Survivor

j_jammer wrote: Underdog would mean not a chance in hell.He had more than a chance in hell....they liked him. They liked him well enough that Sugar protected him. No underdog gets protection. He's not an underdog.

OK, now we are finally getting somewhere.No, "not a chance in hell" means "not a chance in hell", at least in MY dictionary. Dead Man Walking (like Randy), to use another phrase.I always thought an "underdog" was anyone (or thing) that had a less than 50% probability of succeeding, but I checkedhttp:// www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/ underdog (sorry for the spaces)and I see 1 : a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest 2 : a victim of injustice or persecution In MY Humble Interpretation, Bob fits BOTH definitions, and definition 1 is not far from mine. Neither references a magnitude of chance, just "predicted loser".Could you please cite a credible reference to support "your" definition? I would appreciate it. Always looking to learn new things.

There is one main reason the F2 is better. It provides a chance for the other F3 players to knock off the winner-to-be. For example, in Fiji, it would have been exciting to see Dreamz and Cassandra to try to win final immunity and knock off Earl.

This is so true, if figi was a F2 the final tribal would have actually have been good. There is no way that anyone can say this wasn't a dud final tribal the vote was 9-0-0. Like you said a F2 would have made this so much better and cassandra and dreamz would have been close.I also don't undesrtand one thing JTRentvv how is a F2 a dud just because the 3rd place finisher would have beat the 2nd, I still don't see what your trying to say.

j_jammer wrote: Bob doesn't think of the consequences of his actions. Ken and everyone else does. he just does what is right for him at the moment.Flawed because he was mad that Sugar laughed at Randy. He wasn't mad at her, he was mad at how he conducted himself to get where he now was. If he were thinking of consequences he wouldn't have dealt with Kenny how he is dealing with him....The final challenge will be endurance and he can't beat out Matty.

No, your first two paragraphs are YOUR INTERPRETATION of his play. And You think F3 is boring, I shudder to think of an ENTIRE SEASON of players who play the way you describe.MY interpretations is Bob saw that Randy was gone no matter what, so Bob decided to have a little fun (and gave up a potentially game changing tool in the process). Bob was FINE with what BOB did, but he didn't appreciate everyone ELSE kicking Randy when Randy was down. Likely Randy and Bob will have a big laugh out of it, when they get a chance. But the video we saw doesn't give any more support to your interpretation than it does to mine.And again, it is not right for you to ASSUME Matty makes it to the Final, and DOESN'T take Bob. Unless you have inside information, we haven't seen any information to support that. There is still a LOT of game to play.And in ANY case, Bob is STILL 3 (or MORE) positions better than he WAS, due to his PLAY. Bob was SUPPOSED to go the week Randy did, if you remember or review the episode.

nj10devils wrote: Like you said a F2 would have made this so much better and cassandra and dreamz would have been close.I also don't undesrtand one thing JTRentvv how is a F2 a dud just because the 3rd place finisher would have beat the 2nd, I still don't see what your trying to say.

Again, you ASSUME Cassandra and Dreamz. You have no basis for this.And an F2 is a dud NOT because the 3rd place would have beaten the 2nd, it is a dud because the F2 wasn't WORTHY of sitting in that spot, so it was OBVIOUS who the Jury was going to vote for.As a counter example, Colby in Australia COULD have taken Kieth, and Colby would have won 7-0-ish. But Colby took Tina, and NO ONE knew who was going to win until Jeff read the last vote. Most I would guess STILL though Colby would win.But did you think Matt would beat Jenna? Danielle beat Aras?

Ok now I understand what your trying to say, I still think F2 is better though it goes with the tradition of survivor and they allow the person who won the challenge to have a much bigger advantage (which I feel they should)

JTRentvv wrote:

j_jammer wrote: Under - og would mean not a chance in hell.He had more than a chance in hell....they liked him. They liked him well enough that Sugar protected him. No underdog gets protection. He's not an underdog.

OK, now we are finally getting somewhere.No, "not a chance in hell" means "not a chance in hell", at least in MY dictionary. Dead Man Walking (like Randy), to use another phrase.I always thought an "underdog" was anyone (or thing) that had a less than 50% probability of succeeding, but I checkedhttp:// www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/ underdog (sorry for the spaces)and I see 1 : a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest 2 : a victim of injustice or persecution In MY Humble Interpretation, Bob fits BOTH definitions, and definition 1 is not far from mine. Neither references a magnitude of chance, just "predicted loser".Could you please cite a credible reference to support "your" definition? I would appreciate it. Always looking to learn new things.

