pjadedd wrote:
As much as I dislike Russell, a dream scenario would be Russell vs. Amanda final 2 (if they're both on) in season 20, with Amanda pulling it off.
If Amanda makes finals and loses AGAIN, I'll die in laughter.
0 Points
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor: The Future
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows that Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs that Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Biggest SORE LOSER ever
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Greenkiwi |
|||
|
Posts: 26 (12/22/09 08:50 AM) |
If Amanda makes finals and loses AGAIN, I'll die in laughter. |
||
|
Axie.rsfd |
|||
|
Posts: 37 (12/22/09 08:54 AM) |
pjadedd wrote:Damn, hard one. Maybe she could win. But there's something about Amanda! Her mere presence at a FTC seems to push people in the opposite direction. Considering that, maybe Galu would block vote on Sugar. Except Erik, that would vote on Amanda to get inside her panties (just like S15 Erik), and John and Shambo, that would vote for Russell anyway. Shambo should marry Russell, really. Imagine their adorable children! |
||
|
ThrowMeGabon |
|||
|
Posts: 1334 (12/22/09 02:12 PM) |
SuperJude wrote: 
Thomson's plum pudding model <3 |
||
|
Sshaaz |
|||
|
Posts: 589 (12/22/09 02:40 PM) |
Clown, the best way I can describe it is this: Mick said what he did about "moral leeway." He lied as much as Russell did. He congratulated Russell
on every move he made. Natalie did the same thing. The only thing that saves these jury members from the same thing they are condemning is the fact that they
were voted out before they had the chance. It is absolutely hypocritical. Erik was the worst one. Look at Jaison's statement. It is glaringly obvious,
spending a few days at the Ponderosa and listening to the talk around Galu, that minds were made up and the criteria for the decision wasn't a fair
assessment. It is absolutely 100% why Monica voted how she did, and she admitted this during the game. Look at Laura's question to Russell. As much as I
cannot stand Laura, Russell's assessment of her was spot fucking on. If there's any doubt that Laura would have been Final 3, had the pagonging
occurred, you're just delusional. Even SHE knew Russell was right. Doesn't change her vote, because her mind was made up. Kelly asking Russell the
difference between real life and the game of Survivor? What a fucking joke. Kelly voted for Erik then takes the moral high ground. Hypocritical. Period. Dave?
"Good game, mama..." His mind was made up, he didn't need to hear either of the other percentages. John's assessment of the Galu tribe as a
whole was exactly right. Couldn't hang on to an 8-4 lead. Were willing to draw a rock. This is the group of people that everyone claims made a glorious
decision. Really? Really?
|
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 149 (12/22/09 02:48 PM) |
Sshaaz wrote:That's the beauty of it! Natalie voted out every single member of the jury! She probably was high fiving along with Mick and Jaison. But she never had a single drop of blood on her hand because she had a huge meat shield in the form of Russell. You see it as a bitter jury, i see it as it's the way it's always been. You brought someone lovable to the end, your bad. Especially if you claim to have played the best Survivor game ever. Sometimes your game is lost even before you get to the finals. During the final four Russell was basically deciding if he wanted Brett or Natalie to win. Simply put. He didn't realize it at the time but that's the way the cookie crumbles. He was the goat the entire time but the edit had you believe otherwise. |
||
|
Sshaaz |
|||
|
Posts: 591 (12/22/09 02:58 PM) |
So you are saying the jury wasn't bitter? Are you saying they were capable of making an intelligent decision? Prove it.
