TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like
Google.
Pages:1
Survivor 2/26 **spoilers**
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: YCantAngieRead
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY!
:D
In other news, what did I miss between Richard and Sue? I'm assuming that's why there was a disclaimer-can someone elaborate?
Posted by: Turtleboy
quote:
Originally posted by YCantAngieRead
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY!
:D
In other news, what did I miss between Richard and Sue? I'm assuming that's why there was a disclaimer-can someone elaborate?
I'm not sure why there was a disclaimer. Because he was naked and rubbed against her?
Posted by: ufo4sale
So I guess Rupert did beat Richard, sort of.
Posted by: farleyruskz
I'm glad this invalidates the "spoiler list" that's been going around...leaves the rest of the season up for grabs. But I'm really sorry to see Hatch go...I liked him; thought he was hilarious.
Posted by: YCantAngieRead
I'm actually kind of ticked that the spoiler lists are wrong. Not surprised, but ticked. I hate surprises. :)
Posted by: Turtleboy
Sue looks pretty pissed in the previews for next week.
Posted by: loubob57
Now they can save so much in production costs by not having to generate that big fuzzy blob. :D
Posted by: Family
quote:
Originally posted by loubob57
Now they can save so much in production costs by not having to generate that big fuzzy blob. :D
The fuzzy blob looked pretty small from the front view.
Posted by: Rob Helmerichs
Who would have thought that Richard would go out with such, well, I don't know if class is the right word, but equanimity...
He seemed almost tickled at how thoroughly he'd been played!
Posted by: ClutchBrake
Man, I wanted to see Richard win it all.
What do you want to bet Probst makes some off color remark about the Sue/Richard incident that sets her off next week?
Posted by: dschwab
I'm betting that hyper-sensitive CBS put the disclaimer because of Richard's rubbing on Sue. However, it appears from the preview that she really was upset by it (how else could she be "humiliated" out there?), so perhaps it was more offensive than it appeared on TV.
Posted by: DougF
A) What was the disclaimer? I didn't watch from the beginning.
B) I saw what Richard said to Susan, but couldn't make out what she said to him first on the balance beam thingie. It seems she started it. Does anyone know what she said?
Posted by: Kylep
I guess they need to add "will be humiliated" in the contract, right next to "may need to eat bugs"
LOL!
Posted by: zyzzx
My favorite part tonight was Rob kicking everyone's butt in the IC on the balance beam. Having the others jump off so Rob could go again was quick thinking on their part. :up:
I'm sorry to see Richard go, however. His pompousness really added humor to the show.
Posted by: FourFourSeven
It's too bad Richard is gone - he was a riot!
That being said, his little act during the challenge was entirely inappropriate, and not his finest moment.
As far as the previews for next week...
Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
I doubt Probst said anything to get Sue going - I think she just felt she hadn't had her chance to say her piece yet, and took the opportunity. We all know that Sue likes to say her piece...
Posted by: Philosofy
I think the disclaimer was fallout from the Janet Jackson Superbowl performance. With Hatch being naked, they felt they had to put up the warning.
I'm glad he got the boot: 6:1 too! As for the tribe jumping off to let Rob keep on going: that's the kind of out of the box thinking that wins it for you. And I knew Saboga's boat would go nowhere: too much perpendicular surface area.
Now we've finally started to see all the scheming getting going!
Posted by: Z'Loth
Richard gets the hatch. Yay! And Saboga has the Rupert advantage.
Posted by: dr_mal
quote:
Originally posted by Philosofy
I think the disclaimer was fallout from the Janet Jackson Superbowl performance. With Hatch being naked, they felt they had to put up the warning.
He's been naked the whole series. The only difference this time was his package touched somebody else. That's gotta be why they put up the disclaimer. [edit: Here's a story talking about the situation]
In a way I'm glad the big spoiler list is wrong -- I'm looking forward to being surprised the rest of the season. Then again, I used that list when making my pick for the office Survivor pool...
Posted by: mitchb2
quote:
Originally posted by YCantAngieRead
In other news, what did I miss between Richard and Sue?
I think it was because of the "decency" thing going on right now.
Janet Jackson, now Howard Stern.
I think they're just trying to cover their arses (and Richard's yuk yuk).
Posted by: smak
Didn't the "hoaxter" with the list know the first 4 booted? Wouldn't that lead you to believe that the order, until at least the finale?
Maybe another list coming?
-smak-
Posted by: dr_mal
quote:
Originally posted by smak
Didn't the "hoaxter" with the list know the first 4 booted? Wouldn't that lead you to believe that the order, until at least the finale?
Maybe another list coming?
The list got the first 4 right, but they predicted Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Jerri
to go tonight, not Richard.
Another rumour has it that Burnett "leaked" that list, knowing with the first few right, nobody would be looking anywhere else for spoilers. Now that the list has been wrong on a bootee, it's going to look suspicious from here on out.
Posted by: DLL66
Hatch is out! Outstanding! Sue, the Hag, is next! When she does goes, I can't wait to hear what dumb ass belly aching complaint she is going to come up with!
Posted by: smak
quote:
Originally posted by dr_mal
The list got the first 4 right, but they predicted Jerri to go tonight, not Richard.
Another rumour has it that Burnett "leaked" that list, knowing with the first few right, nobody would be looking anywhere else for spoilers. Now that the list has been wrong on a bootee, it's going to look suspicious from here on out.
Right, but somehow somebody knew the first 4 booted 6 weeks ago, when they shouldn't have.
I think it's Burnett...
-smak-
Posted by: ccouger
Do you think Jerri and Shiann were really plotting against Colby and then were talked out of that later by the others? They seemed pretty sincere, and I doubt that Jerri is that good of an actress! I was wondering about the disclaimer at the beginning too, and at first I thought maybe Boston Rob and Amber were really going to do some serious making out on camera! I wonder how the addition of Rupert and Jenna will affect their new team. Jenna's not the type to keep quiet to leader Boston Rob's opinions.
Posted by: TeeSee
Can somebody please point me to this spoiler list that some of you are talking about?
Posted by: devdogaz
The spoilers can be found on www.aintitcoolnews.com. I think the explanation that was given for how they knew the first four bootees was that RobC, Rudy, and Tina were all seen together in South America on a trip during the taping. And the fact that Jenna left to go be with her mother was public knowledge. I don't know how he/she got the order right, and I'm not dismissing the possibility that MB leaked the list himself to generate interest.
