Eolivet

Seriously. I'm so sick of the micromanaging strategist. So glad you brought up Jordan -- a masterful social game can be just as good a strategy as comp wins. Micromanaging everyone to within an inch of their lives is not the only legitimate way to win a game and not the only definition of "great player." By that logic, Dan isn't that great because he played twice and lost once. Neither is Will. Neither is Jordan. So, Rachel -- a winner -- is on par with four men -- none of whom won -- because they had both comp wins and social game? So, Rachel is not only worse than Frankie, Donny, Caleb and Cody (four non-winners), but also Hayden (who rode an all-male alliance to the end) and Boogie (who rode the coattails of one of the game's greats), because she won with no social game and no serious alliances, in a season that was rigged for a man (Jeff)? Funny, I didn't realize female winners made 77 cents on the dollar, too.

Rachel Reilly is one of the biggest competition beasts the game has ever seen. She's an example of how someone with zero social game can make it to the end with a resume of mostly comp wins. The idea of using Derrick's strategy of throwing competitions and "doing what the house wants" is antithetical to Rachel Reilly's DNA. All she wants to do is win comps and make good television. She is firmly a second-tier winner in my book, certainly below Derrick -- but in my mind, she's better than Dick, Hayden, Mike Boogie and any number of alpha males. (And as good as Danielle Reyes is, I think Big Brother players are like football teams -- part of the game is to win the Super Bowl, and if you didn't do that, you have to be considered behind the teams who did. She's the 18-1 Patriots in that sense. The 17th best player, because she never won).

For what it's worth, I tuned in at 12PM and "F.P.S." was on. I think the marathons generally start at 11AM, so it seems like they only skipped a few? But it's weird they're skipping any, I agree. They did that while running S1, too. Really odd. Season 3 has its fair share of "spot the famous guest star!" A very young John Krasinki is in "Mad Hops" (as a teammate of the kid who disappears), and of course, Stephen Colbert showing off his acting chops in "The Saint."

Like others, I'm sort of surprised at the amount of Boston firefighters on the reality shows. Especially since I didn't think firefighters played a major role in the bombing aftermath (other than being general first responders and there was a fire station close by). You want the heroes of the Marathon Bombing, find me a couple of Boston EMTs or volunteers whose first aid tents were turned into mobile ERs at the finish line. I absolutely understood why all the police and firefighters from New York were honored after 9/11, but I don't get why CBS seems to think firefighters were particularly notable in this case. I also wish the show would stop using "seasons." When I think of a show that's been on for 25 seasons, I think "The Simpsons." A TV season is a year. Say "cycles" or "editions" -- something that doesn't make it sound like the show started in the late '80s.

I have to say, I hated that task so much. Frankie was HoH that week, so he couldn't have even participated. Derrick was allied with everyone, so it wouldn't have affected his game. The only person it would've affected was Donny. It bothered me mostly to hear Frankie act all holier-than-thou about it, how dare Donny not want to do a task to win me money, when I don't actually have to do the task. As for Derrick playing the best game ever...sure. Derrick's victory was like a blowout in the Super Bowl -- impressive, but boring as heck to watch. But I will always take that game with a grain of salt, as he essentially played Big Brother for three years with guys who had guns. Since the houseguests were unarmed, one had to like his chances. I like how Brian Cronin characterized Derrick a couple pages back: he's at the top of the second-tier winners.

Yeah, something didn't ring true about her daughter "suddenly" sleeping 12 hours in this product. I believe that babies' arms are constricted when they grow large enough in the womb (just prior to birth), so it would seem like that's how they're most used to sleeping. Hence, the swaddle to constrain their arms, so it's just like sleeping in the womb. All she did was make a blanket sleeper (a zip-up fleece sack with long sleeves) that had mittens. Her competitive set isn't just swaddle blankets and velcro swaddles, but the blanket sleepers -- again, which retail for about $20. I don't know if Lori has kids, but these people are lucky it was mostly men on the panel, who couldn't have called them out on their lack of knowledge about baby products.

$35 for a swaddle?! Good thing they didn't go into retail. I mean...it's a swaddle. Hey, lady -- babies wake up because of startle reflex, but also because they hit themselves in the face. That's why the retail swaddles have velcro. I swear, they got a deal on their sob story alone. (Also "I'm so happy my other baby died so I could have this baby" could've used a little more sensitive phrasing. Really did not like them).

