His personality in the game, however, is markedly different. I think he let some of the roughest edges come through at times, but for the most part he was an agreeable guy to be around and to have around camp. He didn't have the social game of Natalie, but he was probably an ok guy to hang with.Thanks for bringing that up. I originally brought that up the minute he lost the game Sunday and felt I was being refuted everywhere I mentioned it. The jury's decision was solidified after they watched the show, but what we were shown was not what the players saw. If that were the case, he'd be gone VERY VERY early in the game, no questions asked (alas Ben).
The reason he lost, in my opinion, is the whole societal concept of CEO's being hated for milking in millions in profit while the middle and lower classes suffer. We can't rise up against these forces but if we were ever allowed to judge them, we would send them all to hell in a heartbeat. especially in these economic times.
The reasons Russell won were very different from the reasons Natalie was invisible. Natalie was invisible, in my opinion, because:
(1) It took away any other winner option from Russell who we were supposed to think wins. By denying her a story on the show, it creates Russell as the only person out there. That either helped by creating controversy as to who should have won or hurt by cheapening the entire premise of Survivor.
(2) The producers couldn't give a flip about women at all, period. Earl was equally as boring and got 4 times as much screen time. Bob was dull and got twice as much screen time.
It's most likely a combination of the two.