I'm bummed that Hatch is gone. He was one of my favorite players and added a lot of entertainment to the show. However, it was good to see them start to strategize and to see that there are factions within that tribe that don't necessarily want to do everything Colby says.
Posted by: KLB
this just goess to show you ONCE AGAIN how useless and unreliable aint it stoopid news is.
I was really surprised Richard got it---- that b-tch Kathy screwed the other women in the tribe and I hope they go after her for it. Now they are all gonzo.
Jeri was right, now that Rich is gone, the young bucks are going to pick off the women one by one....
Posted by: Mikkel_Knight
quote:
Originally posted by dr_mal
The list got the first 4 right, but they predicted Jerri to go tonight, not Richard.
Another rumour has it that Burnett "leaked" that list, knowing with the first few right, nobody would be looking anywhere else for spoilers. Now that the list has been wrong on a bootee, it's going to look suspicious from here on out.
And next week Sue is "picked" to go. After her outburst at the challenge, it wouldn't surprise me if she got the axe...
Posted by: mitchb2
quote:
Originally posted by DLL66
Hatch is out! Outstanding! Sue, the Hag, is next! When she does goes, I can't wait to hear what dumb ass belly aching complaint she is going to come up with!
She's gross, but she's right about one thing: Tom *IS* a big, stupid drunk.
To walk around wasted like that...how stupid.
Posted by: jlb
My thoughts on last night's episode:
1) I never thought the disclaimer was the Hatch Sue thing. I actually thought that maybe it had to do with how "violent" some of the balance beam "wars" were. I mean, the Robfather really went at Ethan pretty hard......
2) Hatch going.......hard to say it, but I was sad to see him go. He was quite the character.....
3) Rupert: I think the merge really helped him. After building a lousy house and boat, I feared that Jerri (that suit is awesome!) and Jenna would want to rid him.
4) Rupert: Did you see the look of glee on Rupert's face when they were told the fishing spear was going to be part of the reward! How funny was that.
5) Ethan/Hatch: The fish "competition" exchange was just soooooo hilarious.
6) When does Johnny Fairplay show-up? ;)
Posted by: Steveknj
I think that disclaimer was totally overboard. I actually didn't think that Hatch and Sue even touched in a bad way when they met on the beam, until it was brought out here. These networks are gettting so hypersentivie on ANYTHING that might be construed as sexually explicit. Next thing you know, when two teenagers kiss on a show like 8 Simple Rules, there will be a disclaimer for that.
That said, I thought last nights episode was probably the best episode of Survivor since Sue's rat and snake speech in the original. Both challanges were great, the strategy to let BostonRob do all the work was brilliant, and the dynamics of the tribes are now REALLY interesting. I just LOVE how Hatch was played, and he loved it too, I really don't think he saw it coming until it was too late. And the type of person he is, it just struck him as great, and I'll bet in the reunion show he congratulates Colby (or whoever was the head schemer...maybe even Ethan or Lex).
As for Rupert, isn't he coming off as a big dumb oaf. Whatever he touches turns to crap. My son thinks that is his strategy, considering he was TOO strong too early last time. His personality won't let him just lie in the weeds, so he intentionally screws up until the merge and then starts rattling off immunity wins one after the other. I have a lot of trouble thinking he couldn't have stayed on that balance beam if he wanted to!!
Posted by: Big_Daddy
quote:
Originally posted by dschwab
I'm betting that hyper-sensitive CBS put the disclaimer because of Richard's rubbing on Sue. However, it appears from the preview that she really was upset by it (how else could she be "humiliated" out there?), so perhaps it was more offensive than it appeared on TV.
At the time I wondered why they even included the crotch-rubbing scene at all - then I saw the previews for next week where Sue's still angry about the incident. Although in all fairness, if Hatch had done that to me I'd probably be irritated as well. I dislike Sue fairly intensely, but her abrasiveness makes fair (not good) TV. So I guess they had to include it...
I also regret Hatch being voted off. He had such a goofy "who cares?" attitude that was refreshing to see after all the serious contestants on this show. And he was hillarious. I like Big Tom (the drunk) for the same reason. Rupert's still my favorite, but he's not that funny, and has appeared strangely inept this season.
Posted by: pmyers
I loved Tom's lines about the "hag" Susan and her pee rotting the raft ;)
Posted by: TreborPugly
quote:
Originally posted by KLB
Kathy screwed the other women in the tribe and I hope they go after her for it. Now they are all gonzo.
Jeri was right, now that Rich is gone, the young bucks are going to pick off the women one by one....
It isn't just Kathy. Everyone voted against Richard. I'm guessing they showed us only the jockeying for position, but not Colby convincing the ladies to stick with him. Everyone knew going into tribal council who was going down, except Rich. They just need to keep the suspense up for the viewers, so of course they don't show that.
The "inappropriate" bit I'm pretty sure was Richard's bit rubbing up against Sue. I also predict that her rant next week is about this. She is loopy. Somehow she manages to get enraged by little things that bug her.
Tom has some pretty good balance for a "stupid drunk".
I thought Rob was overly rough with the first log-confrontation. You don't need to tackle someone to get them off a log. Just give them a push, and keep your balance better than them. Was Rob involved the last time they had an over-the top physical challenge like this?
I think Ethan narrowly escaped a serious head injury. It is irresponsible of CBS to make such challenges without better safety. I think about half of the knock-offs either hit the edge of the pool or came within inches of hitting it.
PUG.
Posted by: keirgrey
quote:
Originally posted by Steveknj
As for Rupert, isn't he coming off as a big dumb oaf. Whatever he touches turns to crap. My son thinks that is his strategy, considering he was TOO strong too early last time. His personality won't let him just lie in the weeds, so he intentionally screws up until the merge and then starts rattling off immunity wins one after the other. I have a lot of trouble thinking he couldn't have stayed on that balance beam if he wanted to!!
I thought I heard Rupert say something to the effect of: They think I have trouble keeping my balance." So, maybe you're right, he appeared so competent in Pearl Islands that I'm having a hard time believing that he is that big of a screw up.
Posted by: Frylock
Yeah, the games are the dangerous part. Being left on an island with no food, no clean water, and no tools except for one machete was safe. :)
Posted by: pmyers
I couldn't believe when Rob "speared" Ethan and slammed him into the side of the pool...then he pics Colby straight up in the ear and "body slams" him into the water....classic!
