rab01

If you look smell and act like a walker, the other walkers don't attack you. If you act out of character and they notice, they turn and look for the source of the disturbance. So, Michonne's pets did sort of provide a cloaking device - if they keep plodding along when Michonne accidentally slips up a bit, it "reassures" the walkers farther away that nothing really happened near her. (Assuming of course that I'm reading it right because god forbid the show ever tell us Michonne's understanding of how and why it worked.)

If I were casting for people supposedly serious about trying to find a spouse but haven't found one yet and willing to be fixed up by an expert, I'd be very suspicious of anyone who hasn't tried on-line dating. If you are not willing to go on computer assisted blind date, you can't possibly be willing to do a "blind marriage." I think they might use TInder more than EHarmony or one of the other sites with more of a reputation for people seeking permanent partners because they are looking for people in their mid-20s, rather than 30 or 40-year-olds. It's TV and they never want to cast someone with wrinkles. TInder apparently skews much younger than EHarmony. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/04/06/online-datings-age-wars-inside-tinder-and-eharmonys-fight-for-our-love-lives/

I really, really doubt that Ashley was as unfriendly and uncommunicative with David throughout filming as we've been shown. I think it was clear early on (to the producers at least) that this couple wasn't happening and that Ashley was keeping David at arms' length so as to protect herself and her image. Since it's difficult to show that interaction in the few minutes of footage aired each week, they convey it by editing together her silences to give an impression of what it was like. As for David, I think he is more committed to the process than to Ashley. I bet he felt "I agreed to do the show and I damn well WILL do the show to the best of my ability." He's thinking of a commitment to MAFS as something separate from a question of whether he would have chosen to date Ashley in real life. *shrug* People get that way sometimes - once you've committed to something, you do what you think is expected of you, rather than pause to question whether it's in your own best interest. I also doubt that David was clueless about her lack of feelings but I don't think he quite got the depth of her disinterest (in part because I bet they interacted on a polite and friendly-ish way at times that we never saw). Unfortunately, the editing to try to tell that story makes her seem like a robotic bitch and him like a clueless guy who's been to too many positive thinking seminars. Back to the SM stuff - I would just like to say that no one should ever believe someone's publicly available blog as to how or why a break-up went down. Assuming that guy is Ashley's 9-year-guy, I don't think they had a lovey-dovey week and she then just broke up with him out of the blue at the end of it. Not a chance. Also, I don't see how the date of that blog can square with him being the guy she just broke up with (whether 6 months or a year before filming). Finally, if Ashley wanted to be and was a "bar model" (what the liquor companies called "shooter girls" 10 years ago), Ashley isn't some introvert. The liquor companies hire for outgoing personalities first and attractiveness second. (Sure, they have to have both but the one company with whom I used to work valued that personality type more than looks.) Shooter girls are like the idiot versions of pharmaceutical reps but they work in dark environments with skimpy clothes so the patrons aren't as picky ....

Meliss - if you go into the episode threads, you will find plenty of people with similar takes to yours (albeit not a majority) rather than on this thread where the discussion seems to be largely whether or not a court docket sheet from 8 years ago is about a cast member and, if so, whether it matters ;) That said, my issue with Ashley is not dislike of David -- if that's how she feels, it is more honest to not pretend to like him. My issue with how she acts is a nagging sense that she should never have gone on the show and wondering whether she HAS actually been honest with him.

I checked the Arizona court records website after someone upthread pointed it out and there is a case listed against a David Norton. Whether it's this David Norton, I don't know. Whether it's for anything more than a bar fight, I don't know. The records say there was no jail time. To see it for yourself, just google Arizona Court records and you'll find the website and can look it up.

First, as even Sniglet mentioned in his/her original post, the Arizona court records were accessed at a date suspiciously/coincidentally timed to filming of this show. If the show did access them, then the best guess is that it's a different David Norton. As for this Atlanta judgment, I don't think people should be associating it with the guy on TV when there are so many David Nortons in the area and there is no detail as to age to even minimally narrow the field. My name is way less common than David Norton but no one can successfully google me because there is a semi-famous conservationist with exact same name. Associating every public record with DN in it to the guy on TV and then speculating as to producer manipulation and women's intuition is just a really, really huge stretch.

