You're not pro-Natalie, you're just ANTI-RUSSELL in Survivor Sucks Forum

0 Points

You're not pro-Natalie, you're just ANTI-RUSSELL

Started By	Comment
IntoTemptation		#21	[-]
Posts: 1558 (12/24/09 12:35 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Do not click here, if you like ads Remove this ad Who cares? lock
Belligerent Ghoul		#22	[-]
Posts: 3115 (12/24/09 12:39 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	If Mick had won, Sucks & all of America would be united as one in happiness right now.
high dudester 2		#23	[-]
Posts: 1279 (12/24/09 03:32 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Syxx wrote: Just like the jury. x-pac is right.
SleepTight		#24	[-]
Posts: 486 (12/24/09 04:27 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Belligerent Ghoul wrote: If Mick had won, Sucks & all of America would be united as one in happiness right now. in a perfect world, Mick got 7 votes, Natalie 2, and Russell 0
RichPrick		#25	[-]
Posts: 615 (12/24/09 06:45 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	No sane person could argue Natalie earned the win more than Russell. Impossible. With regard to Mick, it was more or less a toss up between him and Natalie in terms of contributions to the game, but he didn't get the votes because of one game play move: he is a doctor. That's it. They rewarded Natalie's real life lack of success and, like Russell, they punished achievement. The jury thought, "even with his student loan debt, Mick will be rich soon enough....out of the three she needs the money the most. Since I'm too bitter and pathetic to give it to the player who won the actual game, I'll be a passive aggressive piece of shit and give it to the most needy contestant... and who knows, maybe she'll let me fuck her". In summary: Successful in real life = get punished by the jury Successful in ousting others in the game = bitter jury seeks revenge Hot chick = People like Erik vote your way. It's weird the way so many fucktards on this board look at that logic and actually think, "this is the way the game should be decided".
AussieOriginal		#26	[-]
Posts: 2080 (12/24/09 06:57 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	they punished achievement No, they punished his threatening and bullying behaviour. That equates to a piss poor social game which equates to not being voted for the win. maybe she'll let me fuck her". Is that the best you can come up with? You're sounding even more obnoxious than Russell. According to interviews, they all knew Natalie had a boyfriend, that's all she talked about. Since I'm too bitter and pathetic to give it to the player who won the actual game What's wrong with you people? Just because Russell has the words Sole Survivor on his website does not mean it's true. For the last time, he didn't win the game. In fact he lost by a HUGE margin - 7 votes vs 2 votes. It wasn't even close, so you can't argue that. Natalie won the game. Like it or not, that's a fact and all the whinging you people do is not going to change that. You guys really need to get over it and get on with your lives.
spyzsrvvrcharmd		#27	[-]
Posts: 1803 (12/24/09 07:01 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts
Axie.rsfd		#28	[-]
Posts: 169 (12/24/09 07:19 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Belligerent Ghoul wrote: If Mick had won, Sucks & all of America would be united as one in happiness right now. HELL NO
RichPrick		#29	[-]
Posts: 616 (12/24/09 07:20 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	AussieOriginal wrote: they punished achievement No, they punished his threatening and bullying behaviour. That equates to a piss poor social game which equates to not being voted for the win. maybe she'll let me fuck her". Is that the best you can come up with? You're sounding even more obnoxious than Russell. According to interviews, they all knew Natalie had a boyfriend, that's all she talked about. Since I'm too bitter and pathetic to give it to the player who won the actual game What's wrong with you people? Just because Russell has the words Sole Survivor on his website does not mean it's true. For the last time, he didn't win the game. In fact he lost by a HUGE margin - 7 votes vs 2 votes. It wasn't even close, so you can't argue that. Natalie won the game. Like it or not, that's a fact and all the whinging you people do is not going to change that. You guys really need to get over it and get on with your lives. 1. Getting Mick, Natalie, Gaison, Shambo and John to vote in whatever way you want them to while at the same time never have your name come up as a target within your own group and only once by the other side in spite of being the number one target = phenomenal social game. 2. Mick was never a "bully" or "threatening" - not once ... and yet the jury gave him nothing. Why? Because they punished his real life achievement and rewarded Natalie's lack thereof. Fact. Indisputable. 3. Russell won over $200K and, along with Richard Hatch and Rob from Survivor All-Stars, he can be argued that he is the one best contestants in reality show history. He has already been invited back to Survivor 20 and will no doubt have a significant presence in the foreseeable future. Look at the threads here, he came in second and is already a legend. You can continue to masturbate over Natalie... she isn't going to fuck you, I promise.
TroubleInTampa		#30	[-]
Posts: 6279 (12/24/09 07:33 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Do not click here, if you like ads Remove this ad I'm anti cry baby sore losers who suck at life. I guess this does make me anti Russell.
forsbergacct2000		#31	[-]
Posts: 151 (12/24/09 07:50 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RichPrick wrote: No sane person could argue Natalie earned the win more than Russell. Impossible. With regard to Mick, it was more or less a toss up between him and Natalie in terms of contributions to the game, but he didn't get the votes because of one game play move: he is a doctor. That's it. They rewarded Natalie's real life lack of success and, like Russell, they punished achievement. The jury thought, "even with his student loan debt, Mick will be rich soon enough....out of the three she needs the money the most. Since I'm too bitter and pathetic to give it to the player who won the actual game, I'll be a passive aggressive piece of shit and give it to the most needy contestant... and who knows, maybe she'll let me fuck her". In summary: Successful in real life = get punished by the jury Successful in ousting others in the game = bitter jury seeks revenge Hot chick = People like Erik vote your way. It's weird the way so many fucktards on this board look at that logic and actually think, "this is the way the game should be decided". I'm sane and I see that Natalie won the final vote 7-2. Nowhere in the rules does it state that "earning" the victory is a requirement. In fact, "earning the place at the finals" has cost a lot of people the final vote. There was nothing about the final jury and the procedure that should have been a surprise to Russell. He gloated in front of a bunch of people who remembered it and it cost him. All that it required is to be in front of the final jury and get the majority of the votes. Natalie, not Russell, did that.
GrenadeJumper85		#32	[-]
Posts: 15044 (12/24/09 07:56 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	You're not pro-Natalie, you're just ANTI-RUSSELL Uuh, no. I was actually in Russell's corner for most of the season until he completely flopped at the end, and was exposed as such an awful player. I was actually quite content with Natalie or Russell winning.
Wolf Myth		#33	[-]
Posts: 125 (12/24/09 08:00 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I had picked Natalie to win early on in the game, so I'm not anti-Russell. I just felt Natalie has what it takes to gain a majority of votes. Call it intuition.
pinkbug8u		#34	[-]
Posts: 178 (12/24/09 08:12 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	You know what the difference is with other strategic players who actually won vs. Russell? They were smart enough to know not to rub it all over the jurie's faces when they got voted out, taunt them, and arrogantly display their percieved dominance. Period. Yul was a stategic player who did it with class and respect for those around him. WINNER Todd was a strategic player who acted with a modicum of civility towards those in the jury. WINNER Parvati was responsible for most of the people in the jury and screwed them all over but she never snickerd and pointed at them. WINNER Rich never did or said anything to taunt those people in the jury, he just came up with something they didn't. WINNER Russell danced on their graves as they got voted out, prematurely crowned himself best survivor ever, made needless deals and betrayals. Having no class and a brute = LOSER
Axie.rsfd		#35	[-]
Posts: 172 (12/24/09 08:50 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RichPrick wrote: 1. Getting Mick, Natalie, Gaison, Shambo and John to vote in whatever way you want them to while at the same time never have your name come up as a target within your own group and only once by the other side in spite of being the number one target = phenomenal social game. 2. Mick was never a "bully" or "threatening" - not once ... and yet the jury gave him nothing. Why? Because they punished his real life achievement and rewarded Natalie's lack thereof. Fact. Indisputable. 3. Russell won over $200K and, along with Richard Hatch and Rob from Survivor All-Stars, he can be argued that he is the one best contestants in reality show history. He has already been invited back to Survivor 20 and will no doubt have a significant presence in the foreseeable future. Look at the threads here, he came in second and is already a legend. You can continue to masturbate over Natalie... she isn't going to fuck you, I promise. Oh, okay. Just because it's Christmas, I will reasonably answer you instead of saying that you actually root for Russell because he instills hope in the hearts of all pigfucking midgets of America. 