Posted by: jeff125va
I was glad to see Hatch gone. It's one thing that he decides he's gonna go naked at the beginning of the challenge, but then when he just dropped his shorts after getting knocked off the beam I had had about enough. Just too annoying. I generally get a laugh out of his "character" but the naked all the time this season was getting on my nerves.
I really wonder when and why Jerri and Shii Ann changed their minds. Kathy was obviously undecided, but I just wonder if there was something they could have showed us but edited out, or if they just didn't catch it on camera, or if they all just decided independently to vote for Richard.
I wasn't 100% convinced that the Richard/Sue incident during the IC is what she was screaming about in the preview, but since they could easily have edited that out if it was insignificant, I'm guessing it is. She just didn't seem upset about it at the time. I also wonder if they are over-hyping it in the preview, as they are wont to do.
Posted by: milo99
quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
I thought Rob was overly rough with the first log-confrontation. You don't need to tackle someone to get them off a log. Just give them a push, and keep your balance better than them. Was Rob involved the last time they had an over-the top physical challenge like this?
I think Ethan narrowly escaped a serious head injury. It is irresponsible of CBS to make such challenges without better safety. I think about half of the knock-offs either hit the edge of the pool or came within inches of hitting it.
PUG.
i wholeheartedly disagree about Rob. Rob was going up against Ethan, another very athletic guy. It would've been stupid for him to take ethan lightly. Then he went against Colby, another very athletic guy.
From watching that challenge though, I have a feeling Rob was an ex-wrestler in HS or something, cuz being one myself, it looked like he knew what he was doing. And if that's the case, there's no way he would've taken it easy on anybody. Maybe its pride, but I know I wouldn't want to be physically beat in a challenge like that, so sure, there was probably some testosterone induced grandstanding, but that's to be expected in a challenge like that. :)
I do agree about the fact that they shoulda made the pool wider than the beam though... that was asking for trouble
Posted by: LooseWiring
quote:
Originally posted by Steveknj
As for Rupert, isn't he coming off as a big dumb oaf. Whatever he touches turns to crap. My son thinks that is his strategy, considering he was TOO strong too early last time. His personality won't let him just lie in the weeds, so he intentionally screws up until the merge and then starts rattling off immunity wins one after the other. I have a lot of trouble thinking he couldn't have stayed on that balance beam if he wanted to!!
I thought it looked like he was dogging it in the challenges as well. But, if that's true, why isn't he saying so in the interviews?
Maybe he hasn't recovered from Pearl Islands fully?
Posted by: KLB
Oh, and as to what Sue is all angry about I really can't see it being the bit with Hatch that "humiliated" her... I'm sure Sue has done, seen and said things that would make a high percentage of long shoremen blush.
I agree about that pool, when I saw the preview and saw Ethan hit that side I thought for sure they'd be taking him out on a stretcher. It was a bad design.
Posted by: pmyers
I bet we can add a 3rd rule to Survivor for next season:
1. Can't share the money
2. No physical violence to another member
3. Must be clothed at all times.
Posted by: devdogaz
quote:
Originally posted by pmyers
3. Must be clothed at all times.
Or at least "No uninvited contact of your genitals with any other player." :D
I'm fairly certain that Sue's outburst next week is about the Hatch crotch rub. There were spoilers about this even before last night. I think the issue she has is that Probst didn't do anything about it and she feels like Hatch should have been kicked out on the spot.
Posted by: jeff125va
quote:
Originally posted by pmyers
I bet we can add a 3rd rule to Survivor for next season:
3. Must be clothed at all times.
As long as there's selective enforcement. I wouldn't miss 260 lbs of naked Hatch but I would miss Jenna and Heidi and whoever else enjoying their soap and shampoo rewards.
As far as Hatch being kicked out on the spot, I guess it's a fine line between sexual assault and incidental contact. He certainly made it last longer than necessary, but why didn't she say anything at the time? We're talking Sue here, not exactly the silent type.
Posted by: TheDewAddict
Am I missing something about this "crotch rub?" Didn't Sue stand there and wait for Richard to come up to her when she could have kept moving? What did she expect Richard to do, the little landing areas between beams weren't exactly spacious.
Posted by: martinp13
quote:
Originally posted by dschwab
However, it appears from the preview that she really was upset by it (how else could she be "humiliated" out there?)...
Um, by being televised any time she opens her mouth? ;)
Posted by: pmyers
To me, the contact definately looked intentional and I think he was using it to try and make her uncomfortable and perhaps fall off the beam. IMHO
Posted by: dr_mal
quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
Was Rob involved the last time they had an over-the top physical challenge like this?
I think you're thinking of Robb in Thailand. He and Clay got into it during a similar "fight on the log" challenge.
Posted by: dschwab
quote:
Originally posted by TheDewAddict
Am I missing something about this "crotch rub?" Didn't Sue stand there and wait for Richard to come up to her when she could have kept moving? What did she expect Richard to do, the little landing areas between beams weren't exactly spacious.
But Richard also opened up that area as he passed and added the comment "you know you want it" or something along those lines. To me, that comment crossed the line, even in jest, and I'm not one that is easily offended. That's a text book case of sexual intimidation.
Posted by: jpfletcher
I think she knows that she will not win and is using this to make some money by suing CBS for letting Hatch rub up against her while he was naked. She claims that she was humiliated? This coming from someone who admit to peeing on the raft on National TV.
Posted by: newsposter
quote:
Originally posted by jpfletcher
I think she knows that she will not win and is using this to make some money by suing CBS for letting Hatch rub up against her while he was naked. She claims that she was humiliated? This coming from someone who admit to peeing on the raft on National TV.
why did she have to say stop the raft I have to pee?
Posted by: devdogaz
I think the sexual intimidation is the exact term that should be used to describe Richard's nudity strategy. In fact, it was fairly obvious after he was involved in his first "showdown" on the bridge, he dropped trou because he realized that if it happened again, his opponent would be less willing to initate contact with him and thus give him the advantage. However, the intentional rubbing of his crotch on Sue and whoever else was there was totally out of line. He did it on purpose, hoping to gain some sort of advantage, either in the challenge or in the game overall, but the fact that he felt he had to resort to that tactic reflects poorly on his skills as a strategist.
Regarding Sue's rant next week:
Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
There are rumors that she is so enraged by the whole incident that she quits the game on the spot. This would be consistent with JP's comments that Episode 3 will leave you crying and Episode 6 will leave you in shock.
Posted by: DancnDude
The funny thing about Sue peeing on the raft is that they don't have any real bathrooms there anyways, so I think it would be fairly normal to do that in the water.
