>What did Parv really do?
>She was always in the
>majority, and she stabbed her
>good IRL friend in the
>back. She's full of
>herself for being "cute" and
>doesn't have a good sense
>of humor, and her smarts
>are only so-so as far
>as I can tell.
>Plus she's lazy. I
>don't like lazy on Survivor,
>never have.

Friendships in real life should NEVER have an impact on the game in Survivor. It's called Survivor where the goal is to outplay, outlast, and outwit. There's time to be friends after the show, but it's a million-dollar game. I've never understood why people like Lex got their pants in a knot over Rob's maneuvers simply because they owe their friendships?

About Parvati... well, she had the presence of mind to set up a second alliance and that was what won the game for her over a loyal Amanda. Parvati was correct in that she likely wouldn't have been there at the end of the game if she stuck solely with Ozzy and James -- and really, it got her to the end of the game, so it was a brilliant strategy. Natalie and Alexis voted for Parvati because of that alliance while Amanda didn't get their votes.

Lazy? Well, Parvati did learn a lot about how to find her own food and go fishing etc. from the reward challenge with the two natives - there were subtle hints throughout the game where Parvati applied what she learned, such as telling James how to fish, using the machete, etc. If I'm on Survivor and I have other people in camp who want to work their butts off, I'm going to take advantage of it, help out where I can but save my energy as much as possible for the challenges. Parvati did what she had to do in order to win, so how can we fault her strategy? It got her the win, half because of her ability to develop friendships and half because Amanda had no gumption to be aggressive in her final statements.