FTC Commentary

Jury Duty

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Patricia » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:43:23 am

Lex, I hope you realize that this whole thing is doing more harm than good for Gabe's case?
User avatar
Patricia
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:20:36 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Sarah » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:43:37 am

Kim J wrote:
Jeff Probst wrote:Anyone else kinda bugged by Lex asking Gabe to redo the answers that the jury didn't like? icon_rolleyes

Yeah I noticed. Lex just wants to help Gabe win. It's adorable when men have crushes on each other.

It's called homosexuality!
User avatar
Sarah
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:21:39 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Lex » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:44:44 am

Jeff Probst wrote:Anyone else kinda bugged by Lex asking Gabe to redo the answers that the jury didn't like? icon_rolleyes



I am scrolling through what I said and I can't find ANYWHERE where I asked him to redo his answers. Stop putting words in my mouth.
User avatar
Lex
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:17:15 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Gina » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:44:54 am

Sarah wrote:
Jeff Probst wrote:Anyone else kinda bugged by Lex asking Gabe to redo the answers that the jury didn't like? icon_rolleyes

Yes. I think he should be removed from the jury and Other Lex should vote.

god damn, i should have used my idol on you if only for the hilarity you provide icon_laughing
User avatar
Gina
 
Posts: 618
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:19:51 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Kim J » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:45:48 am

Lex wrote:
Jeff Probst wrote:Anyone else kinda bugged by Lex asking Gabe to redo the answers that the jury didn't like? icon_rolleyes



I am scrolling through what I said and I can't find ANYWHERE where I asked him to redo his answers. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You gonna take his shit, Jeff?
User avatar
Kim J
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:16:20 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Sean » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:47:37 am

SORRY JEFF I DIDNT MEAN TTO POST THAT THERE !! #yikes. im out before i get myself in more trouble.
User avatar
Sean
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:22:21 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Lex » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:49:27 am

re·deem
/riˈdēm/
Verb

Compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something): "a disappointing debate redeemed by an outstanding speech".
Do something that compensates for poor past performance or behavior.


Fair enough?
User avatar
Lex
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:17:15 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Kim J » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:49:29 am

I'm going to walk my dog. It's finally cold enough to leave the house.

Be back in 30! I expect some GOOD questions from Gina!
User avatar
Kim J
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:16:20 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Sarah » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:51:15 am

Lex wrote:re·deem
/riˈdēm/
Verb

Compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something): "a disappointing debate redeemed by an outstanding speech".
Do something that compensates for poor past performance or behavior.


Fair enough?

Image
User avatar
Sarah
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:21:39 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Jeff Probst » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:51:26 am

Sorry Lex, I may have overreacted, I was just going to post that here but then I got complaints from the other hosts and had to do something about it in the actual tribal council thread. But either way, I didn't want the final 3 to know how the jury was reacting to their answers and I don't want him re-answering ones that he now knows were bad answers.

Either way, nothing has happened so don't sweat it :)
User avatar
Jeff Probst
Host
 
Posts: 1230
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:24:12 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Kim J » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:52:51 am

I disagree Jeff, now Gabe knows that something he said is wrong, and will correct it in the rebuttal.

What Lex did was immensely shady, and Lex, your playing favorites. I can't believe that at one point you accused me of not being open minded about this FTC.
User avatar
Kim J
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:16:20 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Lex » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:53:39 am

Kim J wrote:I disagree Jeff, now Gabe knows that something he said is wrong, and will correct it in the rebuttal.

What Lex did was immensely shady, and Lex, your playing favorites. I can't believe that at one point you accused me of not being open minded about this FTC.



I told EVERYBODY what I thought was the weak point of their winning case, Lindsey proved me wrong with her response and that was what I wanted them to do. I haven't really read Linda's response yet though.
User avatar
Lex
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:17:15 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Sarah » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:54:32 am

Lex wrote:
Kim J wrote:I disagree Jeff, now Gabe knows that something he said is wrong, and will correct it in the rebuttal.

