It's so obvious

[cherylb]

After reading ALL the threads and ALL the posts it is just so obvious that we all need to agree to disagree.
Some are sad and some are glad, some are wrong and some are right, (I feel like Dr. Seuss) but the best thing to do, before we all fight, is count down to the new fall season, I'm sure that will give us all a reason, to meet here again and still remain friends.

[Hooked on Survivor]

I don't think anyone should win the money by a jury vote. Most of the time it is a biased jury to one of the final 2.

I think there should be a final challenge. The person who wins this challenge should be declared the winner.

Frankly, this whole jury thing is getting really boring. Same questions, same answers year after year.

Make it exciting, instead of watching people begging for votes, watch people busting their butts to win the final challenge. Then they can truly be declared the Sole Survivor.

[april_s]

But Cherylb, where is the fun in that?

I enjoy going back and forth with the people who disagree with me about liking Terry. Besides, they keep coming up with these twisted, unfounded ideas about him to justify disliking him, and I have to call them out. It's fun

[Diva]

I think the differences stem from what people think the GAME of Survivor is about. Isn't the whole idea of the game to be sitting beside one other person, in front of 7 people, of which you hope you haven't pissed off too much that they don't think you deserve a million bucks? This whole integrety crap is just that..crap. Leave it at the door cuz I don't believe you can win this game without at least either going back on your word or backstabbing at least one person. This is a game..nothing more, nothing less. You play to win, within the rules of the game, just like any other game.

As a juror, if one of the F2 lied to me, my thinking would be "good for them..they fooled me into believing something that ended up leaving me sit up here while they're down there in the F2". As a juror, any player who claimed to have been honest and virtuous throughout the game would NOT get my vote, cuz I know it would be a lie. Tell the truth at final TC.

Terry broke the alliance with Dan but told him ahead of time so that makes it ok? LOL alrighty then. I dont' buy it. If Terry's strategy was in thinking getting rid of Dan was the better move (apparently it wasn't), then good for him for at least having a strategy. Good for him for trying to get further by getting rid of Dan (again, apparently not a good move). I don't begrudge any of them for lying or breaking alliances. It's how they go about it, when they do it, and what the results of that are. Dan was pre-jury so makign him mad really wasn't the issue. If I thought that was the best move for me, I'd have done the same thing. Terry's problem was he wasn't thinking more steps down the road in doing that. He was thinking only of his next step and not what the repercussions of doing that would be further down the road.

As for getting rid of the jury...that would take away the whole social part of the game. What would it matter if you made everyone mad along the way? That would be the same as letting the viewers decide the outcome. Just vote them off without being responsible for your actions. And by just having challenges only, you might as well cast a bunch of body builders and professional athletes cuz that's all the game would be about.

Can you imagine what a boring show it would be if there was no whispering, schemeing, backstabbing, lying, etc.? Let's remember these are people in the equation...even 1 different move anywhere in the game, by any of the players, could change the whole outcome.

[cherylb]

Originally Posted by april_s

But Cherylb, where is the fun in that?

I enjoy going back and forth with the people who disagree with me about liking Terry. Besides, they keep coming up with these twisted, unfounded ideas about him to justify disliking him, and I have to call them out. It's fun

Oh, I enjoy it more than anything, they're the highlight of my day, just felt like posting a new thread with a little bit of humor and ryhme.

But I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree about Terry.

BTW. I can't remember if we felt the same way about Steph.

[april_s]

I think Terry is great! He made a few mistakes and I'm mad at him for making them because I wanted him to win so bad. But (and this is for Diva) I don't think voting out Dan was one of them. That had no repercussions.

I didn't like Steph. Only because she turned on so many people. She was a good competitor.

[cherylb]

It got to the point where I couldn't stand her whining, BUT, she was a good competitor.

[Diva]

True, voting out Dan may have not had any repercussions but I don't think we can say for sure. Again, these are people in this equation so you never know how they'r going to react given different circumstances and/or other people. I think Terry's initial mistake was getting rid of Ruth Marie instead of Sally. No one can say they would have won more tribal challenges but you never know. I think Ruth Marie would have stayed true to LaMina whereas Sally was willing to flip in a second if she had been able. Also with Ruth Marie, you have Dan. Dan and Bruce seemed to have a very tight bond, from what I've heard thru interviews. By keeping Dan and then possibly having at least an even number going into the merge, they would have been able to flip Bruce that much more easily.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the outcome of the tribal challenges might have been different had La Mina made other choices on who to vote out and it seemed, to me anyway, that Terry was the one giving the final ok to those choices.

[april_s]

Diva, I cannot even take anything you just said seriously enough to comment.

[Diva]

I'm confused. What did I say that was so "un-serious"?