral in cooties
>was that much more incentive
>for the apprentices to dismiss
>her. In other words, Toral's
>behavior tagged her as a
>lower chicken in the pecking
>order, and that position was
>ratified by Donald.

Thank you for PROVING my point about Jenn M and Stacy J. Nothing you wrote is true about Toral. Everything word you wrote fits Stacy J to a T!!

>People snuggle up to the ones
>who are closer to the
>"Light" (i.e. Donald or anyone
>in corporate management) and push
>away people who are further
>from it. Nobody will stand
>up to defend the person
>with cooties. This is despicable
>from a spiritual standpoint, or
>the standpoint of personal integrity,
>but it's practical if your
>objective is to get ahead.
>It's a strategy that works
>well for the self-serving. Toral
>was that person - an
>easy target the apprentices could
>attack and dismiss.

Again, thank you for proving MY contentions. Personal integrity fits Jenn M to a T. What you speak of with Rebecca was FRIENDSHIP. And for everything you say about Toral, just type in Stacy J's name - the TRUE underdog.

>What Rebecca did was pull Toral
>back into the mix and
>reiterate: "I believe in you."
>Toral, in response, had a
>fervent loyalty toward Rebecca that
>nobody will ever be able
>to shake. Everything Toral did
>from that point on was
>not for her own benefit,
>but for Rebecca's. And she
>gave it everything she had.
>
>
Excuse me? Because Rebecca stood up for their friendship, Toral became her dog? That Toral said in effect that she was no longer working to be chosen The Apprentice, that she was there SOLELY to advance Rebecca's cause? Cooties? That's insanity!

>A great manager gets excellent performance
>out of mediocre employees.

Then Yahoo should expect good things of their newest, mediocre employee.

A
>great manager knows how to
>instill personal loyalty (in Toral's
>case, "worship") in her team.

Toral worships Rebecca? Wow. Talk about insanity!

>A great manager recognizes ability
>where no one else sees
>it. Because Rebecca showed signs
>of being a "great manager",

I didn't see any. I saw a mediocre talent pretending with DT's blessing and biased editing, to be a star.

>I would expect her to
>have told Donald to hire
>Randal as well, had the
>tables been turned. Why? Because
>Randal would have owed her
>big time. She then would
>have had his loyalty -
>provided he was a large
>enough soul to recognize what
>she was doing for him
>(his actions in the finale
>suggest, however, that he does
>not).
>

I'm beginning to see a trend here. If someone is what most people would consider a "friend" to you, you automatically become their "dog" for life.

>Rebecca used another strategy, but hers
>didn't involve shutting people out.
>Her's involved gathering people around
>her, supporting them, and making
>them grateful and thereby loyal
>to her.
>

Name one other than Toral - whom you consider to be Rebecca's 'dog'. When those contestants stood at Randal's request, it told me that some of her teammates did not even LIKE Rebecca and that most did not respect her (Psst! That's the relationship most people have with their friends - like and respect, rather than blind, dumb doggy loyalty).

>I prefer Rebecca's strategy to Randal's.
>Randal instilled loyalty in his
>teams as well when he
>was competing, but when he
>reached the finish line he
>dropped the ball and made
>an enemy out of Rebecca
>instead of a loyal supporter.

Umm. So beating the competition is not enough. We have to MAKE people who try to claw their way to the top over our dead, defeated bodies, our "loyal supporters", as well. Interesting concept.

>He had an opportunity, and
>he missed it. It casts
>a pall on his judgment,
>in my opinion.

By your stated and implied definitions, I'm sure it did.

But, back to the editing process...

P.S. Edited to say that ND4me's post follows this one, but because it is dated 12/16/05, and mine and Namedujour's posts are dated 12/18/05, it refers back to a post previous to ours.