What Lex did was immensely shady, and Lex, your playing favorites. I can't believe that at one point you accused me of not being open minded about this FTC.



I told EVERYBODY what I thought was the weak point of their winning case, Lindsey proved me wrong with her response and that was what I wanted them to do. I haven't really read Linda's response yet though.

But you're letting him know we aren't happy which isn't fair.
User avatar
Sarah
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:21:39 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Kim J » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:55:45 am

Sarah wrote:
Lex wrote:
Kim J wrote:I disagree Jeff, now Gabe knows that something he said is wrong, and will correct it in the rebuttal.

What Lex did was immensely shady, and Lex, your playing favorites. I can't believe that at one point you accused me of not being open minded about this FTC.



I told EVERYBODY what I thought was the weak point of their winning case, Lindsey proved me wrong with her response and that was what I wanted them to do. I haven't really read Linda's response yet though.

But you're letting him know we aren't happy which isn't fair.

Exactly. You could've just said "I disagree with what you said, could you please fix it?"

Now he knows that most of the jury feels that way, and will fix it up at the end of this game.
User avatar
Kim J
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:16:20 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Jeff Probst » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:56:36 am

Whether it was intentional or not Lex, I had to stop him from re-answering any questions that anyone may have hinted the jury wasn't happy with. I'm just trying to make sure that the future questions are answered without any bias so we get their true opinions/answers.
User avatar
Jeff Probst
Host
 
Posts: 1230
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:24:12 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Lex » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:57:19 am

Jeff Probst wrote:Sorry Lex, I may have overreacted, I was just going to post that here but then I got complaints from the other hosts and had to do something about it in the actual tribal council thread. But either way, I didn't want the final 3 to know how the jury was reacting to their answers and I don't want him re-answering ones that he now knows were bad answers.

Either way, nothing has happened so don't sweat it :)



Sorry about that. I could have worded it better.



Sarah wrote:
Lex wrote:
Kim J wrote:I disagree Jeff, now Gabe knows that something he said is wrong, and will correct it in the rebuttal.

What Lex did was immensely shady, and Lex, your playing favorites. I can't believe that at one point you accused me of not being open minded about this FTC.



I told EVERYBODY what I thought was the weak point of their winning case, Lindsey proved me wrong with her response and that was what I wanted them to do. I haven't really read Linda's response yet though.

But you're letting him know we aren't happy which isn't fair.


That wasn't my intention. I truly intended to say what MY reactions were to all 3 of them, not the jury's reactions. I know a lot of you were unimpressed with the response I thought was impressive but it's not my fault EVERYBODY hated his player to Survivor contestant comparison, because I hated it too. In fact the only question I said he answered badly was the player to contestant question, it's not my fault he wanted to reanswer 3-4 of his questions.
User avatar
Lex
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:17:15 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Holly Hoffman » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:58:11 am

Lex wrote:re·deem
/riˈdēm/
Verb

Compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something): "a disappointing debate redeemed by an outstanding speech".
Do something that compensates for poor past performance or behavior.


Fair enough?


an•noy•ing (əˈnɔɪ ɪŋ)

adj.
causing annoyance; irritatingly bothersome.
User avatar
Holly Hoffman
Host
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:44:12 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Kim J » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:58:13 am

I guess there's nothing to do about the incident, aside from completely disregarding his response to that question in his rebuttal.
User avatar
Kim J
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:16:20 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Lex » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:59:45 am

Holly Hoffman wrote:
Lex wrote:re·deem
/riˈdēm/
Verb

Compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something): "a disappointing debate redeemed by an outstanding speech".
Do something that compensates for poor past performance or behavior.


Fair enough?


an•noy•ing (əˈnɔɪ ɪŋ)

adj.
causing annoyance; irritatingly bothersome.


icon_glare
User avatar
Lex
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:17:15 am

Re: FTC Commentary

Postby Sarah » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:00:43 am

QUEEN HOLLY
User avatar
Sarah
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:21:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ponderosa

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron