Discussion:
Probst and the non-HII
(too old to reply)
Obveeus
2007-11-02 01:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Watching him discard the non-HII into the fire was 'funny', but not very
smart. That could have knocked some flaming debris out onto the players.

Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
HII is taken aside for an explanation of how to use it. The silly comment
from Probst about how to use it seemed very out of context, since the
players would not (from what we were shown) have known how to use the HII.
JessicaG
2007-11-02 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
HII is taken aside for an explanation of how to use it. The silly comment
from Probst about how to use it seemed very out of context, since the
players would not (from what we were shown) have known how to use the HII.
Of course there are rules that aren't aired, the show's only an hour long
with a gazillion commercials and recaps. There's no time to show all the
rules, just the appropriate ones.

One of those un-aired rules must be about revealing strategy after being
voted off; I was so expecting Jaime to blurt out something about James' 2
idols but she didn't (or at least they didn't air it).

Either that, or she's as dumb as a bag of non-HIIs.
Purple Rock
2007-11-02 02:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JessicaG
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
HII is taken aside for an explanation of how to use it. The silly comment
from Probst about how to use it seemed very out of context, since the
players would not (from what we were shown) have known how to use the HII.
Of course there are rules that aren't aired, the show's only an hour long
with a gazillion commercials and recaps. There's no time to show all the
rules, just the appropriate ones.
One of those un-aired rules must be about revealing strategy after being
voted off; I was so expecting Jaime to blurt out something about James' 2
idols but she didn't (or at least they didn't air it).
Either that, or she's as dumb as a bag of non-HIIs.
I have to vote for the 'as dumb as theory'! And how could she ( it was
her, right? ) not - having already grievously invaded James' privacy and
personal possessions - not have COMPLETELY unwrapped the 2 real HIIs and
checked them against what she had...and having seen her's was not a real
one, switched one out!!!? I mean, she had already crossed the unspoken
anti-social line by going through his stuff...why on earth stop there? <
slaps side of head and makes hollow sound >

---
Tonight on 'RUPERT' we will be talking about the psychological
intimidation factor of Men in Skirts...but first, a Scotsman on a horse!
Tim
2007-11-02 02:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple Rock
Post by JessicaG
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
HII is taken aside for an explanation of how to use it. The silly comment
from Probst about how to use it seemed very out of context, since the
players would not (from what we were shown) have known how to use the HII.
Of course there are rules that aren't aired, the show's only an hour long
with a gazillion commercials and recaps. There's no time to show all the
rules, just the appropriate ones.
One of those un-aired rules must be about revealing strategy after being
voted off; I was so expecting Jaime to blurt out something about James' 2
idols but she didn't (or at least they didn't air it).
Either that, or she's as dumb as a bag of non-HIIs.
I have to vote for the 'as dumb as theory'! And how could she ( it was
her, right? ) not - having already grievously invaded James' privacy and
personal possessions - not have COMPLETELY unwrapped the 2 real HIIs and
checked them against what she had...and having seen her's was not a real
one, switched one out!!!? I mean, she had already crossed the unspoken
anti-social line by going through his stuff...why on earth stop there? <
slaps side of head and makes hollow sound >
I have to think stealing the HII is against the rules. If not, it would be
a free for all. But she still should have actually looked at them. And
maybe wonder to herself about why someone would leave a HII lying on the
ground.
Purple Rock
2007-11-02 03:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Purple Rock
Post by JessicaG
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
HII is taken aside for an explanation of how to use it. The silly comment
from Probst about how to use it seemed very out of context, since the
players would not (from what we were shown) have known how to use the HII.
Of course there are rules that aren't aired, the show's only an hour long
with a gazillion commercials and recaps. There's no time to show all the
rules, just the appropriate ones.
One of those un-aired rules must be about revealing strategy after being
voted off; I was so expecting Jaime to blurt out something about James' 2
idols but she didn't (or at least they didn't air it).
Either that, or she's as dumb as a bag of non-HIIs.
I have to vote for the 'as dumb as theory'! And how could she ( it was
her, right? ) not - having already grievously invaded James' privacy and
personal possessions - not have COMPLETELY unwrapped the 2 real HIIs and
checked them against what she had...and having seen her's was not a real
one, switched one out!!!? I mean, she had already crossed the unspoken
anti-social line by going through his stuff...why on earth stop there? <
slaps side of head and makes hollow sound >
I have to think stealing the HII is against the rules. If not, it would be
a free for all. But she still should have actually looked at them. And
maybe wonder to herself about why someone would leave a HII lying on the
ground.
I don't remember ever hearing that it was, but I could easily have
missed such a reference. Anyone know for sure?
kenny blankenship
2007-11-03 00:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple Rock
Post by Tim
I have to think stealing the HII is against the rules. If not, it
would be a free for all. But she still should have actually looked
at them. And maybe wonder to herself about why someone would leave
a HII lying on the ground.
I don't remember ever hearing that it was, but I could easily have
missed such a reference. Anyone know for sure?
From earlier seasons, and I don't recall where I heard this, not only
can't someone steal the idol, if you give it to someone else you have to
let the production crew know you're going to do it and let them film you
doing it.
Randy G
2007-11-09 03:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple Rock
Post by Tim
I have to think stealing the HII is against the rules. If not, it would be
a free for all. But she still should have actually looked at them. And
maybe wonder to herself about why someone would leave a HII lying on the
ground.
I don't remember ever hearing that it was, but I could easily have
missed such a reference. Anyone know for sure?
It is. I heard an interview with whats her name this morning on the
radio and she said they told her it was private property and against
the rules to steal it.

