>"That was my 5th post(RE Everett),
>I think, so how many
>sarcastic reactions do you need
>at that point to solidify
>an already growing impression?
>
>One?

Exactly! That's a 20% sarcasm reply rate. My posts complimenting the show have about an 80% NO-reply rate. My posts containing sweeping generalizations about the membership? 100% reply rate!

I reread the Everett thread and was struck by something that I think will surprise you: the reply which I believe you are considering sarcastic - which is by CantStandToLook - is not the one that bothered me! Is that indeed the one you called sarcastic? Because yeah, that's sarcastic, but that is not the one that infuriated me. It didn't make me feel good, and certainly contributed to my overall impressions of the membership as mockers, but it's not the one that got my goat. The one that got my goat was by ladro who said:
"mabye (sic) this post helps explain why this season is not as good as the first season."

That really burned me up. Because when someone posts a short comment that appears pithy and tart, but which is also obscure, without explaining the reasoning behind it, the suggestion is that anyone as "smart" as them will immediately be able to unravel the thought processes that led to the comment, and everyone else isn't worth bothering to communicate with.

That superior attitude is infuriating to me. My only comfort is that with that kind of post, the probability that there is NO reasoning behind it is 50%. Because some people will say things like that just to appear smart. And there's a 100% probability that this person is a poor communicator.

>In all
>honesty, the reason I thought
>you were being sarcastic was
>that it was inconcievable to
>me that they would actually
>kill the frog. It
>never crossed my mind (though
>I cant speak for anyone
>else here) that anyone would
>seriously believe that Everett was
>"offed" in order to "keep
>it real". I wouldnt
>say that makes me "savvy".
> Perhaps just not as
>cynical.

Hmm, I'm not sure how you got to the frog being "offed". What people thought was that the frog playing Everett had died of natural causes while the series was shooting. Rather than re-cast Everett's role with a new frog, the producers decided to write his death into the script. They knew that no other frog could really play the Everett role as well, anyway. Besides, the frog wrangler was the highest-paid member of the crew, and with them having to lay out an extra $100,000 to Amanda due to Ingrid's refusal to be fooled, they figured they could cut some costs. Union rules require animal actors to be hired from licensed agencies and to have a full time trainer/wrangler on set.

Okay, part of that was me elaborating on the misconception. But it's true that the idea that the frog had died of natural causes came from a comment made by one of the acting cast members when talking to the camera - some wording like "nature took its course" - and people interpreted it that the frog died in real life before he died in the script.

>I was absolutely not mocking you.
>In the least. I
>had in fact mulled over
>adding a disclamier to the
>post telling you so, but
>thought I had worded it
>carefully enough that it would
>be understood. There was
>a show not too long
>ago, "My Big Fat Obnoxious
>Fiancee", and there were several
>people who brought up the
>mental fallout for the contestant
>and her family. It
>was a sincere statement, and
>I stand by it.

I loved that show! What's her name, Randi, right? I've seen her co-hosting on the TV Guide Channel. She looks OK to me.

Wow, I had not heard of any serious damage that had resulted from that show. I do know that Rocket Science Laboratories, which made the show, was sued by a couple for psychological damages on another of their shows, "Temptation Island". And I wanted to sue them for bad TV on "The Next Joe Millionaire". Were they sued for MBFOF, too? Heck, they already gave the family a million.

It's almost enough to make a company get out of the cruel exploitative reality TV field.

So, the idea of lasting psychological damage from being on a reality show has yet to be verified - at least as far as I know. I think I'd rather you have been mocking me than to believe that shows like this could really cause damage that serious. It kind of takes the fun out of watching these shows. But I absolutely take your word that you weren't mocking me, now that you've explained it.

>Let me just add that I
>never called you "thin skinned".
>That people laugh at the
>show, that they mock it,
>that they bash the contestants...all
>true. But no one
>would be here if they
>werent watching because its entertaining....by
>default, its hard to assume
>yourself "above" something if youre
>laughing your butt off at
>it.

I guess I just don't get that. And what makes me feel isolated is that I also tune in to the pathos on this show, which is what I meant when I said I was in the minority here - not in liking the show, but in "my views on the show".

The absurdity of mocking a "reality" show that is mocking reality shows never seems to occur to anyone. It takes mocking to a whole new level. If you mock "Forever Eden" because a bunch of self-obsessed hardbodies without a whole brain between them are strutting around plotting to win a game that neither they nor the viewers know the rules of (nor apparently the producers), you're mocking the shallowness and ridiculousness of reality TV at its worst. If you mock "Joe Schmo", you're mocking the hard, creative work of writers and actors and a crew that are working their butts off to both entertain you AND keep it real enough to make the show's central joke work. It seems to me that to mock these fellow mockers of reality TV can only come out of a need to feel superior to everyone. I may be wrong about that, but I'm quite surprised that these pretty clever guys pointing out the same reality TV absurdities that people on this site have probably busted on many times aren't considered "one of us" instead of people to find fault with.

On the other hand, mabye that shows why this season is not as good as the first season.

No it's not as good as the first season. It's way, way better!

>While "Eleanors" dissing
>of "Austin" didnt make me
>cry, I thought it way
>cool that she felt empowered
>enough to do that.
>I dont think that there
>are too many "Austins" in
>the world that get the
>dressing down that she gave
>him while lifting herself up.
> Do others share that
>feeling? I have no
>idea, but if someone wants
>to laugh, (in my mind)
>its their perogative, it doesnt
>take away from what I
>got out of it.
>And Im not saying that
>you feel it does, I
>guess my point is that
>there are some who wouldnt
>be willing to admit it.

Can I just say something here, and have you know in advance that I am absolutely not making fun of you, but in fact identifying with you?

I don't know if 'perogative' was a typo for you or not, but I will candidly admit that until the year 2004 I really thought that that was the word and the way it was spelled and pronounced. I went through elementary school and high school and college with a degree in *English* and I got through all that believing the word was perogative. It was how I spelled it and how I pronounced it. I don't believe I was ever corrected. When I read the word it was also how I saw it in my head. Lately I'd noticed a word "prerogative" and I wondered what it meant. In context it seemed to be used exactly like perogative, with the same meaning.

Finally I looked it up in the dictionary and found that not only did it have the same meaning but it was actually the proper spelling for a word that didn't even exist - "perogative".

Now that I know it is prerogative - I still can't prounounce, nor can I hear, that first "r". I wonder how widespread this is.

As for Eleanor, the actress who played her revealed in her post-eviction Spike chat that she was on an adrenaline high for four hours after that last scene with Austin. She knew as an actress she had reached a true high point in her career. I really felt it, too. It was a triumph both for her character in the story and for her in her own life.

Yeah, that part about "And I found out that I'm a kind, pretty, funny lady..." just went right to my throat and turned on my tear ducts. And when I watched a second time, it did the same thing. I'm not ashamed of that. And the acclaim for her performance was very widespread - so widespread that it even made it onto this site! Not in the episode summary but in the fine print at the end.

>The fact that you took the time to make a well thought out
>response tells me that you probably would do well here.

Well, thank you, Esbea. Is it too late for me to volunteer to write up the final hour?