Posted by: pmyers
To be on a raft with 3 other people on it? She even made some comment about doing it on purpose.
Posted by: jeff125va
Speaking of over-hyping the previews, I think this week's "twist" was somewhat over-hyped. This was nothing more than a partial merge.
Regarding the above spoiler rumor:
Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Sue quitting for that reason doesn't make much sense. A) Hatch is gone. B) She wasn't upset at the time. C) Probst DID tell Hatch to stop. But, it is Sue, not exactly a reputation for being rational.
Posted by: GDG76
I slo-mo'ed Rob and Colby's log confrontation and Rob definitely hit the water first. You could even hear someone call it correctly that Rob's foot hit first.
I thought his strategy was pretty dumb- just tackling someone is not the way to win it as they'll just grab you and you'll both hit at the same time. The only reason Rob won was because Probst is an idiot and a terrible judge.
Personally, I would wait for someone to charge me and then redirect them instead of the tackling that was used last night.
drew
Posted by: pmyers
I give Kathy props for sitting down on the log. That really was her best chance and beating Rob. I thought Rob was going to just hurdle over her, for a second.
Posted by: Mikkel_Knight
quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think the sexual intimidation is the exact term that should be used to describe Richard's nudity strategy. In fact, it was fairly obvious after he was involved in his first "showdown" on the bridge, he dropped trou because he realized that if it happened again, his opponent would be less willing to initate contact with him and thus give him the advantage. However, the intentional rubbing of his crotch on Sue and whoever else was there was totally out of line. He did it on purpose, hoping to gain some sort of advantage, either in the challenge or in the game overall, but the fact that he felt he had to resort to that tactic reflects poorly on his skills as a strategist.
Regarding Sue's rant next week:
Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
There are rumors that she is so enraged by the whole incident that she quits the game on the spot. This would be consistent with JP's comments that Episode 3 will leave you crying and Episode 6 will leave you in shock.
Nope - I watched his Early Show interview and he said that others were telling him to drop trou since it would "distract" the others. As for Sue, she's the one that was going on a different path, then turned back to use Richard's path. I think it was Sue that was wanting to attempt to "block" Richard.
As an aside, the "jumping off and letting 1 person run the course strategy" was brilliant. What would have also been brilliant (though I don't recall the rules) would have been to post a couple of people to "block" a path. I don't recall hearing anything in the rules about you needing to navigate the course. All I remember hearing was that there could be no more than 3 players from each team at a time... In that case, you effectively block the two sides and force a showdown nearly every time... Or am I not thinking correctly about that there??
Posted by: Mikkel_Knight
quote:
Originally posted by KLB
Oh, and as to what Sue is all angry about I really can't see it being the bit with Hatch that "humiliated" her... I'm sure Sue has done, seen and said things that would make a high percentage of long shoremen blush.
I agree about that pool, when I saw the preview and saw Ethan hit that side I thought for sure they'd be taking him out on a stretcher. It was a bad design.
I'd love to get a shot of his ribs the next morning... there has got to be some serious brusing there... heheh
Posted by: Fleegle
quote:
Originally posted by Mikkel_Knight
Nope - I watched his Early Show interview and he said that others were telling him to drop trou since it would "distract" the others. As for Sue, she's the one that was going on a different path, then turned back to use Richard's path. I think it was Sue that was wanting to attempt to "block" Richard.
As an aside, the "jumping off and letting 1 person run the course strategy" was brilliant. What would have also been brilliant (though I don't recall the rules) would have been to post a couple of people to "block" a path. I don't recall hearing anything in the rules about you needing to navigate the course. All I remember hearing was that there could be no more than 3 players from each team at a time... In that case, you effectively block the two sides and force a showdown nearly every time... Or am I not thinking correctly about that there??
No, they could only have two people on teh course at a time. I'm pretty sure they wanted to avoid exactly that situation.
Posted by: devdogaz
quote:
Originally posted by GDG76
I slo-mo'ed Rob and Colby's log confrontation and Rob definitely hit the water first. You could even hear someone call it correctly that Rob's foot hit first.
I thought his strategy was pretty dumb- just tackling someone is not the way to win it as they'll just grab you and you'll both hit at the same time. The only reason Rob won was because Probst is an idiot and a terrible judge.
I think without the use of slow motion, Jeff did a pretty good job on that one. Colby did fal backwards into the water with RobM on top of him so the bulk of Colby's body hit first. Not sure how Jeff is going to tell which hand or leg hit first since it's just a big tangle of flailing limbs at that point.
Posted by: Mikkel_Knight
quote:
Originally posted by jeff125va
I was glad to see Hatch gone. It's one thing that he decides he's gonna go naked at the beginning of the challenge, but then when he just dropped his shorts after getting knocked off the beam I had had about enough. Just too annoying. I generally get a laugh out of his "character" but the naked all the time this season was getting on my nerves.
Again, after seeing the Early Show interview, Richard said if he had changed the way he played during the 1st Survivor, people would have wondered what he was up to - he had to remain consistant. He knew going in that he was target #1 above all others. He was just trying to make it to a merge where he could bargian for individual immunity. He wanted to win, but really knew that he didn't stand a chance. Too many were looking forward to dethroning the king.
He said that everyone there thought that he was cocky and arrogant (from his behavior in S1) that if he wasn't, they would be all kinds of suspicious and he would be gone even sooner...
Posted by: jeff125va
quote:
Originally posted by GDG76
I slo-mo'ed Rob and Colby's log confrontation and Rob definitely hit the water first. You could even hear someone call it correctly that Rob's foot hit first.
...
Rob won was because Probst is an idiot and a terrible judge.
drew
I slo-mo'd it too, and came to the same conclusion, but it was so close that I can't expect Probst to have done any better w/o replay. Plus I don't even know if his angle was as good as we got from the camera... he may have been on the other side, I don't know.
Posted by: Fleegle
quote:
Originally posted by Mikkel_Knight
Again, after seeing the Early Show interview, Richard said if he had changed the way he played during the 1st Survivor, people would have wondered what he was up to - he had to remain consistant. He knew going in that he was target #1 above all others. He was just trying to make it to a merge where he could bargian for individual immunity. He wanted to win, but really knew that he didn't stand a chance. Too many were looking forward to dethroning the king.
He said that everyone there thought that he was cocky and arrogant (from his behavior in S1) that if he wasn't, they would be all kinds of suspicious and he would be gone even sooner...