Guess someone should have told Rupert that when he took those shoes,
eh?
madams53
2007-11-09 04:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy G
Post by Purple Rock
Post by Tim
I have to think stealing the HII is against the rules. If not, it would be
a free for all. But she still should have actually looked at them.
And
maybe wonder to herself about why someone would leave a HII lying on the
ground.
I don't remember ever hearing that it was, but I could easily have
missed such a reference. Anyone know for sure?
It is. I heard an interview with whats her name this morning on the
radio and she said they told her it was private property and against
the rules to steal it.
Guess someone should have told Rupert that when he took those shoes,
eh?
In the interview I read with Courtney, she specified that she was told that
taking something lying on the ground was okay, but taking something from
someone's bag was not.
--
madamS
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill
JessicaG
2007-11-09 06:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by madams53
Post by Randy G
Guess someone should have told Rupert that when he took those shoes,
eh?
In the interview I read with Courtney, she specified that she was told
that taking something lying on the ground was okay, but taking something
from someone's bag was not.
That's what I figured. Big difference with Rubert's "piracy" and taking from
someone's belongings. If James decided to leave the idols sitting out on the
dock, I'm pretty sure anyone would be allowed to take them.
Obveeus
2007-11-09 11:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by JessicaG
Post by madams53
Post by Randy G
Guess someone should have told Rupert that when he took those shoes,
eh?
In the interview I read with Courtney, she specified that she was told
that taking something lying on the ground was okay, but taking something
from someone's bag was not.
That's what I figured. Big difference with Rubert's "piracy" and taking
from someone's belongings. If James decided to leave the idols sitting out
on the dock, I'm pretty sure anyone would be allowed to take them.
Also, people need to remember that Rupert didn't just take the shoes.
Rupert asked the cameramen (who then asked the producers) if he could steal
the shoes. They told him that it was ok to take the street shoes and not ok
to take the shoes that would be worn in the challenges (sneakers). That is
why Rupert only stole some of the shoes that were left in front of him while
he was floundering on the dock.
JessicaG
2007-11-09 17:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by JessicaG
Post by madams53
Post by Randy G
Guess someone should have told Rupert that when he took those shoes,
eh?
In the interview I read with Courtney, she specified that she was told
that taking something lying on the ground was okay, but taking something
from someone's bag was not.
That's what I figured. Big difference with Rubert's "piracy" and taking
from someone's belongings. If James decided to leave the idols sitting
out on the dock, I'm pretty sure anyone would be allowed to take them.
Also, people need to remember that Rupert didn't just take the shoes.
Rupert asked the cameramen (who then asked the producers) if he could
steal the shoes. They told him that it was ok to take the street shoes
and not ok to take the shoes that would be worn in the challenges
(sneakers). That is why Rupert only stole some of the shoes that were
left in front of him while he was floundering on the dock.
I never watched that episode, was him asking if he could take them aired or
did that come out afterward?
Obveeus
2007-11-09 18:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JessicaG
Post by Obveeus
Also, people need to remember that Rupert didn't just take the shoes.
Rupert asked the cameramen (who then asked the producers) if he could
steal the shoes. They told him that it was ok to take the street shoes
and not ok to take the shoes that would be worn in the challenges
(sneakers). That is why Rupert only stole some of the shoes that were
left in front of him while he was floundering on the dock.
I never watched that episode, was him asking if he could take them aired
or did that come out afterward?
The visual shots of the shoes showed that the street shoes were taken, but
that the special challenge sneakers were left behind.
As I remember, the show actually aired a comment from Rupert explaining that
he stole just the street shoes and left them the challenge shoes. It was as
if the show was trying to pawn it off as some sort of act of mercy on
Rupert's part, but it was pretty clear that some sort of 'ok' had been given
as to what could be stolen.

Survivor claims to follow local laws, so logically, Rupert broke the rules
by stealing anything. If stealing was 'ok', then logically he should have
been able to walk into one of the local huts, steal the shoes inside the
hut, and sell them as well. ;-)