When has he been mistreated? Never.When has he been a loser? Never.He was never part of the Onion Alliance. If there is an Underdog it's Matty since the beginning. But people fail to see those that look strong as an underdog while totally underestimating those that are not strong...just like Kenny did with Bob. It was apparent Bob was going to win challenges but they just didn't see it because he's old. That's the problem....you don't think someone can't do something until they actually don't.Matty is the one that has no one with him. Supposedly there's Suzie. Even Sugar was going to vote him out because he's a threat....I don't see how he is other than how well he is liked by everyone on the Jury.

nj10devils wrote: Ok now I understand what your trying to say,

Good. Sorry it took me so long to get my point across.

nj10devils wrote: I still think F2 is better though it goes with the tradition of survivor and they allow the person who won the challenge to have a much bigger advantage (which I feel they should)

And you are WELCOME to think that way. And thank you for providing a reason for your thinking.My PERSONAL desire is that, each IC, the top HALF (rounded down, so top 2 out of 5) are immune. This would serve to keep GOOD players (like Matty) in the game longer, and weed out the non-contributing coattail riders (Crystal) sooner.But then, we aren't the producers....

JTRentvv wrote:

j_jammer wrote: Bob doesn't think of the consequences of his actions. Ken and everyone else does. he just does what is right for him at the moment.Flawed because he was mad that Sugar laughed at Randy. He wasn't mad at her, he was mad at how he conducted himself to get where he now was. If he were thinking of consequences he wouldn't have dealt with Kenny how he is dealing with him....The final challenge will be endurance and he can't beat out Matty.

No, your first two paragraphs are YOUR INTERPRETATION of his play. And You think F3 is boring, I shudder to think of an ENTIRE SEASON of players who play the way you describe.MY interpretations is Bob saw that Randy was gone no matter what, so Bob decided to have a little fun (and gave up a potentially game changing tool in the process). Bob was FINE with what BOB did, but he didn't appreciate everyone ELSE kicking Randy when Randy was down. Likely Randy and Bob will have a big laugh out of it, when they get a chance. But the video we saw doesn't give any more support to your interpretation than it does to mine.And again, it is not right for you to ASSUME Matty makes it to the Final, and DOESN'T take Bob. Unless you have inside information, we haven't seen any information to support that. There is still a LOT of game to play.And in ANY case, Bob is STILL 3 (or MORE) positions better than he WAS, due to his PLAY. Bob was SUPPOSED to go the week Randy did, if you remember or review the episode.

It is right for me to assume. All you do when you watch Survivor is assume....even the players do that. Some are just better at it than others.I said nothing about final three. I just don't think Bob is going to be a part of it. And even if he is he can't win.His play was not a play until he talked to Sugar. She helped him gain that idea. He wouldn't have done it had he not talked to her anyway. He was fine being picked off one by one because he couldn't figure a way out.If he was ok with what he did he would have been able to look at Randy and laugh a little. But he couldn't which means he wasn't ok with it and that is why he was so upset. It has nothing to do with Sugar laughing. He was mad at himself for doing something he probably thought he wouldn't to get further in the game.

j_jammer wrote: When has he been mistreated? Never.When has he been a loser? Never.He was never part of the Onion Alliance.

Those definitions are distinct. But I'd say he was unjustly targetted (initially), but they have always (so far) found someone else to actually pull the trigger on.As for loser, it says "loser OR predicted loser" [emphasis mine]. The Filthy Fang's have "predicted" Bob as the "loser" (initial target of the vote) for the last three weeks, and he has had to totally rebuild his "alliance" every week.Bob was the 5th layer of the Onion Alliance. And he is STILL (at least) 5th place.

j_jammer wrote: If there is an Underdog it's Matty since the beginning.

Matty is welcome to be an underdog, also. The bottom HALF of the "pecking order" can be considered underdogs, by my definition. Likely only one person a SEASON,by yours.

j_jammer wrote: But people fail to see those that look strong as an underdog while totally underestimating those that are not strong...just like Kenny did with Bob. It was apparent Bob was going to win challenges but they just didn't see it because he's old.

Sorry, are you saying Bob is not strong, or that he IS strong?

j_jammer wrote: That's the problem....you don't think someone can't do something until they actually don't.

And here is where you lost me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

j_jammer wrote: Matty is the one that has no one with him. Supposedly there's Suzie. Even Sugar was going to vote him out because he's a threat....I don't see how he is other than how well he is liked by everyone on the Jury.

He's a threat to "run the table", i.e., win all the rest of the immunity challenges, like Kelly Wiggleworth and Tom (among others) did.

j_jammer wrote: It is right for me to assume. All you do when you watch Survivor is assume....even the players do that. Some are just better at it than others.

