S-19 Edgic (editing and logic) in Survivor Speculation Forum

0 Points

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

Started By	Comment
panurge46		#6001	[-]
Posts: 1602 (12/25/09 10:44 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Viva la removeaducion! Remove this ad I think all of Mick's edit after the first 30 minutes of episode #1 was to show he was indeed feckless. If you look at my thread on themes, you'll see I had serious doubts about his potential as early as episode #2. He had defended Ben and told us Betsy had to go. I seemed like a fatal flaw to his story. An early confessional for Natalie. Why? To please edgic?! Just kidding! I know it could have been done and I also was hesitant to say she was the winner because of that. If we look at it objectively, Liz had very little presence in episode #1 and Ashley wasn't part of the intro yet they were on many people's list of winners. We were all looking for the person that could stop the creep so anyone with presence was automatically on our list. I remember picking Betsy as my top candidate after episode #1, believing she had great potential!! If Natalie's episode #4 confessional had happened in episode #1, forget it, we'd all be saying that she was Earl to the power of 10. Last Edited By: panurge46 12/25/09 10:54 AM. Edited 3 times.
scepticA		#6002	[-]
Posts: 1886 (12/25/09 12:44 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Brett's question was all about: So did you learn anything about us as people, or were you viewing us as tools? If Mick had said something like, "I probably would have liked going on a long drive with you in shotgun, just talking. I know your faith is very important to you, as well as your mom and dad, and have had great discussions with people about religion. So a drive, stopping for some beers and pool, and getting to know each other...." etc. etc. it would indicate he figured out something about Brett as a person, and in doing so indicates a level of respect for another person. Would this be BS? Maybe. Maybe Mick would prefer to go to the mountains and shoot quail, or go to a Lakers game, or shoot hoops with his male friends. That's not the point. The point of the question was: How do you view the jury? Some here and elsewhere think it's irrelevant to the game. I profoundly disagree, because there are always people on the jury who want to be viewed as a person, and not just a strategic victim. Nat knew this. Getting to know the other players has no downside in the game. If the topic doesn't come up you don't need to use the info. If it does, you have ammo for the answer. Mick DID know stuff about Brett, but completely misunderstood the point of his question, and how a better answer could have resonated with the jury. And you can be a strategic genius and still know people. Chris in S9 is a great example. He played a very good strategic game, but his final speech to the jury was maybe the best in survivor history: he talked to each person on the jury individually. To some he talked strategy, to others (like Sarge) he was very personal. In between is someone like Brian. The only time in the whole game he had a deer-in-headlights look was when Penny asked her question about who she is. Clay's answer was brilliant, talking in detail about her family. Brian recalled that she might have had a family, but wasn't sure. In fact, Clay almost won the whole thing because of that answer. And yes, there are some who say Penny's question was stupid. In terms of the jury QA, that point does not matter. That sort of question frequently comes up, and the astute player prepares for it happening, stupid or not. And the downside to not caring about the jury as people rather than pawns in your own game? Ask Russell about that. Last Edited By: scepticA 12/25/09 12:47 PM. Edited 1 times.
panurge46		#6003	[-]
Posts: 1604 (12/25/09 01:05 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	"there are always people on the jury who want to be viewed as a person, and not just a strategic victim. Nat knew this." And that was nicely presented in an early episode when Russell asked Natalie: "Will you be able to vote out your friends?" She told him she could and they went on eliminating Ashley, Kelly, Laura, Dave, Jaison and Brett. Pawns to the creep, friends to Natalie.
getting real		#6004	[-]
Posts: 2020 (12/25/09 05:08 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Scep said: And the downside to not caring about the jury as people rather than pawns in your own game? Ask Russell about that. I think I mentioned somewhere that in one of the episode previouslys, Probst intoned that Russell didn't need any friends - only targets. That's the season in a nutshell. However, to distance Natalie from the worst excesses of Russell's target-making, the editors had to put her in the background. Make her the quark in the corner, so to speak, lol. As you say, Scep, Chris was a great example of bridge-building with the jury. As with Danni's play, social relationships weren't only rewarded with jury votes; Chris and Danni were rewarded much earlier, by being the only thing that kept them in the game. Being liked by a hostile majority actually kept them from being booted at crucial times. Dominant strategy versus social relationships is a struggle that arose from the very first series. Kelly almost won because of the latter; Richard won because he wan't a total write-off on the former. Sean's vote, for example, seemed to come down to liking Richard while Richard was always shown to be sensitive to Rudy - never once did he refer to him as a pawn although, in effect, that's what Rudy was. With Russell, not so much. Zero, in fact.