The whole shoe stealing incident was just a neat way of hooking the audience
in to the theme for that first season. Sometimes, Burnett gets lucky.
alooo
2007-11-09 21:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by JessicaG
Post by Obveeus
Also, people need to remember that Rupert didn't just take the shoes.
Rupert asked the cameramen (who then asked the producers) if he could
steal the shoes. They told him that it was ok to take the street shoes
and not ok to take the shoes that would be worn in the challenges
(sneakers). That is why Rupert only stole some of the shoes that were
left in front of him while he was floundering on the dock.
I never watched that episode, was him asking if he could take them aired
or did that come out afterward?
The visual shots of the shoes showed that the street shoes were taken, but
that the special challenge sneakers were left behind.
As I remember, the show actually aired a comment from Rupert explaining
that he stole just the street shoes and left them the challenge shoes. It
was as if the show was trying to pawn it off as some sort of act of mercy
on Rupert's part, but it was pretty clear that some sort of 'ok' had been
given as to what could be stolen.
You didn't answer the question of how your information (that he asked the
cameraman who asked the producers) was revealed to you. I too am curious
where you learned that detail. Was it on the DVD? Did Rupert say it in a
post-show interview?
Obveeus
2007-11-09 21:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
You didn't answer the question of how your information (that he asked the
cameraman who asked the producers) was revealed to you. I too am curious
where you learned that detail. Was it on the DVD? Did Rupert say it in a
post-show interview?
Do you honestly believe that Rupert stole the street shoes, but left the
sneakers for the challenges behind out of the kindness of his heart?
alooo
2007-11-10 10:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
You didn't answer the question of how your information (that he asked the
cameraman who asked the producers) was revealed to you. I too am curious
where you learned that detail. Was it on the DVD? Did Rupert say it in a
post-show interview?
Do you honestly believe that Rupert stole the street shoes, but left the
sneakers for the challenges behind out of the kindness of his heart?
That's not the issue. You didn't merely suggest what you *think* happened,
you provided details as if they were fact. This caused at least a couple of
us to ask what the source of this information is. Since you haven't given
one, I'll assume you have no idea whether or not Rupert talked to a
cameraman and received permission.
Obveeus
2007-11-10 12:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
Do you honestly believe that Rupert stole the street shoes, but left the
sneakers for the challenges behind out of the kindness of his heart?
That's not the issue. You didn't merely suggest what you *think* happened,
you provided details as if they were fact. This caused at least a couple
of us to ask what the source of this information is.
The video footage is the only source needed. If you honesty watched video
proof that Rupert 'stole' only certain shoes from the pile and cannot manage
to conclude that there was a reason beyond random luck in why some shoes
stayed and some shoes were stolen, I cannot help you.
alooo
2007-11-10 15:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
Do you honestly believe that Rupert stole the street shoes, but left the
sneakers for the challenges behind out of the kindness of his heart?
That's not the issue. You didn't merely suggest what you *think*
happened, you provided details as if they were fact. This caused at least
a couple of us to ask what the source of this information is.
The video footage is the only source needed. If you honesty watched video
proof that Rupert 'stole' only certain shoes from the pile and cannot
manage to conclude that there was a reason beyond random luck in why some
shoes stayed and some shoes were stolen, I cannot help you.
You're skirting around your original statement. You didn't say "Rupert
probably asked someone for permission," you included specific details about
how he asked the cameraman who then asked the producer. If we're going
strictly by video footage then all we know is that Rupert stole the shoes.
No discussion with the production team was shown nor mentioned. For you to
make up details about what happened and present them as fact is odd, to say
the least.
Obveeus
2007-11-10 16:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
The video footage is the only source needed. If you honesty watched
video proof that Rupert 'stole' only certain shoes from the pile and
cannot manage to conclude that there was a reason beyond random luck in
why some shoes stayed and some shoes were stolen, I cannot help you.
You're skirting around your original statement. You didn't say "Rupert
probably asked someone for permission," you included specific details
about how he asked the cameraman who then asked the producer. If we're
going strictly by video footage then all we know is that Rupert stole the
shoes. No discussion with the production team was shown nor mentioned. For
you to make up details about what happened and present them as fact is
odd, to say the least.
I'm not going to go combing the internet for news interviews/articles from
several years ago. If you want to spend time doing that, feel free. I
merely provided clarification for the people that were claiming that Rupert
'stole the shoes' and using it as 'evidence' that current players could
steal the idols.

The same video evidence is around for this season. We saw Jamie and Erik
rifle through James' belongings, find the idols, and NOT steal them. If
that doesn't constitute 'sufficient proof' that stealing the idols is not
allowed, then the person needing such proof is too clueless to help.
Phil
2007-11-10 16:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
The video footage is the only source needed. If you honesty watched
video proof that Rupert 'stole' only certain shoes from the pile and
cannot manage to conclude that there was a reason beyond random luck in
why some shoes stayed and some shoes were stolen, I cannot help you.
You're skirting around your original statement. You didn't say "Rupert
probably asked someone for permission," you included specific details
about how he asked the cameraman who then asked the producer. If we're
going strictly by video footage then all we know is that Rupert stole the
shoes. No discussion with the production team was shown nor mentioned.
For you to make up details about what happened and present them as fact
is odd, to say the least.
I'm not going to go combing the internet for news interviews/articles from
several years ago. If you want to spend time doing that, feel free. I
merely provided clarification for the people that were claiming that
Rupert 'stole the shoes' and using it as 'evidence' that current players
could steal the idols.
The same video evidence is around for this season. We saw Jamie and Erik
rifle through James' belongings, find the idols, and NOT steal them. If
that doesn't constitute 'sufficient proof' that stealing the idols is not
allowed, then the person needing such proof is too clueless to help.
Exept in this case, Jaime prayed to Buddha if she could steal just one of
the idols, who in turn asked Santa Claus, who got the go ahead from the
president of CBS to say 'no' your cannot steal either idol. It's obvious
from the video footage.
alooo
2007-11-11 13:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
The video footage is the only source needed. If you honesty watched
video proof that Rupert 'stole' only certain shoes from the pile and
cannot manage to conclude that there was a reason beyond random luck in
why some shoes stayed and some shoes were stolen, I cannot help you.
You're skirting around your original statement. You didn't say "Rupert
probably asked someone for permission," you included specific details
about how he asked the cameraman who then asked the producer. If we're
going strictly by video footage then all we know is that Rupert stole the
shoes. No discussion with the production team was shown nor mentioned.
For you to make up details about what happened and present them as fact
is odd, to say the least.
I'm not going to go combing the internet for news interviews/articles from
several years ago. If you want to spend time doing that, feel free.
So after several back and forths, you're now implying that it was said in an
interview? Why didn't you just say this the first time the question was
asked? Do you remember if it was Rupert who said it or someone else?
Shouldn't be too hard to find in a Google search.
Obveeus
2007-11-11 13:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
I'm not going to go combing the internet for news interviews/articles
from several years ago. If you want to spend time doing that, feel free.
So after several back and forths, you're now implying that it was said in
an interview?
Now implying? There is stuff shown on video footage during the episode and
stuff we learn from interviews afterwards. Since there is no other method
of information about Survivor other than interviews, why are you acting like
this is some new medium concept?
Post by alooo
Why didn't you just say this the first time the question was asked? Do you
remember if it was Rupert who said it or someone else? Shouldn't be too
hard to find in a Google search.
it could have been discussed here on this newsgroup at the time. It could
have been from Rupert inyterviews months later (since he went directly to
All-Stars afterwards). Either way, the fact that you cling to the 'hope'
that Rupert independently decided to steal ONLY SOME of the shoes (or maybe
you, like the blind Rupert masses, forgot that little detail) out of the
goodness of his heart is mind boggling.
alooo
2007-11-15 00:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
I'm not going to go combing the internet for news interviews/articles
from several years ago. If you want to spend time doing that, feel free.
So after several back and forths, you're now implying that it was said in
an interview?
Now implying? There is stuff shown on video footage during the episode
and stuff we learn from interviews afterwards. Since there is no other
method of information about Survivor other than interviews, why are you
acting like this is some new medium concept?
I used the word "implying" because you never actually wrote words to the
effect of "I received the information in an interview I read somewhere." You
merely said you weren't going to look for the information right now.