I missed the Grey's opening, but the green screen with Fitz and Mellie's scene on the White House balcony looked like one of those fake picture backgrounds. Lots of racy dialogue in tonight's episode -- it's like they're trying to prove they can still be a 10PM show at 9PM (Eastern). Between Jake's promised sexual prowess, Mellie's "1976" comment and the equal pay bill, the vajayjay was doing a lot more than earning 77 cents on the dollar, amirite?

Me too. It was really dark. I understand Shonda Rhimes didn't create it, and you can tell, because it lacks her trademark banter. There's no joy in the characters -- even evil joy. And the acting (save Davis) wasn't strong enough to sell it as a serious drama either, at least for me. The show needs one more solid adult character to balance all the law students/newbies, and Annalise's associates don't cut it. I sort of want to know what happens, but I'm not sure if I want to watch...if that makes any sense.

Good point about voters not living with candidates. However, what I object to is the characterization of "bitter" to describe any juror. It's a negative word and it removes the onus of responsibility from the contestant for not convincing them (how could someone "bitter" be convinced?) It also automatically ascribes a negative motivation to their vote. By calling them a "bitter" juror or saying they voted on "bitterness," it reduces their motivations for voting to purely negative ones. Donny and Jocasta may have voted based on personal motivations (a neutral word), but calling them bitter implies the contestant (Derrick) could do nothing to sway the personal votes of Donny and Jocasta. For every personal vote, there is a contestant with an ineffective argument. Donny and Jocasta were not bitter (onus on them) -- Derrick's argument to them was ineffective (onus on him). Here's an analogy some may like better: Dan played everyone in BB14, but his arguments were ineffective to most of that jury.

Exactly. Getting people to vote for you is jury management. If you didn't get people to vote for you, you didn't effectively manage the jury. This is why I think a unanimous vote is such a feat: you have to appeal to a variety of people, for a variety of reasons, and have them all judge you -- by their own set of whatever criteria they choose -- as better than your opponent. Derrick got enough people to do that to win, which is great. He managed the jury effectively, but not perfectly. When a political candidate does poorly with a certain portion of the population, does anyone ever talk about a "bitter electorate?" More likely the focus is on how the candidate failed to appeal to those people. The onus is on the candidate, not the ones voting. Likewise in reality voting. Jocasta and Donny not voting for Derrick doesn't make them "bitter." It merely makes Derrick's arguments to them ineffective.

"Couldn't win that challenge, huh, John? It's like you needed someone to give your team a strong finish -- it's like you needed...what's the word...a closer?" Seriously, Jeff -- I want as many baseball puns in your tribal councils as possible. If we have to deal with yet another washed up baseball player on Survivor trying to conceal the fact that he is...a washed up baseball player on Survivor, I at least want to see them squirm a little. I like Blood vs. Water because it's the only season where the pre-merge episodes actually mean something (especially if you can still trade places with your partner), but I still thought it was really weird how the opening sounded just like Amazing Race. I expected to hear Phil and not Jeff.

Derrick, you're in a strong second tier of winners -- just below Maggie and above Rachel Reilly. But the GOAT isn't a 7-2 vote from a group of houseguests you led around by the nose the whole season. Oh well -- may your daughter always have plenty to eat now. Ending with the group "Holla!" was cute. Christine: "I was proud to be a victim of the Hitmen!" ...And that about sums up the attitudes towards women this season. Ziiiiing!

Yeah, "Cold Comfort" is one of the few episodes where I feel so completely awful for one character and such loathing for another from the same family. While the son is absolutely sympathetic, I find the father absolutely vile. To take a life for some twisted chance of preserving a sample that probably had no prayer of saving his son is some completely disgusting morality. And purposely keeping his son in the dark, allowing him to pass on the disease without his knowledge, so the father's legacy could live on? Horrific. It's not as if the daughter even had the brain he was looking for -- she was collateral damage. That he had no problem disposing of her to get a sample of her father's DNA is just beyond the pale. I've felt more for senseless killers -- at least they were just evil. Somehow the idea that the father tries to justify himself makes his actions worse, to me.

In case I don't get back here, and in anticipation of this being locked later today, I just want to say this thread really helped ease the transition to Previously.TV for this displaced TWP poster. Whether we agreed or disagreed, the debate was always lively and I take pride in the fact that we got this thread to almost 250 pages! I've always loved reality shows, and particularly love that Previously.TV has much more robust reality show forums than its predecessor, so I hope to see many of you around. As a final thought: make a game play argument, Derrick. Though no jury member will dare to call you out on it, your daughter is Dawn's teeth: a way you overly personalized the game as an excuse for stabbing people in the back. It's perfectly legitimate game play, but you cannot rationalize it through some twisted version of morality, nor does it give you a more "noble" reason for winning. Pretending you are poor and your daughter is starving is an insult to people who are actually struggling -- like some of your fellow contestants. You have a host of strong, legitimate arguments based entirely on the game. Use them. While I will always believe putting an undercover cop in the Big Brother house was akin to sending a grandmaster at chess into a checkers game, you still can make your case on purely game-based reasons, Derrick. But the minute you try to use your family as a reason to give you the money, I will argue from now until Previously.TV shuts down that your overly personal game keeps you out of the GOAT conversation.