Oowatanite		#6005	[-]
Posts: 9929 (12/25/09 09:42 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	panurge46 wrote: Natalie would have been a second Earl if they had given her anymore airtime. It was already easy to see she was going to win with what they showed. A second Earl ??? REALLY ???????? Easy to see she was going to win with what they showed ??? REALLY ???????? Panurge, this is the Edgic thread. E D G I C. It's not Brain/Heart/Guts. It's not FamilyFinalFour. It's not whatever you call your thread this season. The guidelines to Edgic will have to be changed somewhat in this off-season, but based on the guidelines we had at the beginning of this season, Natalie was NOT a viable Edgic winner pick after episode one. She was NOT an "easy to spot" winner pick. She was NOT "shown" at all until episode 4. She received a terribly insignificant edit - UTRP ( The only worse edit is UTRN ).
panurge46		#6006	[-]
Posts: 1606 (12/25/09 10:14 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	"Natalie was NOT a viable Edgic winner pick after episode one" But why would you want to make a pick after episode #1? Edgic says the pick should be made at the merge. If you had let the story unfold you would have seen she was the only one that had a plan to stop Russell. Put Natalie's epipsode #4 confessional right after Russell's dumbass girl alliance then yes, Natalie is Earl V2.0 as far as being a sure bet. If you want suggestions for Edgic, I'll be happy to give my thoughts. I encourage you to read my episode #2 thoughts. Since you seem to be too busy rolling on the floor picking up dust, here's what I wrote about Foa Foa. You'll note I didn't have Natalie really in sight yet but Mick was already out of contention. "In Foa Foa the story has clearly established 3 Good Guys, 3 Antagonists and a spineless leader. Mick: As leader, he wanted to stay low key but he carried that to new lows. He was shown with Ben when the lizard was being roasted, he constantly told us he understood Ben and even defended him in front of Jeff. He is getting a consistent story and sufficient airtime to be considered a contender by some but we were shown sufficient clues to say that he won't win. That last confessional he had after Betsy pleaded her case to him showed that he won't be the one that will be able to prevent Russell from getting what he wants. The Antagonists Ben: I will state that Ben is the biggest villain we've ever seen. He is certainly the most disgusting. A scoundrel with no redeeming qualities cannot win this game. Liz: An antagonist with a plan could be dangerous. We got very cold-blooded confessionals from her that showed she didn't care about Mike and Betsy. She was shown as being on Ben's side and was completely unreceptive to Ashley's reservations, even using the opportunity to sell her out to Russell. She didn't want to be seen as sneaky but her actions proved she can be. Jeff's pre-season remark of "Do not trust Liz" certainly was true. Liz also was in denial about Foa Foa's problems, telling Jeff that everything was fine and she was shown to be amused when Betsy told Jeff she knew she was going. She has attached her wagon to Ben and Russell and it can carry her to the end. Would she be the beneficiary of all those evil actions or will she simply be Russell's enabler? We'll need more clues. Russell: He certainly is the story of the season and the way the scene of the idol's discovery was manipulated makes me think that he has a very good chance of proving it was indeed easy to win this game. His chances are even greater if there was a discussion between Yasmin, Jaison and himself about the clue which was completely hidden. He was shown as being very clever but was he really? His plans, despicable as they have been, have all been successful. Can he be stopped? That seems to be the question of the season. I'd answer: Maybe, maybe not. The numbers make it look bad but who knows what the numbers will be when the merge arrives? The Good Guys Natalie: I put her here only because her facial expressions put her on Betsy's side but this isn't a silent movie so I have serious doubts about the belle being saved from the oncoming train. 2 episodes without a confessional on a tribe that has been so highly featured are very telling. Ashley: She is stepping up as Foa Foa's narrator which means her chances of making the merge are good. She is next on Russell's list which normally would create the doubt needed for the winner's story. However, that may prove fatal this season. Being in Russell's line of fire and speaking up against Ben at TC definitely put her on the side of the good guys. She may play a pivotal role in stopping our villain or she may be his next victim. Of course, that didn't work so well for Betsy so we'll have to see how things develop for Ashley. Jaison: I was very troubled for Jaison's story in the first half of the episode. Joining Russell on the dark side didn't seem to be the role that was meant for Jaison. Being as indecisive as Mick was certainly didn't look good for his future. Then Tribal Council arrived and that put Jaison in a setting similar to the court room. His intervention after Ben and Russell exchanged a high-five showed that he was as displeased with this TC as he had been during Marisa's elimination. The look we saw after the vote was revealed established a connection between Jaison, Ashley and Natalie. Can this diplomatic man run an army? He could be Samoa's last, best chance to stop the tyrant!"