You keep bringing up stuff shown on the footage. Here's a yes or no question
for you: Did the footage show either a) Rupert asking the cameraman for
permission or b) Rupert discussing the fact that he asked for permission? My
recollection is that the answer is no, in which case watching the footage
won't help me ascertain how you *know* he asked the cameraman for
permission.
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Why didn't you just say this the first time the question was asked? Do
you remember if it was Rupert who said it or someone else? Shouldn't be
too hard to find in a Google search.
it could have been discussed here on this newsgroup at the time. It could
have been from Rupert inyterviews months later (since he went directly to
All-Stars afterwards). Either way, the fact that you cling to the 'hope'
that Rupert independently decided to steal ONLY SOME of the shoes (or
maybe you, like the blind Rupert masses, forgot that little detail) out of
the goodness of his heart is mind boggling.
Where do you get the idea I'm clinging to some sort of hope in this matter?
All I remember seeing Rupert do was steal shoes and don't remember anything
that showed why he took some and not others (by any chance were people
wearing the other shoes?). You came along with information that he asked a
cameraman who asked a producer for information. All the original poster and
I were looking for was your source.
Obveeus
2007-11-15 04:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
Where do you get the idea I'm clinging to some sort of hope in this
matter? All I remember seeing Rupert do was steal shoes and don't remember
anything that showed why he took some and not others (by any chance were
people wearing the other shoes?).
This is why you need to go watch the footage of the show. All of the shoes
were lying together right in front of Rupert because he was 'too tired to
walk' into 'town' with everyone else. Rupert took the dress shoes and left
the sneakers even though all the shoes were sitting there together. Rupert
commented on only taking some of the shoes.
Post by alooo
You came along with information that he asked a cameraman who asked a
producer for information. All the original poster and I were looking for
was your source.
Feel free to search the interent for interviews, news articles, internet
gossip, etc... You are asking for a link to something from years ago in a
world where old interviews and such may not even still be available. I'm
not wasting my time trying to search down a 'source' for you when you are
unwilling to engage the simple brainmatter needed to think about why ONLY
SOME of the shoes were taken.
madams53
2007-11-15 05:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Where do you get the idea I'm clinging to some sort of hope in this
matter? All I remember seeing Rupert do was steal shoes and don't
remember anything that showed why he took some and not others (by any
chance were people wearing the other shoes?).
This is why you need to go watch the footage of the show. All of the
shoes were lying together right in front of Rupert because he was 'too
tired to walk' into 'town' with everyone else. Rupert took the dress
shoes and left the sneakers even though all the shoes were sitting there
together. Rupert commented on only taking some of the shoes.
Post by alooo
You came along with information that he asked a cameraman who asked a
producer for information. All the original poster and I were looking for
was your source.
Feel free to search the interent for interviews, news articles, internet
gossip, etc... You are asking for a link to something from years ago in a
world where old interviews and such may not even still be available. I'm
not wasting my time trying to search down a 'source' for you when you are
unwilling to engage the simple brainmatter needed to think about why ONLY
SOME of the shoes were taken.
I wouldn't think that anyone would really think that she is saying you
are wrong. I have not seen any posts which said that anyone really thinks
that Rupert "just happened" to take the dress shoes. Are you really unable
to understand that the only thing in question is that you stated something
with a lot of details as fact? People are not questioning your conclusion,
just curious as to how you came to it. It has become clear that you have no
idea where you got the details you gave. Your conclusion may be correct,
but I will think twice before I ever again accept one of your statements as
fact .
--
madamS
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill
alooo
2007-11-15 17:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by madams53
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Where do you get the idea I'm clinging to some sort of hope in this
matter? All I remember seeing Rupert do was steal shoes and don't
remember anything that showed why he took some and not others (by any
chance were people wearing the other shoes?).
This is why you need to go watch the footage of the show. All of the
shoes were lying together right in front of Rupert because he was 'too
tired to walk' into 'town' with everyone else. Rupert took the dress
shoes and left the sneakers even though all the shoes were sitting there
together. Rupert commented on only taking some of the shoes.
Post by alooo
You came along with information that he asked a cameraman who asked a
producer for information. All the original poster and I were looking for
was your source.
Feel free to search the interent for interviews, news articles, internet
gossip, etc... You are asking for a link to something from years ago in
a world where old interviews and such may not even still be available.
I'm not wasting my time trying to search down a 'source' for you when you
are unwilling to engage the simple brainmatter needed to think about why
ONLY SOME of the shoes were taken.
I wouldn't think that anyone would really think that she is saying you
are wrong. I have not seen any posts which said that anyone really thinks
that Rupert "just happened" to take the dress shoes. Are you really unable
to understand that the only thing in question is that you stated something
with a lot of details as fact? People are not questioning your
conclusion, just curious as to how you came to it. It has become clear
that you have no idea where you got the details you gave. Your conclusion
may be correct, but I will think twice before I ever again accept one of
your statements as fact .
Whew- a little confirmation that I'm not speaking in tongues. My conclusion
is that his original statement should have read something like, "*I think*
Rupert *probably* asked a cameraman for permission and *maybe* the cameraman
asked a producer." But rather than admit that he merely guessed what
happened, he played quite the politician and dodged specific questions and
attempted to redirect the issue. Certainly that will make other statements
he presents as facts suspect.

