>Bob is a champion who was
>ready to be "Eriked" right
>out of the game. To mention Bob and Erik in the same sentence is nothing short of ludicrous. No way Bob gives up his IN at the F5 TC. If you really want to stretch it you can credit Sugar with giving Bob an "out" to justify not giving Ken the necklace. But since Ken STILL did not vote for Bob and Bob won anyway is was not a factor in the final analysis.
>There are two big differences between
>Ian and Bob:
>- Katie was playing to win
>the game when she did
>that. Sugar was playing for
>a new movie contract.
Katie was playing to win???? Do you really think in her wildest imagination she thought she had any chance of beating the most perfect Survivor to ever play the game??? As a matter of fact she stated that she was hoping to salvage at least one vote so she wouldn't be shutout by Tom (which she did with Coby's vote.) Sure doesn't sound like someone "playing to win" to me.
>- Ian still had to play
>the F3 challenge, Sugar gave
>Bob a seat in front
>of the jury.
Please note the word I put in boldface - opportunity
All I'm saying is both Ian and Bob were given opportunites to advance and win. Ian didn't; Bob did.
Sugar did not "give Bob a seat in front of the Jury." She gave him a seat in front of a fire-making apparatus for a tie-breaker. Bob gave HIMSELF a seat in front of the jury by winning the tie-breaker on his own merit.
>"Danielle got it wrong"
>
>Still not over it I see!
Not so...just stating that Terry was more deserving than Aras.