Well, he was gone at Mogo Mogo's first Tribal Council, so I don't see how he could have gone any sooner...
I'm really happy that the man is gone. I got so sick of him and his little blur...
Posted by: KRS
Boston ROb definately had the advantage in that challenge seeing as he is in construction - he's probably very comfortable walking on beams and rebar. He is great at thinking outside the box - in that challenge and when they spilled the water out of the boat rather than bailing. I hope he makes it to the end - he is the most deserving survivor at this point.
As for the Sue/Hatch controversy - all I saw was Richard lingering a little long on the platform when trying to get past her. I didn't see any actual crotch rubbing, and besides that, it was her choice to stand there rather than taking the other path. So her tirade next week seems largely unfounded to me.
From the preview, it does look as though Probst is partially responsible - probably by downplaying or joking about the incident. I bet Jeff makes a minor joke about it and Sue grabs the opportunity to go off, even though it hadn't bothered her before.
Posted by: GT3NE1
quote:
Originally posted by Mikkel_Knight
I'd love to get a shot of his ribs the next morning... there has got to be some serious brusing there... heheh
Same here. He almost hit his head, but I thought for sure he broke a rib.
Posted by: Ruth
I was pleased and surprized by Rich's last words. He admitted defeat much more gracefully than most people have when leaving the show. I thought it was classy. (Who would've thunk it?) Now I'm sad to see him gone.
Posted by: Philosofy
Assuming the Sue thing next week is related to the Richard incident. I wouldn't put it past Sue to think "There's no way I'm going to win this thing, my current tribe hates me, so why don't I just get offended at what they let Hatch do to me, quit, and sue the pants off (pun intended) them?"
Posted by: YCantAngieRead
As for the above spoilers about next week and Sue, that's consistent with what I've been hearing, as well.
From what I've been reading, the offense was that Hatch actually rubbed himself on her, which is, among other things, assault. I'm surprised that the producers didn't toss him then and there.
Posted by: pmyers
boy...if this season ends up with 2 people who quit....that will be sad for the "All-Star" edition of Survivor.
Posted by: JFriday
quote:
Originally posted by KRS
From the preview, it does look as though Probst is partially responsible - probably by downplaying or joking about the incident. I bet Jeff makes a minor joke about it and Sue grabs the opportunity to go off, even though it hadn't bothered her before.
If you go back to when they are walking back from the challange Sue makes reference to the incident and appears that she is mad. She then turns to the person that is lagging behind and you can no longer hear what she says.
Posted by: DLiquid
quote:
Originally posted by dr_mal
The list got the first 4 right, but they predicted Jerri to go tonight, not Richard.
Thanks for the info. Not. Please put stuff like this in spoiler tags. I'm avoiding spoilers this season, but now I know this Jerri info. Sure, she didn't go last night, but what about next week? :down:
Posted by: LooseWiring
quote:
Originally posted by YCantAngieRead
As for the above spoilers about next week and Sue, that's consistent with what I've been hearing, as well.
From what I've been reading, the offense was that Hatch actually rubbed himself on her, which is, among other things, assault. I'm surprised that the producers didn't toss him then and there.
I am curious about something. How can she sue CBS, or anyone else for that matter, for an incident that occurs IN ANOTHER COUNTRY?
This is not Guam or Hawaii or Puerto Rico. This is frickin' Panama! And I would imagine that down there their system of law wouldn't care one iota if she accidently had a homosexual man rub his "pee-pee" against her.
Especially when she knew he was naked and blocked his path WAITING for him to come to her. Also, the little junction they were at was NOT the right combat zone.
Posted by: jpfletcher
quote:
Originally posted by LooseWiring
I am curious about something. How can she sue CBS, or anyone else for that matter, for an incident that occurs IN ANOTHER COUNTRY?
This is not Guam or Hawaii or Puerto Rico. This is frickin' Panama! And I would imagine that down there their system of law wouldn't care one iota if she accidently had a homosexual man rub his "pee-pee" against her.
Especially when she knew he was naked and blocked his path WAITING for him to come to her. Also, the little junction they were at was NOT the right combat zone.
I was wondering about this too. How could it be assault if it happens in a different country with different laws? Could it be sexual assault? Or is it due to her own stupidity?
I thought that Survivor had rules against players assaulting each other, if that is the case, why did they have a challenge where tackles and the like were allowed?
Posted by: IJustLikeTivo
These women are dumb. Rich is smart, all that gets him is to the merge. What they need to do is get rid of the guys who can win individual immunity first. E.g Colby and Ethan. They got used and abused.
Dumb, dumb, dumb
Posted by: Mikkel_Knight
quote:
Originally posted by DLiquid
Thanks for the info. Not. Please put stuff like this in spoiler tags. I'm avoiding spoilers this season, but now I know this Jerri info. Sure, she didn't go last night, but what about next week? :down:
hey fruitcake - it was a spoiler for last week (that turned out to be completely false BTW) it has nothing to do with next week... duh - get a grip...
:rolleyes:
Posted by: Mikkel_Knight
quote:
Originally posted by YCantAngieRead
As for the above spoilers about next week and Sue, that's consistent with what I've been hearing, as well.
From what I've been reading, the offense was that Hatch actually rubbed himself on her, which is, among other things, assault. I'm surprised that the producers didn't toss him then and there.
But she could have easily gotten off the platform she was on by either falling of, or turning around and going the way she originally was before she deliberatly turned towards a bridge where Hatch was coming from.
If you throw yourself in front of a bus, is it the bus company's fault if you get hit?
Posted by: keirgrey
quote:
Originally posted by jpfletcher
I was wondering about this too. How could it be assault if it happens in a different country with different laws? Could it be sexual assault? Or is it due to her own stupidity?
I thought that Survivor had rules against players assaulting each other, if that is the case, why did they have a challenge where tackles and the like were allowed?
I'm sure they're all technically employees of CBS and/or Burnett's company and would be bound by those companies' codes of conduct. So, Hatch could have been dismissed if she brought HR charges, but I'm not sure about assault charges. It is, as has been pointed out, taking place in Panama
Posted by: dr_mal
quote:
Originally posted by DLiquid
Thanks for the info. Not. Please put stuff like this in spoiler tags. I'm avoiding spoilers this season, but now I know this Jerri info. Sure, she didn't go last night, but what about next week? :down:
I thought about that, but since Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Jerri
didn't go last night, and the thread title indicated there'd be spoilers about last night's episode, I didn't see the harm. Now if I were to say the list says Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Rob M and Amber
are the final two, sure I'd spoiler that :)
For those playing along, the list says Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Sue
will go next week.