No, it ISN'T "right", it is just predictable. And I DON'T assume when I watch Survivor. But you are right in that a LOT of the players do. that is what allowed Kenny to get Sugar to turn on Ace. In fact, I'd go so far as to say MOST people get confused between what they KNOW and what they BELIEVE (or assume). I just hope I get a lot of you "assumers" on the island when I get there. Because you will have NO IDEA what I am doing to you, and at least a few will THANK me for voting them off when I do, or even VOLUNTEER to get voted off in stead of me.But can I ask you to Google "Occam's Razor"? I suggest it would be good for you to understand the principle.

j_jammer wrote: I said nothing about final three. I just don't think Bob is going to be a part of it. And even if he is he can't win.

Assumption, based on interpretation.

j_jammer wrote: His play was not a play until he talked to Sugar. She helped him gain that idea. He wouldn't have done it had he not talked to her anyway. He was fine being picked off one by one because he couldn't figure a way out.

Not exactly sure which idea you are talking about, but that's OK. If you mean the Randy thing, it made NO difference in them getting picked off one by one, but it DID form a side-alliance between Bob and Sugar that came to fruition this week. AND BOB HASN'T been "picked off one by one", so far.Have you ever calculated how many HOURS of video they shoot to create the 42 minutes of show we see each week? And then factored in the fact that they are trying to tell a compelling STORY, so that they get to do it all again next season, rather than being canceled due to boredom? For example the BobDawg CasaDelCharmin wine episode didn't go down exactly as it was portrayed, according to BobDawg himself. But that's OK, because we wer entertained.

j_jammer wrote: If he was ok with what he did he would have been able to look at Randy and laugh a little. But he couldn't which means he wasn't ok with it and that is why he was so upset. It has nothing to do with Sugar laughing. He was mad at himself for doing something he probably thought he wouldn't to get further in the game.

Again, interpretation. I saw Bob smile a little Mona Lisa smile at TC, until everyone started snickering like little schoolgirls, and he may well have looked Randy in the eye (like Bob did when he handed Randy the Idol), but we only get the 42 minute story they want to tell us, to justify the winner. As an example, I have been saying for WEEKS that Kenny's self-aggrandizing "strategy" comments were setting him up for a big fall, and we saw that again this week.

j_jammer wrote: He was mad at himself for doing something he probably thought he wouldn't to get further in the game.

Again, your interpretation of YOUR reaction. But fine, if YOU want to limit the tools you can use to oplay the game, I RELISH the opportunity to play against you, because NOTHING is out of play for MY game, except those things specifically forbidden in the rules. If you want to bring a pocket knife to a machine-gun fight, more power to you. But don't be surprised when you lose. I think Bob knew what it was going to take to WIN, and I think he is using every tool he has available, as they BECOME available. At least that is MY interpretation, which again is no less supported by the video we have seen than yours.

jtrentvv wrote: He's a threat to "run the table", i.e., win all the rest of the immunity challenges, like Kelly Wiggleworth and Tom (among others) did.

There are only two left.How many individual ones has he won? None.how many have Bob won? Three. (I believe).Matty has never been a threat. That accusation is hollow and crap.It was apparent that Bob was a threat via that challenges that showed his skill...such as when they did the slingshot. From that moment he was a threat...and it was the fault of everyone for not seeing it. He can't be an underdog. He may have gone and he may have not....we don't know. He did stick around and he has for a while and no one has complained about him. They have, however, said things about Matty.

jtrentvv wrote: Again, your interpretation of YOUR reaction. But fine, if YOU want to limit the tools you can use to oplay the game, I RELISH the opportunity to play against you, because NOTHING is out of play for MY game, except those things specifically forbidden in the rules. If you want to bring a pocket knife to a machine-gun fight, more power to you. But don't be surprised when you lose. I think Bob knew what it was going to take to WIN, and I think he is using every tool he has available, as they BECOME available. At least that is MY interpretation, which again is no less supported by the video we have seen than yours.

You're such a hypocrite. Nothing you say is fact and is all assumption.Don't like it, don't do it yourself.And your interpretation is an assumption. No better than anyone else's. I don't think he knows what the hell he is doing. He would be in control if he did. He's like a leaf on the water, right now.

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

And on one occassion, it could have been a final one. Let's not forget Earl talking all the votes from Dreamz and, I forget her name, Cassandra?

Matty is an absolute immunity threat. He is always in blisteringly close second place to whoever wins. (And yeah, he has won immunity; he saved himself at the tribal split on his own power, and his shooting in slingshot golf won his team reward)He hasn't won these individual immunities, but it doesn't mean he's not damn good at the challenges. He is *just barely* losing to Ken and Bob, and that means any time they slip, he can surge ahead. If you were actually watching his performance in any of the challenges and you think he's crap, get your eyes checked.

jtrentvv wrote:

nj10devils wrote: B - t did you think Matt would beat Jenna? Danielle beat Aras?

I think Danielle would have beat Aras had she lost the final immunity challenge. Here win of II ensured her loss.

Survivor

Survivor Community Forum