Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

adhoc

Member
  • Posts

    679
  • Joined

Reputation

4.2k Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

1.6k profile views
  1. I think that her face hit the water wrong. She jumped, but maybe as she looked down to watch herself approaching the water, she didn't pull her head back up in time and it hit the flat water surface hard. I'm wincing just thinking about it.
  2. Tonight's theme apparently was: "Let your guard down. Open yourself up and be vulnerable. Let him know how you feel, go for it. And if it doesn't work out, then at least you tried."
  3. Is it just where I live that they just cut to commercial (Joey and Daisy pre-night portion of the day) and it's for DAISY cottage cheese? They're toying with us, right?
  4. I believe that most of them are there for reasons other than "finding love". And from interviews I've read, some admit that they said what they thought they needed to say, in order to make it to the overseas destination, or to stay long enough to be viable for BIP or gather more insta followers. So for me, in that respect, Daisy is just a typical bachelor contestant.
  5. alexa - folks are saying there are photos of safe-house visits posted (I've seen them briefly myself) that would seem to indicate that Daisy is not F1.
  6. I've always preferred coffee dates for a first date with someone you don't know or barely know. That way, it's a cheap date, whether he pays for both or you go dutch, and no one can say or imply "I just paid for an expensive meal, so you at least owe me a little make-out session". (I know personally that there are men--and likely women as well--who feel that if they pay for a nice first-date meal, the woman should at least end the evening with a kiss, if not a full on make-out session and possibly sex.)
  7. I thought I once heard a past contestant say something about how you can't necessarily go out and interrupt the lead's convo with another girl, even if you thought you had a good reason, for example, because you haven't had any one-on-one time with him. I thought the contestant said something about there being producer intervention sometimes, such as being told "wait, you'll have your turn" (and then there was no "turn"). But if Production wanted to allow a contestant to interrupt, for whatever reason, they would. Heck, I would not put it past Production to encourage certain contestants to go interrupt a convo just to manipulate the drama.
  8. Keeping it classy. (That's what I thought when she said it. It was just so vulgar.)
  9. Oh, dear, does Rachel have a sad backstory too?
  10. So I just tuned in for the start of this 2-on-1 date, my first time watching this season of TB. Question: Is Sydney's vocal fry her normal way of speaking? Because it's like nails on a chalkboard to me. Or maybe she's a smoker, and it's cause her voice to be raspy?
  11. Interesting. I wonder if there was a political difference of opinion that exacerbated things, too.
  12. I don't think they're going to have a real wedding. Nothing legal and binding, anyway. Why bother when they can celebrate or affirm a loving and committed relationship without doing so? Sure, if they purchase a house together, that'd require a codicil in their respective wills, I guess, and maybe there would be some other will changes and such. But it would truly surprise me if they really did the deed. Not that they couldn't; I'd just be surprised, that's all.
  13. TBH, though, Gerry's "story line" was something like "Lonely widower, heartbroken over the death of his wife after __ years of marriage, hopes for one more shot at love during his twilight years". (Or golden years, if you prefer.) So I get some of these women being annoyed, if they feel that the Gerry they met--and who so much of America fell in love with--was not really "as advertised". Also, I imagine a couple of them feel foolish for being older and presumably wiser, yet still fooled by Gerry, and on national television. They're all getting something out of it though, at least their 15 minutes of fame, so, I say, "whatever".
  14. Not necessarily, as I came to learn. My cousin's ex-wife wanted to move far away with her new boyfriend (with whom she had been cheating on my cousin during their marriage), and she planned on taking their child away with her. But my cousin, as the non-custodial parent who took care of his child every other weekend and one night during the week, was able to legally stop her from doing so, thanks to their divorce decree. The ex-wife immediately retaliated by claiming my cousin was a child molester and she thus deserved full custody. (Funny, until she wanted to move, my cousin was a good dad, but once he got in the way of her moving, he was a molester.) Fortunately, when it went to court, it was shown that there was zero evidence to support her claim, and she was denied a new custody arrangement. So no, where there is smoke, there's not always fire. Sometimes, there's just a vindictive con artist.
  15. What perspective, exactly? The article covered a lot of ground. What perspective specifically do a lot of folks his age share?
×
×
  • Create New...