In article <zrtOj.205863$pM4.175687@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, dcg_brian@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> "queenie" <queenie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:rflk049hk8nljfqm8fqn67a60g0olurav9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:37:28 GMT, "Brian Smith"
> > <dcg_brian@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >>And if watched late last night there was more talk of keeping Sharon
and
> >>getting rid of Sheila.
> >
> > That makes no sense. Why would they want to keep Sharon--the one
> > everybody seems to like? Maybe AG told them to say that so the
> > voyeurs would foam at the mouth and spread the word.
>
> What you said makes no sense. If past alliances are strong then keeping
> Sharon makes a lot of sense. She would presumably get three votes:
James,
> Josh and Chelsia. Ryan, for example, would get votes from Baller,
Sheila,
> Nat and Matt. Sharon's competition record isn't the greatest and Sheila
> proved she can do endurance comps. Why give Sheila an advantage in the
final
> HOH?
Why would Baller vote for him if he promised him final two and then
threw him out? Why would Nat vote for him when he promised "we've
got you Nat. We trust you" and then voted her to a tie for Sheila to
vote out?
This group is going to vote more on vindictive feelings than any "you
played a good game" criteria. Just look at ****ela when she flipped
the house against James, it was only because Chelsia pissed her off
by calling her out on her BS.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
|