Jay
2007-11-10 19:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
Post by alooo
Post by Obveeus
Do you honestly believe that Rupert stole the street shoes, but left the
sneakers for the challenges behind out of the kindness of his heart?
That's not the issue. You didn't merely suggest what you *think*
happened, you provided details as if they were fact. This caused at least
a couple of us to ask what the source of this information is.
The video footage is the only source needed. If you honesty watched video
proof that Rupert 'stole' only certain shoes from the pile and cannot
manage to conclude that there was a reason beyond random luck in why some
shoes stayed and some shoes were stolen, I cannot help you.
You're skirting around your original statement. You didn't say "Rupert
probably asked someone for permission," you included specific details about
how he asked the cameraman who then asked the producer. If we're going
strictly by video footage then all we know is that Rupert stole the shoes.
No discussion with the production team was shown nor mentioned. For you to
make up details about what happened and present them as fact is odd, to say
the least.
But not unusual.
katleman
2007-11-02 19:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
I have to think stealing the HII is against the rules. If not, it would be
a free for all. But she still should have actually looked at them. And
maybe wonder to herself about why someone would leave a HII lying on the
ground.
She did mention that she thought he was interrupted and dropped one of
them before it could be hidden with the rest.

Keep in mind also that the video that was shot of her searching the
pack was at night (via night vision video), so there wasn't any light
to examine the back of the HII that were in James' pack. She just
noted they were the same size and dimensions as the one she had (which
they were).

She didn't have access to a light source (flashlight, etc) to visual
inspect James' HII.

Taking all that into account, I didn't have any problem with her
mistaken belief that she had a HII.
JessicaG
2007-11-03 13:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by katleman
Keep in mind also that the video that was shot of her searching the
pack was at night (via night vision video), so there wasn't any light
to examine the back of the HII that were in James' pack. She just
noted they were the same size and dimensions as the one she had (which
they were).
She didn't have access to a light source (flashlight, etc) to visual
inspect James' HII.
Taking all that into account, I didn't have any problem with her
mistaken belief that she had a HII.
She probably saw what was written on James', hence her uncertainty when she
spoke during the tribal council about her own. It didn't hurt since she knew
she was a goner anyway, and she probably joked about it but it was edited
out.
Anim8rFSK
2007-11-03 15:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JessicaG
Post by katleman
Keep in mind also that the video that was shot of her searching the
pack was at night (via night vision video), so there wasn't any light
to examine the back of the HII that were in James' pack. She just
noted they were the same size and dimensions as the one she had (which
they were).
She didn't have access to a light source (flashlight, etc) to visual
inspect James' HII.
Taking all that into account, I didn't have any problem with her
mistaken belief that she had a HII.
She probably saw what was written on James', hence her uncertainty when she
spoke during the tribal council about her own. It didn't hurt since she knew
she was a goner anyway, and she probably joked about it but it was edited
out.
I don't believe that for an instant, even given how dumb she was. If
you've got an 'Idol' with no writing on it, and see that James has 2
identical 'Idols' except that they SAY "I'm an idol" on the back of
them, why wouldn't you swap one of them for yours?
--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
JessicaG
2007-11-07 15:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by JessicaG
She probably saw what was written on James', hence her uncertainty when she
spoke during the tribal council about her own. It didn't hurt since she knew
she was a goner anyway, and she probably joked about it but it was edited
out.
I don't believe that for an instant, even given how dumb she was. If
you've got an 'Idol' with no writing on it, and see that James has 2
identical 'Idols' except that they SAY "I'm an idol" on the back of
them, why wouldn't you swap one of them for yours?
As in previous seasons they're most likely told that idols can't be stolen.
Might as well try anything if you know you're going home anyway.
Guardsman
2007-11-02 07:33:36 UTC
Permalink
[...]
p> I have to vote for the 'as dumb as theory'! And how could she ( it was
p> her, right? ) not - having already grievously invaded James' privacy and
p> personal possessions - not have COMPLETELY unwrapped the 2 real HIIs and
p> checked them against what she had...and having seen her's was not a real
p> one, switched one out!!!? I mean, she had already crossed the unspoken
p> anti-social line by going through his stuff...why on earth stop there? <
p> slaps side of head and makes hollow sound >