Posted by: jeff125va
quote:
Originally posted by Mikkel_Knight
But she could have easily gotten off the platform she was on by either falling of, or turning around and going the way she originally was before she deliberatly turned towards a bridge where Hatch was coming from.
If you throw yourself in front of a bus, is it the bus company's fault if you get hit?
Haven't burglars sued people for injuries sustained while breaking in and stealing from their homes? maybe those are just urban legends, or they lost, but still. I see your point, but I wouldn't put money on the answer to your question being no.
Posted by: GT3NE1
I like Amber's balancing act on the beam. That was impressive. She sure is limber. :D That girl has got some legs.
Posted by: Rob Helmerichs
quote:
Originally posted by GT3NE1
I like Amber's balancing act on the beam. That was impressive. She sure is limber. :D That girl has got some legs.
Yes, Jeff certainly seemed impressed with her, um, "athleticism."
Posted by: jeff125va
quote:
Originally posted by GT3NE1
I like Amber's balancing act on the beam. That was impressive. She sure is limber. :D That girl has got some legs.
I have a feeling that after a couple weeks on the island it's a good thing they didn't give us a close up.
Posted by: natamatt
quote:
Originally posted by LooseWiring
I am curious about something. How can she sue CBS, or anyone else for that matter, for an incident that occurs IN ANOTHER COUNTRY?
I would think part of the contract they sign at the beginning would include a clause about not suing CBS, Mark Burnett, Jeff Probst, or anyone else associated with the production for anything that happens during filming. Just look at the releases you have to sign when doing certain activities.
Posted by: KRS
quote:
Originally posted by Mikkel_Knight
hey fruitcake - it was a spoiler for last week (that turned out to be completely false BTW) it has nothing to do with next week... duh - get a grip...
:rolleyes:
Hey sizzlechest - how do you figure that a prediction for last night's show counts as a spoiler for last week ? :rolleyes:
I agree with DLiquid - I don't want to know anything about that list of predictions, regardless of whether or not it is 100% accurate? If it supposedly got 4 correct, knowing that the list had Jerri next doesn't leave me with the feeling that she makes it all the way to the end.
I thought the general rule was that things not revealed in the actual show were given "spoiler" tags. Heck, people often tag things shown in the previews or even tag their own guesses.
Posted by: dr_mal
quote:
Originally posted by KRS
Hey sizzlechest - how do you figure that a prediction for last night's show counts as a spoiler for last week ? :rolleyes:
I agree with DLiquid - I don't want to know anything about that list of predictions, regardless of whether or not it is 100% accurate? If it supposedly got 4 correct, knowing that the list had Jerri next doesn't leave me with the feeling that she makes it all the way to the end.
I thought the general rule was that things not revealed in the actual show were given "spoiler" tags. Heck, people often tag things shown in the previews or even tag their own guesses.
Sorry if I ruffled anyone's feathers. I already explained what I was thinking -- it was revealed yesterday that Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Jerri
didn't get eliminated. Next time, I'll just spoiler everyone's names in any of my posts.
Posted by: Rob Helmerichs
quote:
Originally posted by KRS
I thought the general rule was that things not revealed in the actual show were given "spoiler" tags. Heck, people often tag things shown in the previews or even tag their own guesses.
No, it's spoilers for future episodes that need to be spoilered. Since this was a fake spoiler for an episode that had already aired, there's no problem.
Posted by: Snappa77
quote:
Originally posted by jeff125va
Haven't burglars sued people for injuries sustained while breaking in and stealing from their homes? maybe those are just urban legends, or they lost, but still. I see your point, but I wouldn't put money on the answer to your question being no.
LMAO that reminds me of an old "Married w/Children" episode. Some burglar breaks into the Bundy house to steal their tv. While he is bending over to grab it Al (who is sleeping on the couch) starts rubbing his butt thinking it is Peg. The burglar sues Al for sexual harassment and wins. At the end of the ep Al sues the burglar cuz Al punched him and BROKE HIS HAND ON THE BURGLARS FACE. :D
Posted by: ClutchBrake
For people complaining about the spoiler list, there really is no reason to. The author of the spoiler list admitted it was a complete and total HOAX a couple of weeks ago. It was taken from survivorsucks.com and posted at AICN.
Posted by: DLiquid
quote:
Originally posted by Mikkel_Knight
hey fruitcake - it was a spoiler for last week (that turned out to be completely false BTW) it has nothing to do with next week... duh - get a grip...
:rolleyes:
Fruitcake? :p
It was from a list that predicted the boot order. The list has implications for the whole season, not just "last week." I've seen in past seasons, when I was looking at such lists, that they often got it wrong but sometimes they were only off by a week. If they were 4 for 4 before this week, maybe their missed pick from this week happens next week. Beats me, I just don't want to know anything about that list, especially after learning they got the first four right. I don't think it's too much to ask to put stuff like that in spoiler tags.
If I had known more about the list, that it's a hoax like ClutchBrake says, then I wouldn't really care. But I've had my aluminum foil spoiler repellent cap on this season, so I really didn't know anything about that list other than they had been getting it right.
Posted by: KRS
If a "hoax" list gets 4 out of 4 predictions correct, it seems unlikely that it is entirely a hoax to me. What is the list is 80% accurate, and Jerri is in fact next? Will Mikkel retract the "fruitcake comment then? :-)
Regardless of the list's authenticity, I don't see why it is difficult to use spoilers for those of us wearing "aluminum foil spoiler repellent caps."
Posted by: dr_mal
Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Jerri
won't be next. The list says Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Sue
goes next week. Which is consistent with Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
the previews for next week's show
Posted by: ClutchBrake
quote:
Originally posted by KRS
If a "hoax" list gets 4 out of 4 predictions correct, it seems unlikely that it is entirely a hoax to me.
I agree that spoiler tags should be used generously. Can't hurt.
Having said that, what I am going to reference now is old news so I won't tag it. It was quite well known who the first four were going to be. Rudy, Tina, and Rob C. were spotted together in Panama during the filming. It was also quite well known that Jenna left due to her mother. Combine this with Jeff saying in a pre-premiere interview that... well, I'll tag this part... Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Episode three would leave you crying and episode six would shock you (shock isn't the word he used though). It wouldn't surprise me that the list would get the first four correct and even Sue as #6 correct if she indeed does quit next week.