Auntjess - thanks for the pointing me to Wiki. From the chart, it looks like everyone needs to vote out Roberto because he's the biggest threat in that he's already lost like 98 pounds and still has the most left to lose. Also, Erin and Felicia have very little chance given their starting BMIs.

If FYI is telling the truth about David's age (29), that's a different David, isn't it?

Noirprincess- the BMI chart generally says that most men should be a lot lighter than we think we should be. Since both Colby and Roberto look to be under 6' tall, they don't stop being "overweight" until they get somewhere below 180. (Someone who is 5'11", is "supposed" to weigh between 133 and 179 pounds.) The charts, however, don't take into account muscles and body frame. Colby and Roberto both look and perform like they have significant muscles underneath it all so, if they weren't on a game show with a huge prize, they should end up weighing more than the BMI chart would suggest. (For example, I'm 6'1" and after losing 60 pounds to get down to 205, I was still "overweight" by the charts. Thankfully, my doctor disagreed.)

As a lawyer, here's my guess as to how $100k for 5 years would work -- the contract would NOT pay them to stay together for 5 years. If you pay them in advance, good luck getting that money back after they breach. If you only offer it at the end, no one takes it because there's no money up front. So, I bet it's a 5 year personal services/appearances contract -- you agree to make yourself reasonably available for promotions, appearances, etc. (up to a specified amount) & they agree to pay your expenses and also pay you a yearly stipend for your availability. The network keeps the right to cancel at any time for any reason and subject to yearly reviews. They tell the couples that we have more interest in you if you stay married so if you get divorced, we are likely to drop you the next year (after the divorce storyline is used up). As for Jaclyn's sister, yeah she probably doesn't have a contract with the network but her sister does. That contract has language about what you can tell your family and under what conditions. If you blab something forbidden to them and they publish it, you can be sued. (And, if the contract doesn't cover it fully yet, it will next year.)

Not a bad description of my ex-wife. She never feels remorse because she always always believes she's right. And, yeah it does grind you down. That said, I still wouldn't call it abuse. I don't think there is always intent to hurt or control the other person. If you always believe you are right, you naturally tell people what you think and it wears them down. It's just an extremely damaging personality with which to live. Until reading this board, I wouldn't have labeled it "narcissistic" because she was perfectly capable of caring about other people and doing things for them. It was just always through the prism of believing that she was always right. I called it "always being the hero of her own story."

If that's Jaclyn's sister, that's the kind of post that production might get angry about. They might like squabbling about the edit or who is at fault but "all of our success stories are paid to pretend to be married for public appearances" is the kind of information that I suspect they really do want to keep out of the public eye. If that tweet wasn't some violation of Jaclyn's contract (or proof of it at least), I would think their lawyers are going to change the language for next season.

I can see being on a reality show as being an automatic disqualifier from some fields of work (though not nursing) but I doubt that how she acted on this show will matter much. Being a terrible romantic partner is just so far afield from permissible job interview questions and actual job responsibilities that I can't see it. Also, I would have no problem with her as my nurse in a hospital, I don't really need to make small talk with everyone who comes through the room.

I think the show approves of the contestants' twitter presence because it helps keep fan interaction with the show. I'm sure that if they reveal anything that the show doesn't want revealed, it would be deleted quickly and the person reprimanded behind the scene but shade throwing and double meanings and possible easter eggs are just part of the buzz that any basic cable reality show wants. I think it's pretty interesting that Jamie is "on Ashley's side" but also basically confirming David's story - that he was meeting up with someone to talk about Ashley and get some insight into her.

honestly, the Biggest Losers at First Sight could be a compelling show.

It's pretty hard to look "isolated" while smushed into a large group picture ;)

I find it very strange to be a little on Ashley's side for once. I don't actually think that David did anything wrong so she shouldn't have "blamed" him about it but ... Whether she was scared to invite her friends, has no friends, or no friends were willing to come on camera, she was still at a 4th of July party where she knew nobody. Everyone there was there for David. Even if she planned it that way, it still hurts to then go through a party like that, a party where everyone is else is bonded and you're the outsider. Part of the host's duties is to introduce people that don't know each other. My mom taught me that it's not just a "hi, this is Paul; Paul meet John" The introduction should also include at least one fact about each other that might be of mutual interest or orient them in relation to each other. Since everyone at this party knew each other except Ashley, she's actually the person who has to be introduced around. I'm sure David did plenty of introducing her around but it's not crazy that she would look to him for something a bit more than she got. Of course David's not to blame because he can't see what's going on in her head and can't tell that she's not having a good time and getting integrated with his friends but she's not a bitch for ending up unhappy after the party. She's not even a bitch for waiting until afterwards to tell him about it. Talking to him during the party might have felt like she was "intruding" on him or just been socially awkward. If they were actually married or even dating, an after-party conversation could just be helpful towards how to handle their next party together rather than about blame.