Hippochinfat		#6007	[-]
Posts: 557 (12/25/09 10:31 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Wtf is this shit? Last Edited By: Hippochinfat 12/25/09 11:06 PM. Edited 1 times.
Kirblar		#6008	[-]
Posts: 8642 (12/25/09 10:36 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Oowatanite wrote: panurge46 wrote: Natalie would have been a second Earl if they had given her anymore airtime. It was already easy to see she was going to win with what they showed. A second Earl ??? REALLY ???????? Easy to see she was going to win with what they showed ??? REALLY ???????? Panurge, this is the Edgic thread. E D G I C. It's not Brain/Heart/Guts. It's not FamilyFinalFour. It's not whatever you call your thread this season. The guidelines to Edgic will have to be changed somewhat in this off-season, but based on the guidelines we had at the beginning of this season, Natalie was NOT a viable Edgic winner pick after episode one. She was NOT an "easy to spot" winner pick. She was NOT "shown" at all until episode 4. She received a terribly insignificant edit - UTRP ( The only worse edit is UTRN ). "We devote this thread to try and pick the winner by looking at the editing, player by player, and applying logic from past editing patterns or observations about what we have been shown. " Panurge pulled it off, Edgic didn't, because Edgic no longer uses Logic. It's searching for a "magic formula" where none can exist. You're trying to find the answer through math when it's a question of storytelling.
panurge46		#6009	[-]
Posts: 1607 (12/25/09 11:10 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Thank you, Kirblar.
Oowatanite		#6010	[-]
Posts: 9936 (12/25/09 11:51 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Viva la removeaducion! Remove this ad Kirblar wrote: Oowatanite wrote: panurge46 wrote: Natalie would have been a second Earl if they had given her anymore airtime. It was already easy to see she was going to win with what they showed. A second Earl ??? REALLY ???????? Easy to see she was going to win with what they showed ??? REALLY ???????? Panurge, this is the Edgic thread. E D G I C. It's not Brain/Heart/Guts. It's not FamilyFinalFour. It's not whatever you call your thread this season. The guidelines to Edgic will have to be changed somewhat in this off-season, but based on the guidelines we had at the beginning of this season, Natalie was NOT a viable Edgic winner pick after episode one. She was NOT an "easy to spot" winner pick. She was NOT "shown" at all until episode 4. She received a terribly insignificant edit - UTRP ( The only worse edit is UTRN ). "We devote this thread to try and pick the winner by looking at the editing, player by player, and applying logic from past editing patterns or observations about what we have been shown. " Panurge pulled it off, Edgic didn't, because Edgic no longer uses Logic. It's searching for a "magic formula" where none can exist. You're trying to find the answer through math when it's a question of storytelling. Panurge didn't pull anything off. And no past winner has been ignored until episode FOUR. But why would you want to make a pick after episode #1? We make no "official" picks after episode one, but we do eliminate players after one episode. Natalie was and should have been one of those eliminated, based on the Edgic guidelines in place. The backers of Nat and Russhole in this thread were NOT following the Edgic guidelines. 'nuff said.