1- Pre-merge, his name never came up because Natalie, and to a lesser extent Mick and Jaison, made that happen. They protected Russell just as much as he protected them. Post-merge, everyone knew he had a HII, and Galu even tried to make him waste it. And he did waste his HII, but not because Galu was actually smart for once, but because Russell was too arrogant and stupid to believe Natalie could actually make Galu boot Erik. And after Galu lost their numbers, nobody voted him off because, well, he's the perfect F3 goat - something Natalie knew and used in her favor... and won the game because of that. Russell had the crappiest social game to ever exist on Survivor history. Nobody on that jury would vote for such a chauvinist, sociopathic, megalomaniac, self-centered guy, that wasn't even that much of a strategic mastermind. No jury would ever vote for Russell. You can whine and scream "bitter jury!", but face it: the jury wouldn't be bitter if Russell weren't one of the worst human beings to even play Survivor. 2- We all know Natalie makes just as much money as Mick. Jaison even said that on his FTC question. 3- He's not one of the best players, he's just great entertainment. That's why he was called back to Survivor 20 (and if I recally correctly, he wasn't the only one, he was just the only one that accepted). And he won the sprint player award because, well, that's the only option for the casual viewer, as Russell hogged that camera like nobody else ever did on Survivor.
RichPrick		#36	[-]
Posts: 617 (12/24/09 09:06 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	forsbergacct2000 wrote: RichPrick wrote: No sane person could argue Natalie earned the win more than Russell. Impossible. With regard to Mick, it was more or less a toss up between him and Natalie in terms of contributions to the game, but he didn't get the votes because of one game play move: he is a doctor. That's it. They rewarded Natalie's real life lack of success and, like Russell, they punished achievement. The jury thought, "even with his student loan debt, Mick will be rich soon enough....out of the three she needs the money the most. Since I'm too bitter and pathetic to give it to the player who won the actual game, I'll be a passive aggressive piece of shit and give it to the most needy contestant... and who knows, maybe she'll let me fuck her". In summary: Successful in real life = get punished by the jury Successful in ousting others in the game = bitter jury seeks revenge Hot chick = People like Erik vote your way. It's weird the way so many fucktards on this board look at that logic and actually think, "this is the way the game should be decided". I'm sane and I see that Natalie won the final vote 7-2. Nowhere in the rules does it state that "earning" the victory is a requirement. In fact, "earning the place at the finals" has cost a lot of people the final vote. There was nothing about the final jury and the procedure that should have been a surprise to Russell. He gloated in front of a bunch of people who remembered it and it cost him. All that it required is to be in front of the final jury and get the majority of the votes. Natalie, not Russell, did that. It's weird the way all you Forrest Gump/Sarah Palin IQ level people keep typing, "Natalie won the final vote 7-2." WOW... what a genius point. Yes, fucktard, we know she won the final vote and Russell came in second. In your mind, is this point somehow up for debate? Do you think we're unsure of this point? Here's a hint: the issue isn't whether or not Natalie won the game... the issue is how many of us have a problem with a jury whose criteria for deciding the game is based first on revenge/bitterness, second on punishing those who have achieved success in real life, third on whether or not they want to fuck the chick and..... way, way, way down at number 137.... their actual moves during the game (alliances, finding the II, avoiding elimination, challenges, getting others to change their votes, contributing to the camp, etc, etc, etc) YES, Einstein, the rules say they're allowed to vote based on petty, passive aggressive playground grudges - that point isn't up for debate either. The point we're trying to make is that gameplay should be weighted more heavily. You think you can comprehend something this simple?