Either way I'm in this for the long haul. I haven't watched a full season of Survivor since the original and have only watched part of season 2 other than that. I'm loving this.
I wanted Richard to win but can't help rooting for Boston Rob. I hated him on the first episode but have been cheering him on ever since. I'd like for Colby to win though. He could have easily won his first time around had he not been true to Tina.
Posted by: YCantAngieRead
Sizzlechest? What kinda insult is that? :D
quote:
Thanks for the info. Not. Please put stuff like this in spoiler tags. I'm avoiding spoilers this season, but now I know this Jerri info. Sure, she didn't go last night, but what about next week?
I don't think you can take anything seriously about that list, by the way. I've long suspected the list was a leak by Mark Burnett, who has stepped up not only the security for this show, but the spoiler misinformation. So the speculation about Jerri is just that-speculation.
I didn't think about the assault thing on foreign soil. I didn't see very well what happened, but if he did rub against her, that's assault at least here in the states.
Posted by: DougF
quote:
Sizzlechest? What kinda insult is that?
Have a listen to a Jerky Boys CD some time. "Frank Rizzo" calls just about everyone sizzlechest or fruitcake all the way through the calls.
Posted by: YCantAngieRead
Ah. Jerky Boys. No wonder I missed the reference. But sizzlechest is funny. I think I'll use it.
Posted by: Z'Loth
This is what Sue said during the preview (and I confirmed it with both closed captions and audio):Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Sue says, "It wasn't sort-of, Jeff! I was humiliated and totally spent, Jeff!"
Then, in the promo that is on CBS's website, she says:Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
"I was humiliated and dehumanized." This was in reference to the this week's immunity challenge.
Posted by: bobsbizzy
I must say how surprised I am with all these Tivo users not knowing what the disclaimer was for, and why Sue is feeling so humiliated!!!!
When they passed on the beam, (after Sue waited to "target" Richard), I couldn't hear what they said to each other. So I replayed it with the mute button on, and there is some pretty bad verbal abuse going back and forth between the both, along the lines of "you know you want it", "come on admit it" etc. This is at the point where Jeff says "knock it off guys".
So that was the reason for the disclaimer, and Sues outburst next week.
In my view as a neutral observer, Sue has little to complain about as she was the instigator of the "meeting", and she gave as good as she got in the verbal repartee.
Storm in a teacup really.
Unfortunately she likes the sound of her own mouth too much to let it rest there.
Posted by: Rob Helmerichs
Do we know for sure that her outburst regards something that happened this week?
Posted by: ClutchBrake
quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
Do we know for sure that her outburst regards something that happened this week?
No, not at all.
I just watched the incident again. It wasn't really that bad.
Posted by: Ruth
I didn't think it was that bad either, certainly not enough to merit a parental guidance warning. :rolleyes:
I am sure it was kinda icky for her to have that all rubbing up against her, and Rich showed poor taste in doing it. But the guy is openly gay! It's not like she had any kind of realistic fear he was going to sexually assault her or anything, or that he was actually showing inappropriate sexual interest in her. Honestly I think some of Big Tom's comments toward the women are more offensive, because he means them!
Posted by: GameGuru
Ok, for all of you complaining about "spoilers" in this thread (be it a real spoiler or not) why enter a thread clearly marked "spoilers" and assume there wouln't be any. It's like seeing a barrel marked "bananas" and then getting pissed because there are bananas in it.
If the post didn't say "spoilers" then you have a reason to be upset but since it was clearly marked "spoilers" then you, my friend, don't have a leg to stand on!
Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
I caught you! You looked at this spoiler tag even though you didn't want to read any spoilers (at least you say that even though you entered a thread clearly marked "spoilers"). You are just trying to cause trouble aren't you?
Posted by: FourFourSeven
quote:
Originally posted by GameGuru
Ok, for all of you complaining about "spoilers" in this thread (be it a real spoiler or not) why enter a thread clearly marked "spoilers" and assume there wouln't be any. It's like seeing a barrel marked "bananas" and then getting pissed because there are bananas in it.
If the post didn't say "spoilers" then you have a reason to be upset but since it was clearly marked "spoilers" then you, my friend, don't have a leg to stand on!
You're incorrect - the thread is clearly marked as "spoilers" for the 2/26 episode, not for the ENTIRE SERIES. Generally, the spoilers tag, when used with a specific episode date, means that it discusses things that would "spoil" that episode. So if you haven't watched it yet, enter at your own risk.
Spoilers about FUTURE episodes shouldn't be in this thread, or at the very least should have spoiler tags.
To continue with your analogy, it's like seeing a barrel that says "bananas" on it, then finding a note inside that says "NEXT week, this barrel will have apples in it."
Posted by: Swirl_Junkie
You guys keep commenting on the Sue harrassment, and that it wasn't so bad. What makes you think we saw even one ten percent of what really happened?
Posted by: Spire
quote:
Originally posted by Swirl_Junkie
You guys keep commenting on the Sue harrassment, and that it wasn't so bad. What makes you think we saw even one ten percent of what really happened?
That show always gives us 110%!
Posted by: zyzzx
quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
Do we know for sure that her outburst regards something that happened this week?
Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Yes, according to a promo I just saw where the voice over said something like, "Watch an incident from last week boil over this Thursday."
Posted by: cmontyburns
I'm sorry to see Hatch gone. He has easily been the most entertaining player so far this year -- beyond which, he's actually a contributor. He competes hard in challenges and of course feeds the tribe. Which makes Colby Idiot #1 for engineering his ouster, and the rest of them Idiot Runners-Up for going along with it. Half of their rice is rotten, and they get rid of the one guy who's really good at fishing??? Unless sad-sack Ethan gets a lot better at fishing (or is better than they have shown thus far) these people may go really, really hungry. Bad move.
(Having said that, I agree that Hatch's actions at the immunity challenge were not his finest hour.)
Posted by: cynthia
I couldn't stand Richard Hatch on this series, he was really irritating me. I'm so glad to see him go. Now they can stop focusing on him, who was just out for air time with his nudity, and get on with the game.
Any of them could learn to fish given the chance. Ethan said he only tried for a little while to get his 1 fish, I think.
The mistake in Survivor 1 was to keep Rich around because he fed them - they should have tried to fish so they didn't need him and get him out since he was powerful with manipulation tactics.
Posted by: MikeekiM
Do any of you go to the Survivor home page at cbs.com?
The "Survivor Insider" video streams are pretty entertaining (some of it is just recap/repeat stuff from the show...but much of it is unaired footage)...