Kitty Pryde1		#6011	[-]
Posts: 11134 (12/26/09 12:13 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Oowatanite wrote: Kirblar wrote: Oowatanite wrote: panurge46 wrote: Natalie would have been a second Earl if they had given her anymore airtime. It was already easy to see she was going to win with what they showed. A second Earl ??? REALLY ???????? Easy to see she was going to win with what they showed ??? REALLY ???????? Panurge, this is the Edgic thread. E D G I C. It's not Brain/Heart/Guts. It's not FamilyFinalFour. It's not whatever you call your thread this season. The guidelines to Edgic will have to be changed somewhat in this off-season, but based on the guidelines we had at the beginning of this season, Natalie was NOT a viable Edgic winner pick after episode one. She was NOT an "easy to spot" winner pick. She was NOT "shown" at all until episode 4. She received a terribly insignificant edit - UTRP ( The only worse edit is UTRN ). "We devote this thread to try and pick the winner by looking at the editing, player by player, and applying logic from past editing patterns or observations about what we have been shown. " Panurge pulled it off, Edgic didn't, because Edgic no longer uses Logic. It's searching for a "magic formula" where none can exist. You're trying to find the answer through math when it's a question of storytelling. Panurge didn't pull anything off. And no past winner has been ignored until episode FOUR. But why would you want to make a pick after episode #1? We make no "official" picks after episode one, but we do eliminate players after one episode. Natalie was and should have been one of those eliminated, based on the Edgic guidelines in place. The backers of Nat and Russhole in this thread were NOT following the Edgic guidelines. 'nuff said. Panurge picked Natalie to win. You picked Mick. You were bashing Panurge several weeks before the finale, right alongside Blake for being so "foolish" as to pick Natalie over bland, storyless Mick, and you got owned. So stop trying to downplay what he has managed to achieve (he also got Todd in China) and stop being such a self-righteous douchebag. Honestly, I get that you love Amber, but I doubt she's gonna dump Boston Rob just to date a guy who acts like Boston Rob for the sole reason that he wants to bang Amber.
cantthinkofaname		#6012	[-]
Posts: 1678 (12/26/09 12:13 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Oowatanite wrote: Kirblar wrote: Oowatanite wrote: panurge46 wrote: Natalie would have been a second Earl if they had given her anymore airtime. It was already easy to see she was going to win with what they showed. A second Earl ??? REALLY ???????? Easy to see she was going to win with what they showed ??? REALLY ???????? Panurge, this is the Edgic thread. E D G I C. It's not Brain/Heart/Guts. It's not FamilyFinalFour. It's not whatever you call your thread this season. The guidelines to Edgic will have to be changed somewhat in this off-season, but based on the guidelines we had at the beginning of this season, Natalie was NOT a viable Edgic winner pick after episode one. She was NOT an "easy to spot" winner pick. She was NOT "shown" at all until episode 4. She received a terribly insignificant edit - UTRP ( The only worse edit is UTRN ). "We devote this thread to try and pick the winner by looking at the editing, player by player, and applying logic from past editing patterns or observations about what we have been shown. " Panurge pulled it off, Edgic didn't, because Edgic no longer uses Logic. It's searching for a "magic formula" where none can exist. You're trying to find the answer through math when it's a question of storytelling. Panurge didn't pull anything off. And no past winner has been ignored until episode FOUR. But why would you want to make a pick after episode #1? We make no "official" picks after episode one, but we do eliminate players after one episode. Natalie was and should have been one of those eliminated, based on the Edgic guidelines in place. The backers of Nat and Russhole in this thread were NOT following the Edgic guidelines. 'nuff said. X
RobVanStratus		#6013	[-]
Posts: 9632 (12/26/09 12:16 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Mick had zero connections to winning and had no jury connections. He had no story at all until the recap when he was labeled the useless leader. Anyone that supported him was not using Edgic either. Just because you are a visible male does not mean you are a possible winner. It was just as ridiculous as the Amanda support. She and Mick are two peas in a pod.
