LAST EDITED ON 05-08-11 AT 04:13 PM (EST)

David is, it would seem, a very persuasive defense attorney: a highly effective advocate whose professional bread and butter is dependent upon his ability to sucessfully identify, frame and argue the flip side.

And while it is possible that the something to which David refers in his exit interview with RNO (below) will be discarded by editors - or will turn out to be a postgame publicity stunt - I don't think that either will be the case. For the same reason that I doubt that David ever asks a question before he knows the answser, I also don't think that his ego would permit him to chance advertising a non-event or to risk the appearance of an intellect anywhere south of cultured brilliance. I also doubt that we would hear about the thing that David has left to do - from David - unless David considers it to be the defining moment of the Jury phase of Survivor: Redemption Island.

So, given this exchange ...

RNO: We are about out of time, so is there anything else you’d like to tell us about your time on Survivor?

David: The only thing I’ll say is it’s not done yet. I’ve got something left to do.

RNO: Interesting! We’ll look forward to that.

David: I am as well.

RNO: Hmmm, foreshadowing! Thanks again, David!

... and considering the full range of this Season's probable/possible F3 configurations, I would love to hear who all of you think was most likely to have received David's pro bono largesse.

Because I think that if we continue to approach the question of Who won the Game? from David's perspective, we'll be a lot closer to our answer. For instance:

I don't think that David would waste his breath on the fortunes of a player who, given his or her F3 scenario, was a popular choice. What fun - for David - would that be?

ETA: As is Mark Burnett, David is a Cancer. And, like Mark Burnett and many other of the Sign's natives, he appears to be a born devil's advocate and a dedicated connoisseur of all things ironic.