| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 CSCin3D |
|||
|
Posts: 13652 (12/23/09 09:37 AM) Registered user |
agent2424 wrote: No, it's Eliza being called out for bashing the Samoa jury on bitterness when she was one of the most bitter and hateful jurors in history. I just want her to acknowledge that bitterness DEFINITELY played a role in her votes. |
||
|
QualityBobby |
|||
|
Posts: 7677 (12/23/09 11:22 AM) O.o |
FoieXBartaXZonde wrote: alo @ you thinking you're an internet badass. She got GOT? ORLY? |
||
|
garyw |
|||
|
Posts: 364 (12/23/09 11:33 AM) I don't take hints |
Twitter is possibly the worst invention ever.
|
||
|
craig |
|||
|
Posts: 16772 (12/23/09 11:51 AM) Registered User |
7500 posts for the best juror ever!
Made drama at Final TC but voted for the strategic mastermind who booted her both times. |
||
|
Oowatanite |
|||
|
Posts: 9899 (12/23/09 01:23 PM) Registered User |
QualityBobby wrote: 
|
||
|
MonkeeSpanker |
|||
|
Posts: 1204 (12/23/09 01:24 PM) |
The point is Nat didn't do shit to win this game, she won because she was "nice". Why didn't Mick win, he played the same game as Nat but
better. She didn't win any individual or tribal challenges, she was weak around camp and was part of the dumb bitch alliance.
I haven't been this pissed at a jury since the OJ trial, this jury us worse, they need to die ASAP. Rational people know who really won Survivor. I don't even like Russhole, but I'm man enough to admit he owned those bitches. I'm watching boxing on tv right now, I hope the nicer guy wins, same thing with the next Super Bowl, I hope the game isn't decided on the field, they should give the game to the team with the nicer players. |
||
|
Shred |
|||
|
Posts: 878 (12/23/09 01:33 PM) |
MonkeeSpanker wrote:Mick helped get rid of Erik? Natalie got the most important part...THE VOTES TO WIN. The main goal. It does not matter how you play, getting to the end and getting the votes is what matters. Mick sucks. |
||
|
MonkeeSpanker |
|||
|
Posts: 1205 (12/23/09 01:52 PM) |
Mick sucked as hard as Nat, so why didn't the pussy jury give him the vote? They both played a shitty game.
they need to revamp the whole game, get rid of the idiotic tribal council, it would much more fair to send the last place finisher home, this would eliminate the weak ass players and ensure a true Survivor victory. Put more emphasis on physical challenges and get rud of the gay gossip Rounf the camp fire. The way the show is set up now only rewards weaklings/cvnts, put less weight on the social aspect and more on strength. This is supposed to be Survivor, not Big Brother in the wilderness. I'm sick of seeing jerkoffs like Nat, Chet and Krazy Kathy on my tv, these people are boring and would prob die if they tried to survive on their own.
Last Edited By: MonkeeSpanker
12/23/09 01:55 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
 GrenadeJumper85 |
|||
|
Posts: 15028 (12/23/09 02:09 PM) |
If Mick played the same game as Natalie, than why did he receive no votes from the jury? I'm waiting for your "BITTER JURY" answer any second
now.......
You're an idiot, Survivor has NEVER been just about surviving in the wilderness or being physical in challenges you fucking dumbass. If that were the case, then we need to erase the entire show, including the entire first season with Richard winning. |
||
|
WylDawg |
|||
|
Posts: 21517 (12/23/09 02:11 PM) Registered user |
GrenadeJumper85 wrote: Exactly. Doesn't everyone here constantly bitch that women have no chance against men. Then why did golden boy get the shaft? Even a bitter jury excuse makes no sense because nobody was pissed at Mick. |
||
|
Oowatanite |
|||
|
Posts: 9902 (12/23/09 03:01 PM) Registered User |
WylDawg wrote: The seven Nat votes came from jurors who were obviously colluding in order to prevent a possible Russhole win if votes are split between Nat and Mick. Brett and Laura probably spearheaded the votes towards Nat over Mick and nobody else really cared who won as long as Russhole DID NOT win. |
||
|
Shred |
|||
|
Posts: 885 (12/23/09 03:20 PM) |
Brett has started that he felt that Natalie was better then Russell, I guess he was a huge part of why she won. I think he told Galu to vote Natalie in a
block cause she deserved it more then Russell.
Then came Erik's speech Russell could not recover. GOOD. |
||
|
cardswin5 |
|||
|
Posts: 2306 (12/23/09 05:44 PM) Registered user |
Oowatanite wrote: Guess who's fault that is? RUSSELL'S! |
||
|
WylDawg |
|||
|
Posts: 21521 (12/23/09 05:46 PM) Registered user |
Oowatanite wrote: Feels like I'm on an episode of the Twilight Zone that I'm arguing in favor of a hot chick and you against, but tell who was going to vote for Mick. I never saw him connecting with any Galu people. |
||
|
GrenadeJumper85 |
|||
|
Posts: 15043 (12/23/09 05:50 PM) |
Yea, Oo is basically confirming what everyone has already been saying - they chose Natalie over both Mick and Russell because she played the game AND connected
with them on a personal/social level as well - something neither of her competitors did.
|
||
|
craig |
|||
|
Posts: 16775 (12/23/09 05:59 PM) Registered User |
The seven Nat votes came from jurors who were obviously colluding in order to prevent a possible Russhole win if votes are split between Nat and Mick.Mick was a worse social player than even Russell because he never connected with the jury. Edgic assumed he was Aras, but really he was Matt S6. Laura said they barely spoke, Erik thought him a bad leader with a sense of entitlement, and Shambo called him feckless. Jaison and Mick's behavior at F5 shows how little connection they had. Natalie had Christian bonds (Laura and Brett) and girlpower bonds (Laura and Monica). Erik had his own peculariar logic for choosing Natalie. But I think Kelly and Dave were influenced not to vote Russell, because their views shifted postboot. But even if they stuck with Russ, Jaison is the decider in a 5-4 Natalie win.
Last Edited By: craig
12/23/09 06:03 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
BlakeB717 |
|||
|
Posts: 2823 (12/23/09 07:11 PM) Registered user |
The jury was giving it to Mick or Natalie, according to interviews. They preferred her jury answers. Mick was quite liked by the jury.
|
||
|
Oowatanite |
|||
|
Posts: 9905 (12/23/09 07:27 PM) Registered User |
BlakeB717 wrote: Blake, come on now. Nat's jury answers were no hell - Erik 's speech was Nat's "best answer". And why would the "quite liked" Mick get ZERO votes ? Only one reason, bro, and that's jury house collusion. Hell, his buddy and fellow professional Jaison didn't even vote for him. We saw a lot more Jaison/Mick during the season than Jaison/Natalie. |
||
|
BlakeB717 |
|||
|
Posts: 2824 (12/23/09 07:29 PM) Registered user |
I'm just saying word-for-word what was in jury interviews. Besides John and Sham, everyone agreed they were voting Mick or Natalie, and Natalie's answers (I thought they were terrible) won out (the editor's editted the FTC horribly). |
||
|
ilovekelly752 |
|||
|
Posts: 775 (12/23/09 07:32 PM) |
Oowatanite wrote: And if that's true, that shows that Natalie made friends with the right person in Russell, and the right person in Laura. |
||
Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.