Bowie.thehole		#6014	[-]
Posts: 612 (12/26/09 12:59 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RobVanStratus wrote: Mick had zero connections to winning and had no jury connections. He had no story at all until the recap when he was labeled the useless leader. Anyone that supported him was not using Edgic either. Just because you are a visible male does not mean you are a possible winner. It was just as ridiculous as the Amanda support. She and Mick are two peas in a pod. I thought Mick was a better player than he was and presumed he was gonna make a bold move in the final few episodes like most contestants tend to do. His edit was built up like he was GOING to make that bold move but the idiot never did. Instead, he was built up merely because he was a finalist... and also built up for a major fall. For those who don't use spoilers, I think a better "edgic game" would be to pick the Final 2 or 3. I think the editing formula does a far better job at informing the finalists than the actual winner.
panurge46		#6015	[-]
Posts: 1608 (12/26/09 09:43 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Thanks KittyPride. OO wrote: We make no "official" picks after episode one, but we do eliminate players after one episode. Natalie was and should have been one of those eliminated, based on the Edgic guidelines in place. The backers of Nat and Russhole in this thread were NOT following the Edgic guidelines. 'nuff said. I certainly wasn't following Edgic guidelines in place because I never thought they were accurate even if there are some real good ideas and great analysts. Eliminating players after 1 or 2 episodes isn't wise. You have to let the author, the editors in this case, establish the story first. Note that it took about 3 episodes for most viewers to turn around their perception of Russell. Most viewers said he grew on them. The editors could only introduce the one that was going to beat Russell after getting the viewer to think: "This guy has a chance. Can he pull it off?" To use Edgic nomenclature, Russell first had to change from OTTNN to CPM before Natalie could be allowed to say she had a plan to beat him. If Russell had still been OTTNN then everyone would have known he didn't stand a chance, the season's suspense closed.
astroline		#6016	[-]
Posts: 3024 (12/26/09 11:01 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Panurge gets it right and everyone discredits all of his hard work and says it's "not Edgic", but if Mick won, we'd never hear the end of it from the posters that picked him. It's such hypocrisy as usual. Like I said very early in the season: fuck the guidelines. They're outdated, irrelevant and archaic. We just had a winner that had an INV, no confessionals until Episode 4, and an opening UTR1. I told you all early on that this winner would be unprecedented no matter what and it would NOT be Mick, but you guys didn't listen and he was still Edgic's majority pick for the entire season. Credit panurge with actually being able to think outside the box and be a creative individual that can see behind some bullshit guidelines that only work if Earl/Yul types win. You guys have been looking for another Earl/Yul type every season since then and you keep failing and I warned you it was going to happen again with Mick, but none of the Mick supporters listened and he was still the main pick.
getting real		#6017	[-]
Posts: 2021 (12/26/09 11:17 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Throughout most of the entire season, I've consistently tried to show how Edgic's philosophy and a flexible application of it guidelines can be combined with careful analysis of editing manipulation to identify what the editors are trying to tell us - and the eventual winner. This approach would also have identified Danni and Bob - both winners that an inflexible application of Edgic guidelines found it difficult to find. Everyone has the option of adopting this approach or to keep trying for a utopian definition of airtight guidelines which, because they are based on past trends, will always have the problem of being confronted with winning edits moulded by new and unforeseen circumstances. Guidelines based on past trends are extremely valuable - as long as one is prepared to keep an open mind about the possibility of variations based on the logic of editing manipulation.
scepticA		#6018	[-]
Posts: 1887 (12/26/09 11:39 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	astro, 27% is not a majority. It is a bare plurality, and the vote was basically a 4-way tie. That means over 70% of the edgic'rs heeded your wise dictums - yet you still insist on coming here and disparaging the entire community. "Fuck the guidelines" has been your mantra the entire season, which leads many of us to wonder what sort of visceral thrill you come to this place and dump on people who essentially agreed with you. Did we not state vociferously enough that this season's edit was bizarro? I know I said that from the first ep onward, as did just about every other edgic'r. And most of us noted that there was no decent edgic pick. Would you have been less displeased if we had USED CAPS or something similar in stating the obvious? Perhaps your Blakehate has bleeded over into despising the whole community. It's sad, and even worse that that - it's tiresome. I doubt you ever intended on sounding exactly like the drive-by trolls who come here, say, "Edgic SUX" and leave. At least they have the good grace to leave. Panurge used different criteria and was successful! Congrats. If, astro, you've been reading the edgic thread since the finale you've encountered page after page of sober discussion on how edgic went wrong and what can be done to improve its ability to pick the Bob, Danni, and Nat sort of winners. I'd like to hear actual contributions from you rather than anger and retribution.