With all the songs they kept playing, I wasn't sure whether this was "The Blacklist" or "Grey's Anatomy." So, the fleeting glimpse of somebody in a car watching Liz with binoculars was totally Tom, wasn't it?

HA! Poor Isis. But I think it's a much different situation for Mary. She never intended to lose her virginity to Pamuk (and by today's standards, she was raped). This is Mary taking control of her sexuality and making the choice to engage in those kinds of relations outside marriage. Huge difference. Both are "scandalous," but if the first situation was humiliating, this one is empowering. "Lady Edith chose to set fire to her room " will never not be funny.

Because he's a man. Men are allowed to be emotional over missing their children and not have it hurt them in the game. Men are allowed to use their children as an excuse as to why they should win money. When a female contestant does it, she's being manipulative, overly emotional and playing on people's sympathies. When a female contestant does it, it's "Yeah, but this isn't about who I like best. This is about a game!" The double standard is astonishing. Name me a female contestant who wasn't raked over the coals for making all the same highly personalized arguments as Derrick. Can you even imagine the eye-rolling that would occur if a female contestant ever accused someone of taking food out of her child's mouth? Have you ever heard an evicted houseguest forgiving a game move because a female contestant is "playing for her family?" (ask Shelly in BB13 how that one goes). If it's not a valid strategy for one sex, it shouldn't be a valid strategy for another -- and I will continue to call Derrick out on it (...for a couple more days until the show is over).

I just had the weirdest image of Cody... "Nobody comes between me and my man!"

Yeah, this was definitely my favorite episode this year. I think because Twelve is so serious, he almost needs less serious plots to balance him out (whereas Eleven thrived in serious plots because he was goofier). Too serious, and the show becomes almost unbearably gloomy for him, yet too campy -- like Robots of Sherwood -- strains his credibility with all the forced one-liners. This was an ideal mix of action, some humor, light drama and a clever ending. Clara didn't take over -- they worked as a team. I'd also like to see more of Psi and Saibra. They were way more appealing than Madame Vastra, Jenny and Strax have been...ever.

This reminds me so much of Boston Rob vs. Lex in Survivor: All Stars. Derrick is trying to split that same hair between "I asked you a favor because we're friends outside of the game" and "I broke a deal with you as a competitor inside the game." Actually, if Derrick wasn't moralizing about his starving daughter and the lie about his profession, I'd say he was attempting to do what Boston Rob could not: win by persuading a group of people with whom he had outside the game friendships to overlook his inside the game tactics. It's a valid strategy, and it almost worked for Rob. But I don't believe Derrick will be able to resist getting in a word or two about the world's hungriest child. Which is one reason I can't respect his game. I'll be happy to be proven wrong if he makes nothing but in-game arguments about his gameplay, and appeals to the jury about the friendships they formed in the house. I just have a feeling there will be an air of "But I have a family, so I deserve this." Which makes him the male Dawn from Survivor instead of the new Boston Rob.

Wow, Derrick's conversation with Victoria reads like a guy who's dating multiple people and wants to keep both of them on the hook: "Hey, baby, it's OK -- can't we just enjoy what we have? Let's just see where it goes. Why do we have to put a label on things?"

Ah, yes -- I just saw that one recently! I thought she looked familiar. And I did not realize she was in Sixteen Candles! Finding new episodes is like a gift, isn't it?

Double-posting because I just got a chance to see "The Extra Man" and realized I'd never seen it before! This has to be one of my favorite episodes ever -- twisty and thrilling. It pushed many of my buttons: a conspiracy of rich people, tawdry affairs, false identities, Goren taking someone down through a combination of psychology and mastery of foreign slang. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. What a great "caper" kind of episode!

This is why I hope if it's Derrick and Cody, Caleb votes for Cody. I've resigned myself to a Derrick win, but one dissenting vote would be nice. Which is why if Derrick wins, he should probably take Victoria because in that case, he knows he'd have Caleb's vote. Sigh.