|
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 150 (12/22/09 03:13 PM) |
Sshaaz wrote: They could have been bitter or they actually could have believed what they were saying.That's irrelevant and I don't care if they were bitter or not. It doesn't matter if you thought they were making "intelligent decisions" or not. There is NO criteria the jury is given to vote on the winner. This isn't a murder case. No one is innocent and no one is guilty. They all made it to the final three. Natalie positioned herself in a great spot and KNEW the game came down to the jury. She knew what the game was all about. Russell and a lot of posters don't get this simple fact. |
||
|
Sshaaz |
|||
|
Posts: 597 (12/22/09 03:28 PM) |
Russell positioned Natalie, so you are wrong. She knew what the game was all about, yet gave herself a 30% chance? Sounds to me like she had no idea what was
going to happen. If she was sure her social game was worth a million dollars, wouldn't that percentage been even *slightly* higher? The fact that Natalie
could have been Marisa, or Betsy, or Liz, or *insert Foa Foa here* should prove to you that she didn't deserve anything. She was the beneficiary of a
hypocritical and bitter jury that everyone seems so pleased with. The same jury that was lambasted the entire fucking season. Suddenly, they got something
right? Its ludicrous...something that so many haters can't process. Your arguement only stems from your passionate dislike for Russell. The very minute
that someone who hates Russell so much puts that aside and makes a logical assessment of this jury and how things went down will solidify the status of
Survivor Fan and garner at least some respect. Without it, its hard to take any post at this forum seriously.
|
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 152 (12/22/09 03:35 PM) |
Sshaaz wrote:Well you clearly don't know a thing about me to be making statements about me but here goes. I don't think Russell is a bad person in real life. I'm sure he's a great father and obviously he's intelligent and successful. Doesn't change his behavior in the finale, Early show, and interviews he's done. This is Sucks. He deserves my derision. Yes, I'm passionate about how he's blatantly disrespected another human being on SEVERAL occasions. Shoot me. Continually calling someone a bitch is over the line period. The only reason I call him all the names is because of his own behavior. There is a difference between calling someone a bitch on sucks and actively protecting and bringing someone likeable to the end, making a mistake, and calling the person who made the best decision and played the best game an undeserving bitch. He's brought my derision on himself. She took a gamble on Russell. Was it a 30% chance to get to the finals? Possibly. But she made a gamble on that hoping it would bring her to the finals knowing she was guaranteed a win. Russell guarenteed himself almost an 100% chance at the finals... with no chance at winning. Natalie made a gamble and it paid off nicely. |
||
|
Jane Drama |
|||
|
Posts: 48 (12/22/09 03:46 PM) |
Such a bitter jury, they may as well have flipped a coin between Mick and Natalie.
|
||
|
Sshaaz |
|||
|
Posts: 599 (12/22/09 03:49 PM) |
My only judgement call about you was that you hate Russell, was I wrong? The opinion of Russell after the results can only be formed if you agree with what
happened. Plain and simple. If you think the jury was correct, then yes, Russell is being a jackass. If you don't, then you can understand where he is
coming from. My only opinion about what is going on at this forum is that the hypocrisy is mind-blowing. The jury was Galu, the same Galu that nobody here
respected for 39 days. Aside from fanboys who rode their Galu horse to the end, the general opinion was that Galu fucking sucks. Am I wrong? So, once the
finals happen, suddenly they were right? It is absolutely inconceivable to me. Whatever it takes to see where I'm coming from, please make an attempt.