gr8whithunter		#6019	[-]
Posts: 6 (12/26/09 12:58 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Brett's question was all about: So did you learn anything about us as people, or were you viewing us as tools? If Mick had said something like, "I probably would have liked going on a long drive with you in shotgun, just talking. I know your faith is very important to you, as well as your mom and dad, and have had great discussions with people about religion. So a drive, stopping for some beers and pool, and getting to know each other...." etc. etc. it would indicate he figured out something about Brett as a person, and in doing so indicates a level of respect for another person. Would this be BS? Maybe. Maybe Mick would prefer to go to the mountains and shoot quail, or go to a Lakers game, or shoot hoops with his male friends. That's not the point. The point of the question was: How do you view the jury? Some here and elsewhere think it's irrelevant to the game. I profoundly disagree, because there are always people on the jury who want to be viewed as a person, and not just a strategic victim. Nat knew this. Getting to know the other players has no downside in the game. If the topic doesn't come up you don't need to use the info. If it does, you have ammo for the answer. Mick DID know stuff about Brett, but completely misunderstood the point of his question, and how a better answer could have resonated with the jury. And you can be a strategic genius and still know people. Chris in S9 is a great example. He played a very good strategic game, but his final speech to the jury was maybe the best in survivor history: he talked to each person on the jury individually. To some he talked strategy, to others (like Sarge) he was very personal. In between is someone like Brian. The only time in the whole game he had a deer-in-headlights look was when Penny asked her question about who she is. Clay's answer was brilliant, talking in detail about her family. Brian recalled that she might have had a family, but wasn't sure. In fact, Clay almost won the whole thing because of that answer. And yes, there are some who say Penny's question was stupid. In terms of the jury QA, that point does not matter. That sort of question frequently comes up, and the astute player prepares for it happening, stupid or not. And the downside to not caring about the jury as people rather than pawns in your own game? Ask Russell about that. *Could not agree more...great post!!!*
Oowatanite		#6020	[-]
Posts: 9941 (12/26/09 06:37 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Viva la removeaducion! Remove this ad Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Oowatanite wrote: We make no "official" picks after episode one, but we do eliminate players after one episode. Natalie was and should have been one of those eliminated, based on the Edgic guidelines in place. The backers of Nat and Russhole in this thread were NOT following the Edgic guidelines. 'nuff said. Panurge picked Natalie to win. You picked Mick. You were bashing Panurge several weeks before the finale, right alongside Blake for being so "foolish" as to pick Natalie over bland, storyless Mick, and you got owned. So stop trying to downplay what he has managed to achieve (he also got Todd in China). First of all, I never picked Mick in this thread. What I did in this thread was poopoo the "Edgic" picks of Nat and Russhole. I was ~~bashing~~ challenging panurge in his thread because A LOT of his "observations" and "highlights" during Nat's awesome post-merge stretch of UTR after UTR after UTR was clearly clutching at straws to keep Natalie viable as his winner pick. I'll give you some examples. In an episode with two ICs and two TCs and lots of scrambling/strategy, we had from panurge ....... Natalie was the official cheerleader of the bowling comp. Natalie was drying the underwear she had won at the auction. Natalie was surprised at Russ' accusation: 'I didn't do that." Natalie said: "Oh! My word." which panurge translated into .... Natalie : Did the editors kill her story? They could very well have done just that but I still don't think so. I found it very interesting that everyone was seen scrambling, worrying about making it to the end or earning the jury votes while Natalie was like *the dog that didn't bark. Even at Tribal Council she never said a word. That could be terrible and she could turn into Becky from Cook Islands or that could be intentional and it could be to make her the surprise winner, the one who stayed calm and humble throughout the game. I think it was the editor's intent to keep her as the surprise winner* because there had to be some worries that Natalie would win the jury vote. "But Oo, panurge ended up with the correct winner pick in Samoa". Yes he did. But he had some "help". "He also correctly got Todd in China". He did ? Hmmmmm. He must've used the same "tools" that I did when I correctly got Todd in China.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)