As a Yahoo DSL subscriber, I had access to this "pay for" footage in Pearl Islands... But now it's free (with advertising...which is an irritant...but at least it's free now)...
Posted by: hookbill
quote:
Originally posted by Ruth
I didn't think it was that bad either, certainly not enough to merit a parental guidance warning. :rolleyes:
I am sure it was kinda icky for her to have that all rubbing up against her, and Rich showed poor taste in doing it. But the guy is openly gay! It's not like she had any kind of realistic fear he was going to sexually assault her or anything, or that he was actually showing inappropriate sexual interest in her. Honestly I think some of Big Tom's comments toward the women are more offensive, because he means them!
Are you kidding me? So it's OK to rub your genitiles on someone because you claim you are gay but a few comments from someone who is straight is worst? Does that mean if a "gay" man rapes a woman he should be less accountable then a straight person?
And so what if Hatch is gay. How many "gay" men do you know that have been married and have children.
What Hatch did was lewd behavior and just because he is gay is no excuse to say it was OK. I'll bet you wouldn't have appreciated if he did it to you.
Posted by: jradosh
quote:
Originally posted by YCantAngieRead
As for the above spoilers about next week and Sue, that's consistent with what I've been hearing, as well.
Not venting specifically at you Angie, but...
This thread is not supposed to discuss spoilers about upcoming episodes. Already three people have mentioned spoiler sites saying Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Sue is gone next week
. The coming attractions didn't show that... they showed Sue yelling and that's it!.
I'm not going to read any Survivor threads in this forum any more cuz y'all can't follow simple rules about spoiling upcoming episodes. :mad:
Grr...
Posted by: digdug
quote:
Originally posted by Ruth
I didn't think it was that bad either, certainly not enough to merit a parental guidance warning. :rolleyes:
I am sure it was kinda icky for her to have that all rubbing up against her, and Rich showed poor taste in doing it. But the guy is openly gay! It's not like she had any kind of realistic fear he was going to sexually assault her or anything, or that he was actually showing inappropriate sexual interest in her. Honestly I think some of Big Tom's comments toward the women are more offensive, because he means them!
The fact that Richard Hatch is gay does not reserve for him the right to touch anyone in an inappropriate manner, whether he is a percieved threat or not. I think the real issue here is that Hatch obviously used this for shock value, much as he has used the tired old 'Naked Gay Man' theme during his tenure on Survivor. People were obviously desensitized to his nakedness, so he felt he needed to kick it up a notch to get the reaction he craved. Hatch acts like the aloof lone wolf, but he is really a very shallow person who needs as much attention as he can draw to himself. When he can't get the positive attention, he'll settle for the negative.
He crossed a line that we Americans hold dear - our personal 'zone'. You don't cross into that zone - especially when you are naked. It's hard wired into 99.9% of us. Gay or not, he obviously caused something to snap in Sue. Under all of that loudmouth blunderbuss, she's a very insecure person.
Posted by: jeff125va
It seems to me that whatever contact there was was unavoidable. I watched this again over the weekend. Sue was going to take a different path then went back to the one where Hatch was crossing, deliberately setting up a confrontation. How did she expect there not to be contact? His comments were out of line, but given her own actions, what we've seen in the previews seems like an overreaction. If it weren't for the other info/previews mentioned here (not the spoiler site stuff) I wouldn't even think the two were really related.
Not that I'm completely surprised from Sue, she's a whack job IMO, which I've thought ever since the 1st season and her infamous speech about rats or snakes or whatever she said. Seems like another example of her not being able to see any boundary between the playing of the game and real life.
Posted by: KRS
If I recall correctly, Sue wanted to go on the beam Richard was navigating because it was a little shorter than the other option. I don't think she wanted a physical confrontation with Hatch, but facing the longer path, preferred having to squeeze by him.
Richard was acting under the impression that he and Sue had a jocular "friendship" based on their bond from being on Survivor 1 together. He was making jokes with her, she joked back, and the jokes got a little sexually charged with the bony fish discussion. So Richard probably figured that she enjoyed the jokes, and he took it to the next (albeit inappropriate) level.
Would Hatch have rubbed up agains one of the guys? Probably not - either because he would have realized that that would have crossed a line, or because he would have gotten an a$$ kicking.
Would Hatch have rubbed up on any of the other women? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think he just overestimated Sue's ability to take a joke.
That said, who knows why she is freaking out in the previews. Could be unrelated. ;-)
Posted by: Ruth
Of course I am not saying that gay men should feel free to go around assaulting women.
I was responding to posters who were commenting that he committed an "assault." As a legal matter, one of the elements of assault is that the victim is placed "in fear" of bodily harm. All I'm saying is that under these circumstances -- and not just because he's gay, but also given all the people around and the cameras -- it seems really unlikely to me that Sue had any reasonable fear that Rich would harm her. That doesn't mean he didn't behave inappropriately or like a jerk or that I condone his behavior.
Posted by: uncleblaine
quote:
Originally posted by KRS
If I recall correctly, Sue wanted to go on the beam Richard was navigating because it was a little shorter than the other option. I don't think she wanted a physical confrontation with Hatch, but facing the longer path, preferred having to squeeze by him.
Richard was acting under the impression that he and Sue had a jocular "friendship" based on their bond from being on Survivor 1 together. He was making jokes with her, she joked back, and the jokes got a little sexually charged with the bony fish discussion. So Richard probably figured that she enjoyed the jokes, and he took it to the next (albeit inappropriate) level.
Would Hatch have rubbed up agains one of the guys? Probably not - either because he would have realized that that would have crossed a line, or because he would have gotten an a$$ kicking.
Would Hatch have rubbed up on any of the other women? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think he just overestimated Sue's ability to take a joke.
That said, who knows why she is freaking out in the previews. Could be unrelated. ;-)
I think you are right on target there. Unfortunately, I also think the tirade coming up is based on this incident. My wife thinks Sue realizes she's not going to win the game and is hoping the Hatch incident will give her the opportunity to sue Burnett/CBS. I can't imagine that the contestants haven't signed away pretty much every right they had to get on the show, but who knows.
Posted by: YCantAngieRead
quote:
I was responding to posters who were commenting that he committed an "assault." As a legal matter, one of the elements of assault is that the victim is placed "in fear" of bodily harm.
If I'm remembering correctly, and I may not be...isn't sexual assault defined differently? That's what I meant when I said assault.
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
Modified by Adam J. de Jaray