You can't steal the Idol. This was spelled out in the
rules that came with the Idol in a previous season (I think the one
where Yul got it).
--
Invid Fan
2007-11-02 02:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by JessicaG
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
HII is taken aside for an explanation of how to use it. The silly comment
from Probst about how to use it seemed very out of context, since the
players would not (from what we were shown) have known how to use the HII.
Of course there are rules that aren't aired, the show's only an hour long
with a gazillion commercials and recaps. There's no time to show all the
rules, just the appropriate ones.
One of those un-aired rules must be about revealing strategy after being
voted off; I was so expecting Jaime to blurt out something about James' 2
idols but she didn't (or at least they didn't air it).
Either that, or she's as dumb as a bag of non-HIIs.
Well, given she never actually unwrapped them (or she would have seen
the writing that hers lacked), she now thinks he has 2 fake idols.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Obveeus
2007-11-02 03:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JessicaG
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to
the use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game
started explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the
finder of the HII is taken aside for an explanation of how to use it.
The silly comment from Probst about how to use it seemed very out of
context, since the players would not (from what we were shown) have known
how to use the HII.
Of course there are rules that aren't aired, the show's only an hour long
with a gazillion commercials and recaps. There's no time to show all the
rules, just the appropriate ones.
The point is, that the players likely read a rule at the start of the season
regarding how/when to play HIIs, yet some of them seem totally clueless as
to the possibility of them being in the game.
Post by JessicaG
One of those un-aired rules must be about revealing strategy after being
voted off; I was so expecting Jaime to blurt out something about James' 2
idols but she didn't (or at least they didn't air it).
Why would she need to blurt it out? Erik was there with her when she found
them. James told Todd he had them. We also saw James tell Todd about the
fake idol while explaining that he just had to tell 'someone' about
it...then they cut to him telling Amanda as well. Likely, he told Amanda
about the two idols as well. If he didn't, Todd probably told everyone,
just like he ran around telling everyone that he gave James the first idol.
Honestly, I think almost everyone already knew James had two idols. In
fact, Jamie may have even known it by the way she brought her idol out with
an explanation that she thought it might be an idol. It was just a
desperate last hope by her as she likely knew she was the boot target of the
majority.
alooo
2007-11-02 07:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
The point is, that the players likely read a rule at the start of the
season regarding how/when to play HIIs, yet some of them seem totally
clueless as to the possibility of them being in the game.
Perhaps the rules were phrased something like, "IF there is a HII, it must
be used in this manner..."
Post by Obveeus
Honestly, I think almost everyone already knew James had two idols.
Judging by JR's expression, I don't think he knows James has both idols. He
may not even know he has one.


BTW- When Jeff threw the plaque into the pit, I thought the same thing about
the flying embers. Not smart at all for him to do that.
Seth Roth
2007-11-02 12:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
BTW- When Jeff threw the plaque into the pit, I thought the same thing about
the flying embers. Not smart at all for him to do that.
It was so staged that there was no possibility anyone would be hurt.
Pity. Could use a little pain and mayhem to keep things livened up.

The only thing I could think of as that fake HII scenario played out was
that the scriptwriters for this season have been reading this newsgroup
and listening to all the scenarios we would like to see, and then trying
to set this season up to give us what we all want.

"They want to see a fake immunity idol played? Let's provide four of
them, almost identical, only two are valid and you have to look hard to
know which is valid and which isn't, and then surely, as we are only
casting dumbasses, someone will get it wrong."
JessicaG
2007-11-02 16:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Roth
"They want to see a fake immunity idol played? Let's provide four of
them, almost identical, only two are valid and you have to look hard to
know which is valid and which isn't, and then surely, as we are only
casting dumbasses, someone will get it wrong."
And make it a big assed idol that's easy for others to find.