|
||
|
Greenkiwi |
|||
|
Posts: 64 (12/22/09 03:55 PM) |
Sshaaz wrote:We do make attempts. Sadly your reasonings usually make little to no sense. Russell lost, Natalie won. |
||
 Tigershere |
|||
|
Posts: 10492 (12/22/09 03:58 PM) Registered User |
If Evil Dick lost his season of BB you would see a bigger bitch esp if it was to Jen
that would have been awesome to see him suffer like Russell. Prick, see ED for the biggest one in reality tv |
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 153 (12/22/09 03:59 PM) |
Sshaaz wrote: Oh well then your view point is valid then. We're really debating two different things and you're taking it up with the wrong person. I'm a firm believer in the jury they deemed Natalie the best. She won. I absolutely understand where you are coming from and where Russell is coming from and where all the posts are coming from but I don't agree with it. That is all. If your posts are directed at the hypocrisy of Sucks than continue on your way. I thought Galu made a mis-step with Erik, but besides that I didn't see anything from them that was all that bad, but maybe I'm wrong. Even if they were complete and utter fuck ups it doesn't change the fact that they had the power. Simple as that. Our opinions clearly differ on how the jury should vote. I am not a representative of Sucks lol. I only started posting after the finale. My thing is that Russell claimed to be the best Survivor player EVER but couldn't read the jury of "fuck ups"? I'm just going on what Russell is saying here. He played the whole game not taking into consideration at all what the jury thought. Monica told him she'd poison the jury, to his face. She basically told him, I'm going to be bitter and not write your name down. Did she really have an effect? Well we do know that her and Dave were close and Russell was expecting his vote. Did she have a hand in poisoning Erik? Who knows. I think there were signs but he just didn't want to see it. He just needs to lose the arrogance and could be a deadly player. |
||
|
pjadedd |
|||
|
Posts: 10600 (12/22/09 04:06 PM) Registered User |
What, was Natalie supposed to say, "100%, bitch. I have this shit in the bag?"
|
||
|
ThrowMeGabon |
|||
|
Posts: 1340 (12/22/09 04:19 PM) |
I don't blame Natalie for her answers or for winning at all. After all, it wasn't her positive game that won her a million dollars, it was
Russell's negative. And she didn't vote herself winner, the strategically braindead Galu + Jaison did. Even though Natalie shouldn't have won,
I'm happy it was her over any member of Galu.
I'm fine with a patronizing juror who played a relatively smart or moral game, but none of the jurors this season qualify. It was a horribly edited season with bad players, a bitter jury and an undeserving winner. Not the first time, won't be the last. Hopefully the allstars will remind us how it's done. |
||
|
Sshaaz |
|||
|
Posts: 601 (12/22/09 04:24 PM) |
pjadedd: nah, but to say she knew wtf was going on is retarded. She was being honest about her chances, really. So was Russell, he admitted being humbled. Mick
was the delusional one. That was Dave's question, and his "good game, mama" comment proves he had his mind made up. Is that fair? Its a judgement
call. I lean towards no, since the entire purpose of the whole FTC is to gather information to make an informed decision. To not use it as such is
disrespecting the process of the game. You cannot possibly argue against that. All of the "fair and square" talk makes me ill, because noone is
taking the time to actually examine what that term means.
DC: I can't stress enough that I don't believe Natalie won as much as Russell lost. With that in mind, anyone could have replaced Natalie there and had become a millionaire. Everyone giving credit to Natalie and her game seems to be searching for a way to justify her win. But in the end, you have to take to heart what made Russell lose. It all revolves around the jury. So many arguments around what he did or didn't do with the jury. Nobody takes the time to look at the jury. People blindly accept their decision and don't question it because of the absolute desperate need to justify her winning. I just don't accept it. I'm not one to read a result and be comfortable with it because that's what happened. I guess I have to know why it happened. Why there is such little outrage at this jury, I'll never understand. Maybe someone can explain it to me. |
||
|
MikeHaggarKJ |
|||
|
Posts: 1356 (12/22/09 04:30 PM) |
ThrowMeGabon wrote: if he really cared about the game and took it seriously he'd admit his mistakes and quit whining like a bitch. he can keep moaning about how the jury was bitter until the moon falls down, but fact of the matter is its the players responsibility to recognize what kind of jury theyre dealing with and adapt their gameplay accordingly. if he was the superplayer he claims to be he wouldve played more subtly and been less of an asshole. |
||
|
Greenkiwi |
|||
|
Posts: 70 (12/22/09 04:32 PM) |
MikeHaggarKJ wrote:Don't mind Sshaaz. (He's been brainwashed into think Russell's good.) |
||
|
burberrylad |
|||
|
Posts: 1059 (12/22/09 04:33 PM) Registered user |
Debb Eaton would have gotten more jury votes than Russell
|
||
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor: The Future
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows that Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs that Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.
