Survivor

jtrentvvinitially you stated there has never been a final 2 because so many jurists vote for just one person. somewhere along the way your "statistical" apple turned into an orange. X used to = historical vote distribution at tribal councilyour initial premise (the apple) was there has never really been a final 2 because so many jurists vote for one person. now you are off on some tangential flight (orange) creating tables of worthy's, goats and candidatesare you high today? when I responded to your initial vote distribution premise it was in reference to historical measurable data. your tables are kind of silly. but hey you're entertained

JTRentvv wrote:

alkikodibear wrote: the 2 times there have been a final 3 it may has well have been final 2.

And what about the several times when there was an F2? In MOST, it may as well have been F1.I don't mind you F2 people having opinions, but I'd rather your arguments have some basis in reality, or at least MAKE SENSE.

JT, Is that really you? *BAND*

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 12/09/2008 20:27:35

A F2 would have made figi much better, if it was a F2 then Dreamz and cassandra could have voted earl out next and forced the jury to pick between the two of them, this would have given the jury two choices that both would have had a shot of winning, instead of having one clear cut winner like there was in the F3. but since it was a F3 that left the jury with an easy decision and earl won by a landslide.

I think final 3's suck @$$!

Explorer2008 wrote: I think final 3's suck @$$!

me too.

alkikodibear wrote:

Explorer2008 - I think final 3's suck @$$! [/quote wrote: me too.

Same here

mcporche wrote: I like the final 3 for one reason...It eliminates the possibility of a person keeping the most hated person around so that they get an easy win. For example, it would have been a smart plan to keep Randy around if you know there will be a final two, since he's easy to beat in front of the jury.But, with a final 3, you have to plan a bit better.

That is such a great point.

alkikodibear wrote: jtrentvvinitially you stated there has never been a final 2 because so many jurists vote for just one person.

I have no doubt that is what you READ, but if you go back and read what I WROTE which was

JTRentvv wrote: it WASN'T the BEST 2 that made it to the end, more often than not it was one of the best and a GOAT that stood NO chance.

as well as

JTRentvv wrote: And what about the several times when there was an F2? In MOST, it may as well have been F1.

To make sure the distinction I am trying to make is perfectly clear, "more often than not" and "most" NOT the same as "never".Or, to put it another way, "You have to read ALL of the words, not just the ones you like."And since I was also called on my "more often than not" by someone (I forget who, and it's not really relevant to this discussion), I went back and SHOWED who the goats were, and that 9 goats is certainly more often than not (4 non-Goats), and 9/13 in my book likely qualifies as "most".You also asked if I was high. No more or less so than any other day.Now, I have a question for you. It is not a leading or threatening question, just for my (and our audience's) informational benefit:alkikodibear, were you on the boards last season? I have to admit I don't remember your name, but you could have had a different nick, or I may just not be remembering you.

bandfour wrote: JT, Is that really you? *BAND*

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone!

I_Hate_You88 wrote:

alkikodibear -

Explorer2008 - I think final 3's suck @$$! [/quote wrote: me too.

Same here

and sometimes I think that the world is flat, or that I am [the Deity of your choice wrote: 's gift to the opposite gender.Neither "thought" changes reality....

jtrentvvummm I did not respond to your goat post. I responded to your in cases of final 2 it may as well of been final 1 post. (the two posts in questions were next to each other) I was not on the boards last year. I started posting during big brother 10 (diva's daily threads) Having watched all the survivor seasons I don't know why I had never visited fans/forums. I guess I was just never in the mood to drivel before my golden retriever is sighing. I am late for her first walk. oh dear the long soulful glance. bad me.note to self: walk the pup before visiting the survivor boards.

JTRentvv wrote:

I_Hate_You88 wrote: [qu - te=alkikodibear -

Explorer2008 - I think final 3's suck @$$! [/quote wrote: me too.

Same here

and sometimes I think that the world is flat, or that I am [the Deity of your choice]'s gift to the opposite gender.Neither "thought" changes reality....

What the hell kind of response is that?I'm an atheist btw so no diety for u!

I_Hate_You88 wrote: What the hell kind of response is that?

The (apparently obscure) point being:Just because the TWO of you THINK F3's suck, doesn't change the REALITY that they are better for the show, and the Jury.

jtrentvvah- and since in an earlier posting you deified yourself as the REALITY god ( in capital letters no less) we lesser beings should shrivel back under our lump of clay in hopes we can morph from sentient beings to amebas. Ha! since you are a rather toothless god unable to effect a jihad I believe I will continue to express my opinions. Now- we did have an earlier miscommunication. being a budget analyst I thought in terms of historical votes cast in F2 situations. Before you deified yourself you were thinking in terms of goats and nongoats. take a look at MCPORCHE post. this person disagrees with me while raising a good point. no farm animals or deities involved.

alkikodibear wrote: take a look at MCPORCHE post. this person disagrees with me while raising a good point. no farm animals or deities involved.

Yes, MCPORCHE had a good point. The difference is purely terminology, however. His "most unliked person" (or whatever words he specifically used, this site SUCKS for referring to older messages) is often referred to as a "Goat" in shorthand by "all the cool kids". And someone who is drug along as a mindless supporting vote (I'm sure you can think of examples, like Clay) is a "Sheep".As for my deification, that was more in your reading than in my writing. "You" (not just you, alki, but everyone who reads anything I post) are WELCOME to have opinions. The point I was trying to make is such opinions are MUCH more meaningful if they have some supporting argument or evidence. The old, "Because I'm the [Parental Unit of your Choice], that's why" doesn't really care much weight when discussing Survivor, at least in my book.BUT, if you had been on the S16 boards, you would have seen me say (several times) I (almost always) write things that can be interpreted either a) Educationallyb) Humorouslyc) Confrontationallyd) all of the abovedepending on the needs of the reader. The advantage is, they respond in the manner that they are "expecting", and thus I don't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they are after and can continue the conversation with them the way they expect it to go.On the other hand, on the (ever so much more superior) S16 Boards we HAD sigs (signatures automagically appended at the bottom of every post). One of my standard sigs was: Not even I believe everything I say.Now, don't YOU feel silly???? I think we lose a LOT, not having sigs....

Survivor

Survivor Community Forum