I'm surprised at such a wheel spinning episode considering this is a short season. That said all the actors were great as usual and I'll watch Haley Atwell do anything.

As the "scar" grows (it does get a little bigger each time she uses the power, right?), she'll have to switch to a full-on Veronica Lake peekaboo ;)

My view of his character is the one giving him more credit for brains, not yours -- I'm saying that he knows what the truth is but is ordering Carter to stop for his own reasons. Whether he thinks the guy dangling the FBI job is representing the government's real interests (Thompson as patriot), or powerful enough to do him favors (Thompson as opportunist), or powerful enough to quash the investigation if the SSR doesn't play along (Thompson as secret double agent) -- all of those assume him to be much too smart to believe the fake commie set-up at face value. Sure, beating suspects was pretty common back then -- but so were warrantless listening devices ;) (Well, actually they're pretty common now too unless you count a FISA court as being anything other than a rubber stamp.) We've seen no sign that Thompson is a by-the-book agent so I don't think there's any reason to retcon that onto him now. He and Carter are at odds because they want different things and each is an obstacle to the other. That's good enough for me. If you want to add another layer, Thompson is probably at odds with both Sousa and Carter because he knows that they did heroic things during the war and lost things important to them while he got a medal he didn't deserve. I feel for him - it's got to eat at the character's self-confidence forever to be constantly rewarded and praised for something that he should never have done ...

I'm pretty sure Thompson made a copy before turning over the tape. Why wouldn't he? Even if he joins whatever conspiracy that's been trying to recruit him, a copy of the tape is insurance. I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't think Carter's insult of Thompson was counterproductive - she wasn't going to get anything from him anyway. He didn't doubt her story; he wasn't there to be convinced; he already knew that there was more to the story because he flew across country at the orders of the conspiracy to clean up the mess that had been made. The Director of SSR in New York doesn't horn in on the turf of the West Coast Director just for funsies. If he was an honest agent, he would have just stayed in New York so he could second guess them and make sure that Sousa and Carter took the fall for whatever havoc they wreaked. Thompson stole the lion's share of the credit from season 1, turfed her to LA in this season, and was ordering her to falsify a report. He's got no right to expect her to keep his secrets for him. Also, his normal interest in suspects' civil rights is whether his interrogation beatings leave visible scars or not. His concern with bugging a rich person's office, is the "rich person" part, not the "bugging" part. All that said, Thompson hasn't yet crossed the line from venal into evil so I have no idea which way he's gonna jump by the end of the series, which makes his character pretty interesting to watch.

LOL, it was the "ugh" part that I was focusing on, not the rest of it ;)

Irishmaple - Good luck. "life-eating" certainly sounds like the description of a situation worth trying to change ... if you're not ready to start a fire on the bridge, maybe a phone call before an email? Phone calls can't be forwarded around behind your back ...

Crazy Bird Lady - what's the real reason then? (I didn't quite catch it from your post) Yeah, I'll own that what I said was a stereotype but I got nothing other than personal experience plus that of friends and extrapolation from there, which leads to stereotypes. I'm not so sure, however, of the first stereotype you mentioned - that I'm expected to be able to do it with anyone in a skirt. I've never really felt that as an expectation. I will say, however, that almost universally the women I've known have been harder on their own appearances and that of other women than any man around them ever was. (My ex-wife was an exception to that rule but that's a long and not so funny story.) So, we find women honestly attractive where other women may see it as being willing to do it with anyone.

Sleekandchic - a belief that "this world is all we have" actually fits really well with traditional Jewish belief. Judaism didn't have any idea of Heaven and Hell until after borrowing it from Christianity. The rabbis at my rather religious traditional school were a bit split about whether there is an afterlife. I wonder whether "agnostic" is a better descriptor of Epstein's personal beliefs than "atheist."