(next season the idol will probably beep ever 5 mins)
shawn
2007-11-03 02:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JessicaG
Post by Seth Roth
"They want to see a fake immunity idol played? Let's provide four of
them, almost identical, only two are valid and you have to look hard to
know which is valid and which isn't, and then surely, as we are only
casting dumbasses, someone will get it wrong."
And make it a big assed idol that's easy for others to find.
(next season the idol will probably beep ever 5 mins)
Or it will be the size of a pebble. Probably easier to make fake idols
that way.
unknown
2007-11-03 16:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by JessicaG
Post by Seth Roth
"They want to see a fake immunity idol played? Let's provide four of
them, almost identical, only two are valid and you have to look hard to
know which is valid and which isn't, and then surely, as we are only
casting dumbasses, someone will get it wrong."
And make it a big assed idol that's easy for others to find.
(next season the idol will probably beep ever 5 mins)
Or it will be the size of a pebble. Probably easier to make fake idols
that way.
Or one of the contestants will be pre-selected and have it implanted
in them, and it's up to the others to guess who's got it and how
they're going to extract it. It'll be part Survior, part Saw, with
Jeff (voice distorted and sounding evil) leaving audio clues
strategically hidden throughout camp.
JessicaG
2007-11-07 15:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Or one of the contestants will be pre-selected and have it implanted
in them, and it's up to the others to guess who's got it and how
they're going to extract it. It'll be part Survior, part Saw, with
Jeff (voice distorted and sounding evil) leaving audio clues
strategically hidden throughout camp.
And make the implanted idol glow at night.
Dubya
2007-11-02 17:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Roth
Post by alooo
BTW- When Jeff threw the plaque into the pit, I thought the same thing about
the flying embers. Not smart at all for him to do that.
It was so staged that there was no possibility anyone would be hurt.
Pity. Could use a little pain and mayhem to keep things livened up.
The only thing I could think of as that fake HII scenario played out was
that the scriptwriters for this season have been reading this newsgroup
and listening to all the scenarios we would like to see, and then trying
to set this season up to give us what we all want.
"They want to see a fake immunity idol played? Let's provide four of
them, almost identical, only two are valid and you have to look hard to
know which is valid and which isn't, and then surely, as we are only
casting dumbasses, someone will get it wrong."
LOL - that actually DOES sound like genuine meeting minutes...
alooo
2007-11-02 17:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Roth
Post by alooo
BTW- When Jeff threw the plaque into the pit, I thought the same thing about
the flying embers. Not smart at all for him to do that.
It was so staged that there was no possibility anyone would be hurt.
Pity. Could use a little pain and mayhem to keep things livened up.
I figured the toss was staged but never considered the fact that it's
probably a gas fire pit, in which case there would be no threat of flying
embers.
d***@webtv.net
2007-11-02 17:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Seth or alooo wrote: (I didn't understand the quotes)

"They want to see a fake immunity idol played? Let's provide four of
them, almost identical, only two are valid and you have to look hard to
know which is valid and which isn't, and then surely, as we are only
casting dumbasses, someone will get it wrong."

That's a good idea if there were clues about what made the REAL idols
REAL...which would not hold true for the FAKE idols.

Then...people would play the fake one.

Not just a note saying:

"This is an immunity idol"...something tougher.

Still...I asked earlier about Yao-man planting a fake idol. A good
idea...but I don't think that they every showed anyone finding it or
trying to use it.
Dubya
2007-11-02 19:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@webtv.net
Seth or alooo wrote: (I didn't understand the quotes)
"They want to see a fake immunity idol played? Let's provide four of
them, almost identical, only two are valid and you have to look hard to
know which is valid and which isn't, and then surely, as we are only
casting dumbasses, someone will get it wrong."
That's a good idea if there were clues about what made the REAL idols
REAL...which would not hold true for the FAKE idols.
Why let the players know until it is played whether it is a real HII
or not ???

Make about ten of them that only JP can distinguish...
d***@webtv.net
2007-11-02 20:48:29 UTC
Permalink
About HII...Dubya said:

"Why let the players know until it is played whether it is a real HII or
not ???

Make about ten of them that only JP can distinguish..."

Yeah but in daylight...the REAL ones SAY that they are real. (Not just
THESE, but all of them)

They always say 'Congrats'.
Invid Fan
2007-11-03 02:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@webtv.net
"Why let the players know until it is played whether it is a real HII or
not ???
Make about ten of them that only JP can distinguish..."
Yeah but in daylight...the REAL ones SAY that they are real. (Not just
THESE, but all of them)
They always say 'Congrats'.
They've had letters with them giving the rules. This may be the first
with writing actually on them.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
d***@webtv.net
2007-11-03 12:52:00 UTC
Permalink
invid, in response to my saying that all the HII SAY they are HII said:

"They've had letters with them giving the rules. This may be the first
with writing actually on them."

I'm sure you're right.

Yao-man found that turtle wrapped in a cloth and thought it was a HII.
(It was)

Maybe they're told that they're wrapped in cloth and tied up or
something cuz otherwise...an unusual shell or rock or piece of wood
could fool folks.
kenny blankenship
2007-11-03 00:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by alooo
BTW- When Jeff threw the plaque into the pit, I thought the same
thing about the flying embers. Not smart at all for him to do that.
It looked like a gas fire to me, no embers.
d***@webtv.net
2007-11-03 18:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Maybe amazingly...I didn't give a thought about Jeff tossing Jaime's
fake II into the fire.

I didn't think that anyone was at risk.
Dubya
2007-11-03 20:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@webtv.net
Maybe amazingly...I didn't give a thought about Jeff tossing Jaime's
fake II into the fire.
I didn't think that anyone was at risk.
Me neither. I was too busy laughing...
The Horny Goat
2007-11-04 00:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@webtv.net
Maybe amazingly...I didn't give a thought about Jeff tossing Jaime's
fake II into the fire.
I didn't think that anyone was at risk.
You're kidding - when I saw that scene I laughed myself silly.

Now from her less than amazed reaction I suspect strongly she was not
as surprised as she might have been but it was still pretty funny.

