My Big Brother Manifesto - From a Superfan
TV ClubHouse: Archive: Archive ONE:
My Big Brother Manifesto - From a Superfan
Crossfire | Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:33 pm     The problem here, is that some people do not seem to fully understand why Dani will not win, and they do not seem to fully appreciate what the winning conditions look like. It's not the game. The game is not faulty. Dani came, and potentially still is this '' close to winning. Her gameplay not counting keeping Lisa over Amy was superb as many including myself have said. The personal attacks. The non game related comments. This is why Dani is in such a tight spot right now. Removing personal attacks will not remove the entertainment factor. |
Wcv63 | Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:36 pm     I understand why Dani will not win. I have accepted that Dani will not win. That doesn't mean that I agree with the reasons why Dani will not win. I think it's hypocritical for the jurists to condemn Dani for something they did themselves but will not own up to. |
Lancecrossfire | Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:51 pm     Wcv--I buy into your explanation about their partnership--you are correct about what he did. Thanks for pointing that out. |
Superfan | Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:52 pm     Wcv63, you explained to Lancecrossfire PRECISELY what I meant to get across. Perfect! Crossfire, your post: "The personal attacks. The non game related comments. This is why Dani is in such a tight spot right now." That's pretty much my biggest beef. The NON game related comments and how the jury will vote according to that. Was it you that mentioned how Dani went on and on and on, trashing houseguests even AFTER they left? THEY ALL did that...they just got booted out and had less air time. The 555-SL_T comment from Amy/Marcellas, was that not made AFTER Tonya left? Wasn't Tonya thrashing Lori AFTER she left, about how 'crazy' she was? Weren't they ALL going on forever and a day about Gerry's hygiene even AFTER the poor guy left? The ONLY time they stopped trashing people on air was when they were no longer on air, they were booted out! So my question is, how could they possibly withold their vote against someone for displaying the VERY SAME bad behaviour they themselves displayed?????? Hypocrisy at its finest (definition for those that need it: Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have). If they cast their vote according to gameplay and who was the master of it all, they'd have to vote for Dani. Hands down. If they vote by who made the most friends, I'm watching the wrong dang show. |
Wcv63 | Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:57 pm     Unfortunately Superfan it will be a popularity contest in the end. |
Weinermr | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:01 am     <If they cast their vote according to gameplay and who was the master of it all, they'd have to vote for Dani. Hands down. If they vote by who made the most friends, I'm watching the wrong dang show.> No, you wouldn't be watching the wrong show, you'd be watching how people behave. This is a reality show. Well, this is how people behave in real life. They vote for their friends. They favor people they like. Just like this thread. Joe Schmo makes a comment and it gets ignored. Favored Poster makes the same comment and everyone tells Favored Poster how wonderful Favored Poster is. Go back and read this and all the other threads around here. Same behavior. It's not the show you want it to be, it's not the show you think it should be. It's a reflection of real life just the way it is. |
Crossfire | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:09 am     Wcv63, I mostly agree with you. I think we are closer on this than it probably outwardly appears. Where we differ is that you don't think her 'crimes' should be held against her. I think the reason you don't want that held against her, is because everyone else is also guilty. (Jump in here if I am wrong). Where we come apart is that I think she should be held accountable. The reason I think she should be held accountable is because I would hold ANY of them to the same standards. The only difference between me and you, is that you want to hold them all accountable at once, and at all times including during the voting process. I say, yes the others are guilty, but they are not on trial anymore, they lost. That is their punishment. They already punished each other by kicking them out of the game, often for the same reasons that Dani is now going to be judged on. It's not like they got off scott free, they already paid for their transgressions. For them, the case is closed. Now they get to pass judgment on the two finalists in much the same way they they were judged. The final vote in the game is not really all that much different than any of the other votes in the game, this one just happens to have a cash payout. The real injustice in these games is when people like Lori or Sheryl get booted for practically no reason at all. It is hard to make any comment on how amazing their gameplay might have been because she never had a chance to demonstrate any. Compared to them, Dani has nothing to complain about. |
Lancecrossfire | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:09 am     I disagree thaht it will just be a "popularity contest". But will not go into it hear--OT for your thread |
Crossfire | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:13 am     Superfan: I think you will find that my reply to Wcv63 also covers a good deal of what my reply to you would be based on your comments. Please check it out. |