Axie.rsfd		#37	[-]
Posts: 175 (12/24/09 09:09 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RichPrick wrote: YES, Einstein, the rules say their allowed to vote based on petty, passive aggressive playground grudges - that point isn't up for debate either. The point we're trying to make is that gameplay should be weighted more heavily. You think you can comprehend something this simple? YOU are trying to make strategic gameplay weigh more heavily so your pigfucking midgets can win more easily. Most people are just fine with the Jury system as it is, bitterness and all that. If the contestant can't work around bitterness (like Richard, Brian or Todd did), the contestant. doesn't. deserve. the. votes. Simple like 2+2.
Maximus20		#38	[-]
Posts: 443 (12/24/09 09:10 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	pinkbug8u wrote: You know what the difference is with other strategic players who actually won vs. Russell? They were smart enough to know not to rub it all over the jurie's faces when they got voted out, taunt them, and arrogantly display their percieved dominance. Period. Yul was a stategic player who did it with class and respect for those around him. WINNER Todd was a strategic player who acted with a modicum of civility towards those in the jury. WINNER Parvati was responsible for most of the people in the jury and screwed them all over but she never snickerd and pointed at them. WINNER Rich never did or said anything to taunt those people in the jury, he just came up with something they didn't. WINNER Russell danced on their graves as they got voted out, prematurely crowned himself best survivor ever, made needless deals and betrayals. Having no class and a brute = LOSER X
RichPrick		#39	[-]
Posts: 618 (12/24/09 09:20 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	pinkbug8u wrote: You know what the difference is with other strategic players who actually won vs. Russell? They were smart enough to know not to rub it all over the jurie's faces when they got voted out, taunt them, and arrogantly display their percieved dominance. Period. Yul was a stategic player who did it with class and respect for those around him. WINNER Todd was a strategic player who acted with a modicum of civility towards those in the jury. WINNER Parvati was responsible for most of the people in the jury and screwed them all over but she never snickerd and pointed at them. WINNER Rich never did or said anything to taunt those people in the jury, he just came up with something they didn't. WINNER Russell danced on their graves as they got voted out, prematurely crowned himself best survivor ever, made needless deals and betrayals. Having no class and a brute = LOSER Why didn't you include Amber in your list? Oh, that's right...
Axie.rsfd		#40	[-]
Posts: 180 (12/24/09 09:26 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Do not click here, if you like ads Remove this ad RichPrick wrote: pinkbug8u wrote: You know what the difference is with other strategic players who actually won vs. Russell? They were smart enough to know not to rub it all over the jurie's faces when they got voted out, taunt them, and arrogantly display their percieved dominance. Period. Yul was a stategic player who did it with class and respect for those around him. WINNER Todd was a strategic player who acted with a modicum of civility towards those in the jury. WINNER Parvati was responsible for most of the people in the jury and screwed them all over but she never snickerd and pointed at them. WINNER Rich never did or said anything to taunt those people in the jury, he just came up with something they didn't. WINNER Russell danced on their graves as they got voted out, prematurely crowned himself best survivor ever, made needless deals and betrayals. Having no class and a brute = LOSER Why didn't you include Amber in your list? Oh, that's right... Nobody ever said Amber, Natalie, or for that matter, most other UTR winners, were heavily strategic players. You don't need to be heavily strategic to deserve to win. All you need to do is to know the jury and sell your case to them. Yul, Todd, Parvati and Rich were heavily strategic and sold their case. Amber and Natalie were more socially oriented and also sold their case (of course the anti-Rob jury helped Amber, but regardless she managed to earn votes). Russell was heavily strategic and didn't sell his case, because he fails at anything that needs actually human relationships. He lost, and Natalie deserved to win. Now stop whining and go back to filming your Survivor audition tape. I'm sure Lynne is looking for a new socially inept midget right now!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

You're not pro-Natalie, you're just ANTI-RUSSELL