I would rank this very highly on my list of "Top Jeff Probst ad libs
ever"
d***@webtv.net
2007-11-04 14:33:56 UTC
Permalink
When I wrote:

"Maybe amazingly...I didn't give a thought about Jeff tossing Jaime's
fake II into the fire."

I was referring to the risk of flying embers.

It certainly was amusing.
The Horny Goat
2007-11-04 20:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@webtv.net
"Maybe amazingly...I didn't give a thought about Jeff tossing Jaime's
fake II into the fire."
I was referring to the risk of flying embers.
It certainly was amusing.
Yes it was. Besides wasn't there a steel grate over the fire?
Jeri Jo Thomas
2007-11-04 23:46:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:08:01 GMT The Horny Goat (***@home.ca)
stepped to the mic and said...
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by d***@webtv.net
"Maybe amazingly...I didn't give a thought about Jeff tossing Jaime's
fake II into the fire."
I was referring to the risk of flying embers.
It certainly was amusing.
Yes it was. Besides wasn't there a steel grate over the fire?
No, there wasn't. In fact, the fake idol seems to've sunk from sight
when he tossed it in. There weren't even any sparks, and it never caught
fire on camera.
--
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
The Peripatetic Samurai Robot
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
JessicaG
2007-11-07 15:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
I would rank this very highly on my list of "Top Jeff Probst ad libs
ever"
Actually I thought a big chunk of that part was clipped. Either they had a
big pow-wow with the producers or they did retakes since they knew she was
going to try to present it. Either way, I don't think it was ad-libbed at
all.
s***@example.com
2007-11-02 15:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
It isn't clear to me whether everyone knows that there *is* an
immunity idol. The folks given the notes were told to open
them in secret and there hasn't been any mention at all by
Jeff of the existence of the HIIs until Jaime tried to play
that fake one.

In previous seasons, when everyone was aware of the existence
of the HIIs, Jeff usually went out of his way to remind them
of the rules for playing them at every single tribal council.

Now that it's public knowledge that there is at least one HII,
perhaps he'll review the rules for their use at TCs again.


--
Obveeus
2007-11-02 15:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@example.com
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
It isn't clear to me whether everyone knows that there *is* an
immunity idol. The folks given the notes were told to open
them in secret and there hasn't been any mention at all by
Jeff of the existence of the HIIs until Jaime tried to play
that fake one.
The players have to know how to play the idol, though.
In this season, they have to know if:
1) The idol must be pulled out before the TC vote and shown so that the
player is immune at the TC.
2) The idol must be pulled out after the votes are cast, but before they
are read in order to make the player immune from that vote.
3) The idol can be pulled out after the votes are counted in order to save
the highest vote getter.

Since Probst wasn't explaining the use of the idol beforehand, the players
must have read the 'rule' for idol use before the season started.
Otherwise, why would Jamie have chosen the exact moment she did to pull out
the idol rather than showing it at the start of the TC or holding it and
trying to show it after the votes were counted? It sure seemed clear that
she at least knew the timing for when the idol was to be used.
Dubya
2007-11-02 17:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by s***@example.com
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
It isn't clear to me whether everyone knows that there *is* an
immunity idol. The folks given the notes were told to open
them in secret and there hasn't been any mention at all by
Jeff of the existence of the HIIs until Jaime tried to play
that fake one.
The players have to know how to play the idol, though.
1) The idol must be pulled out before the TC vote and shown so that the
player is immune at the TC.
2) The idol must be pulled out after the votes are cast, but before they
are read in order to make the player immune from that vote.
3) The idol can be pulled out after the votes are counted in order to save
the highest vote getter.
Since Probst wasn't explaining the use of the idol beforehand, the players
must have read the 'rule' for idol use before the season started.
Otherwise, why would Jamie have chosen the exact moment she did to pull out
the idol rather than showing it at the start of the TC or holding it and
trying to show it after the votes were counted? It sure seemed clear that
she at least knew the timing for when the idol was to be used.
We do not know what may have been cut in editing, but I am glad they
did because it just uses up the 38 minutes of screen time on
non-value-added activity.
Anim8rFSK
2007-11-02 15:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@example.com
Post by Obveeus
Clearly, the editing did not reveal 'everything' to us with respect to the
use of the HII. Either the rules the players read before the game started
explained to them how to use an HII if they found one or the finder of the
It isn't clear to me whether everyone knows that there *is* an
immunity idol. The folks given the notes were told to open
them in secret and there hasn't been any mention at all by
Jeff of the existence of the HIIs until Jaime tried to play
that fake one.
In previous seasons, when everyone was aware of the existence
of the HIIs, Jeff usually went out of his way to remind them
of the rules for playing them at every single tribal council.
Now that it's public knowledge that there is at least one HII,
perhaps he'll review the rules for their use at TCs again.
But you'd have thought he'd have done that last night. Given that there
are two idols, it's possible the dimmwit blonde DID have a real one.
--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
alooo
2007-11-02 17:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
But you'd have thought he'd have done that last night. Given that there
are two idols, it's possible the dimmwit blonde DID have a real one.
Production knows who has the idols so that wouldn't have been an issue. As
Obveeus suggested, somehow the players must have been informed when to use
the idol. Jeff's usual speech is probably more for the viewers than the
players.
Loading...