Wendo | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:14 am     "So my question is, how could they possibly withold their vote against someone for displaying the VERY SAME bad behaviour they themselves displayed?????? Hypocrisy at its finest." Exactly. And worth repeating. I could buy Dani not winning had she been the only trash talking HG in the house this year. Or, even if she was one of two. However, the fact that ALL the HG's bashed and trashed talked, or participated by reveling in the trash talking, is what I find hypocritical. They're holding her to some standard that they themselves didn't meet. That's hypocritical in my opinion. They refuse to own up to their own behavior, yet have no problem holding said same behaivior against Danielle in the end. The EHG need to point their fingers at themselves. |
Weinermr | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:17 am     LOL Signed, Joe Schmo |
Wcv63 | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:17 am     Weinermr...I don't think it is "favored poster" syndrome but rather responding the last person that made the point. At least I find myself doing that even though someone else may have made the same argument earlier in the thread. Also there may be additional points that were not addressed in an earlier post that may have peaked my interest in a later one with the same slant. Crossfire...I understand your point and agree with it to a certain degree. The part that gets me is the lack of personal accountability and level of denial among some of the evicted concerning their own actions. It really does seem superior and self righteous to condemn something by saying how offensive it is if the person doing the condemning was an active participant. Lance...I'll accept that you disagree with my sentiments. I can't win them all. |
Superfan | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:22 am     Crossfire, I'm going to ASSUME (haha) you were speaking to me in your post as well: "Where we differ is that you don't think her 'crimes' should be held against her." You're right, that's where we differ. I'm NOT saying Dani shouldn't be held accountable for her actions or that I even enjoyed or cheered on her comments. I'm saying the people who committed the 'same' crime can't judge that. "I did it, but you're not getting my vote because you did it". IMHO, that's a more despicable crime, hypocrisy. "Let thee who has not sinned cast the first stone". I can see we're not going to agree on this, but I've really ENJOYED your posts and the debate. |
Eden | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:23 am     Wcv and Superfan, you are so right! It will be a popularity contest. The ironic thing is, if the vote was made when evicted, Danielle would WIN! Almost no one was aware of her subterfuge while in the house! The same way they were judged? Huh? Every eviction was not personal, by a long shot, most were made for strategic reasons. Anything said post eviction had nothing to do with the game itself, per se. Cross, people who are evicted the first week are always ousted almost without reason since no one knows one another. Find a better analogy, that one doesn't wash. |
Superfan | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:33 am     Weinermr: "It's not the show you want it to be, it's not the show you think it should be. It's a reflection of real life just the way it is." I didn't like hearing that! haha! Because I didn't look at this show as a reflection of society's accepted behaviour, of real life, but as a GAME. Time will tell whether you or I are right about what this show really is/should be. |
Crossfire | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:37 am     Superfan: Great topic, I am glad I was able to take part. I thought I addressed your concern in my message, but we disagree still, so I will leave it at that. Eden: First up, I am thinking your middle paragraph is also for me to answer for though I was not mentioned until the third so I will comment. I think if you look at each eviction you will see that quite often it was not pure strategy. Agenda's were being worked, people were being held to past transgressions. About the first week eviction comments, I think you mis-read why I put it there. I think it was a great comment. Some people believe an injustice is committed against the game when the hypocrites come back to cast the stones. I was just tossing in another injustice to spice up my comment a bit. I don't want to always come off with a completely hard edge. I am part human with feelings, so I express them sometimes. |
Wcv63 | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:44 am     Part human? How interesting. Crossfire...I think the jurists were evicted because their strategy didn't pan out. I don't see it as punishment for trash talking. Eden...thanks for the backup! |
Crossfire | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:57 am     Not exclusively trash talking, but in some cases, personal dislike, which had some unknown to them trash talking involved in the background. I think in the end, most people get what they deserve. Being evicted first, and third last...those are the two really sucky positions. First out, might have been a great person, third last...well that just plain sucks. |
Azriel | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 09:10 am     The HGs and the viewers have all witnessed a car crash and depending on where we were and view we had of the accident, we all come to different conclusions. You say it's the fault of the guy who was turning because you were standing behind him and saw that he didn't have his turn signal on. I say it's the guy who was behind him because I was standing on the side and saw him leaning down and fooling with the radio right before the crash. Of course, there were some stupid people who weren't even paying attention to the crash and they are saying they saw the turn signal flashing and the other guy was actually a girl and she was putting on her makeup not adjusting the radio. Anyway, you decide from your point of view who was at fault and it often takes a lot for you to change your mind. |
Wcv63 | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 09:31 am     Interesting analogy Azriel and very apropos to the subject. |
|