Anonymous wrote:Well, Michaela, that is why you don't talk trash on Survivor, because you got blindsided and voted out!
Anonymous wrote:Why is the Boston cop telling everyone he's a funeral home director? I must have missed his reasoning.
Anonymous wrote:Well, Michaela, that is why you don't talk trash on Survivor, because you got blindsided and voted out!
That isn't why she she as sent home. She was super smart and extremely competitive and athletic. Started fire when no one else could etc. she just spoke and trusted too much.Anonymous wrote:Well, Michaela, that is why you don't talk trash on Survivor, because you got blindsided and voted out!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, Michaela, that is why you don't talk trash on Survivor, because you got blindsided and voted out!
I just felt the vibe the whole episode that her team was going to lose and she was going home. I really liked her and she was a strong player. I think if she could have learned to be a little less her and straightforward, she could have won this thing. Now I'm rooting for the ex college football player (forgot his name).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember, Sandra has won twice, and she is a minority. She had no right to win either time, she floated her way to the top and no one was smart enough to get her out.
How is it that "she had no right to win?"
Exactly, Said like a true white male. She had a right to win. She won.
Since you are quoting me, race has nothing to do with it, it was the fact she did nothing in the game to deserve both wins. Her "game" was, as long as the vote isn't me.....she went along with the majority and it worked, twice.
I have watched Survivor from day 1, there are times that the winner shouldn't have won, and it was a bitter jury that got the winner to win. Russell Hantz (the first go around) is a great example of this.
Besides avoiding elimination at 15+ tribal councils, ensuring the jury is not bitter about you at the end is key to winning.
The jury should respect game play. This is a problem on Big Brother as well.
Anonymous wrote:Well, Michaela, that is why you don't talk trash on Survivor, because you got blindsided and voted out!
Anonymous wrote:glad Figgy is gone!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember, Sandra has won twice, and she is a minority. She had no right to win either time, she floated her way to the top and no one was smart enough to get her out.
How is it that "she had no right to win?"
Exactly, Said like a true white male. She had a right to win. She won.
Since you are quoting me, race has nothing to do with it, it was the fact she did nothing in the game to deserve both wins. Her "game" was, as long as the vote isn't me.....she went along with the majority and it worked, twice.
I have watched Survivor from day 1, there are times that the winner shouldn't have won, and it was a bitter jury that got the winner to win. Russell Hantz (the first go around) is a great example of this.
Besides avoiding elimination at 15+ tribal councils, ensuring the jury is not bitter about you at the end is key to winning.
The jury should respect game play. This is a problem on Big Brother as well.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
Big Brother is a different story. I think the producers manipulate every outcome.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember, Sandra has won twice, and she is a minority. She had no right to win either time, she floated her way to the top and no one was smart enough to get her out.
How is it that "she had no right to win?"
Exactly, Said like a true white male. She had a right to win. She won.
Since you are quoting me, race has nothing to do with it, it was the fact she did nothing in the game to deserve both wins. Her "game" was, as long as the vote isn't me.....she went along with the majority and it worked, twice.
I have watched Survivor from day 1, there are times that the winner shouldn't have won, and it was a bitter jury that got the winner to win. Russell Hantz (the first go around) is a great example of this.
Besides avoiding elimination at 15+ tribal councils, ensuring the jury is not bitter about you at the end is key to winning.
The jury should respect game play. This is a problem on Big Brother as well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember, Sandra has won twice, and she is a minority. She had no right to win either time, she floated her way to the top and no one was smart enough to get her out.
How is it that "she had no right to win?"
Exactly, Said like a true white male. She had a right to win. She won.
Since you are quoting me, race has nothing to do with it, it was the fact she did nothing in the game to deserve both wins. Her "game" was, as long as the vote isn't me.....she went along with the majority and it worked, twice.
I have watched Survivor from day 1, there are times that the winner shouldn't have won, and it was a bitter jury that got the winner to win. Russell Hantz (the first go around) is a great example of this.
Besides avoiding elimination at 15+ tribal councils, ensuring the jury is not bitter about you at the end is key to winning.