Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

ironcat wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them?

I can only speak for myself but have no problem with someone arguing their side of it however do draw the line when I'm being told that I'm just being emotional and not rational. I find that to be condescending and I tend to shut down & stop reading those posts once those words come into play. It's great that people have such strong feelings but perhaps can disagree without disparaging someone else's opinions.

It's obvious that it is I who you are referring to so let me respond. Reread what I wrote because I didn't say you are *just* being emotional and *not* rational. You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process. When I look at your posts in this thread and the Episode 3 BP3 Discussion thread I don't see any logical arguments made by you that show why Nick was wrong to select *keep*. Instead I see statements like these:

albean99 wrote:"He's such a tool. I'm glad he can justify it for himself but I'm not buying it."

"I think Nick came across as a total jerk tonight. He's a bitter, whiny baby who didn't care that he wouldn't have made it to the end without Rachel."

"He lied to his partner and he was horrible to her after he kept the money."

"I guess I can't blame the others for not being friends with him given that he's a creep underneath the faux nice guy exterior."

"It's fine for him to not make friends on the show but why be so bitter about it afterward?"

Your only argument -- which you mentioned at least four times -- is that Nick lied to Rachel, that's it. If I am mistaken then please correct me. The problem with this argument is that Nick didn't lie. Lying is when a person makes a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive. According to Nick, when he told her he was going to choose *share* he fully intended to do so, therefore, he wasn't telling her a lie. Only after he viewed the final two episodes and saw more of her ill behavior did he ultimately decide to change his mind. You would be right to argue that he *broke his promise* to Rachel, but that doesn't mean he lied to her.

You used terms like bitter, whinny baby, horrible, jerk and creep to describe Nick and his behavior, meanwhile he was arguable the most reserved and admirable contestant on the show. How many times could he have flipped out on Rachel for all her nonsense, but instead remained calm and levelheaded? You don't think all the things that Rachel did and said hurt Nick? He took all of her shit and let it build up inside, which he released after he won. And what exactly did he do after he won -- which has no relevance on whether he was justified to select *keep* -- that was so "horrible" and made him out to be a "creep"? When was he "whinny"? He thanked Rachel and the other contestants and he explained in detail his reasons why he made his final decision.

The only thing he did that looked objectionable was when he was looking at Rachel while smiling with his hand raised in a first. According to Nick he was just looking that direction at people in the crowd and he was not flaunting Rachel. The guy just won the game and 250k and he couldn't help but feel happy. Is he not entitled to celebrate? The pro-Rachel crowd never considers Nicks feelings and perspective. It's all about Rachel and what's in her best interest. I'm sorry, but I can't help think that you and others were emotionally invested in Rachel's well being, particularly because of what Michael did to her. These emotions would also explain how none of you in the pro-Rachel camp hold Rachel to the same standard as you do Nick and are quick to sweep her wrong doings under the rug. The girl betrayed her *best friend* Jaclyn and not one person has anything to say about it.

If you feel I am wrong with my assessment than please elaborate and if I have offended you I apologize.

I'm sorry but I don't read posts that begin with "You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process.". You can disagree with what I had to say but don't talk about my motives for saying it. It's insulting and really not necessary. You can talk up Nick all you want. We have the right to dislike or criticize the contestants on the show with or without emotions coming into play. Watching a tv show and interpreting what we watch is subjective and therefore not black and white. This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point. I'm out of here now. Somehow the thread turned into a Nick thread and it's the last place I want to be.

Btw it wasn't just your post that I was talking about.

Perhaps you were referring to other posters as well, however, once I saw you write about emotions I knew that you were referring to me.

I have studied psychology and neurology rather extensively and let me say by no means was I trying to *insult* you when I suggested that emotions may have dictated your decision making process. We are emotional creatures and emotions play a much larger role in how we think and what we believe than most people realize.

Beliefs are concepts that are created in our consciousness, or mind, and transcend the spoken word — and they are more than simply a mental acceptance or a conviction. It is common place for most people to assign emotions or judgment to their beliefs. A person may have such a deep emotional attachment to a belief that they are ready to die, or in some cases, kill for their beliefs. Of course, not all emotional attachments to beliefs are this extreme but most of us have experienced an emotional response to having our beliefs challenged. Having our beliefs challenged can come in many forms such as (to name a few):

Verbal disagreements;
Seeing or hearing about some action taking place that we don’t agree with;
Personal actions that go against our conscience.

When we experience these things, the emotions that we’ve attached to our beliefs can become *disturbed* causing us to react emotionally. We may become defensive or even angry due to the disturbance of these emotions.

Just look what you wrote:

albean99 wrote:"It's insulting and really not necessary."

"This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point."

Being "insulted" and to be "fuming" are rather strong emotional feelings. You couldn't have confirmed what I said any better.

There was a person (Rachel) on the show who you formed a connection with. You likely felt happiness for her that she was falling in love with who we all thought was a good guy. Then she gets torn from him and you feel sympathy for her, as she is having a tough time. Later you learn that her entire relationship was bogus, the man (Michael) she was falling in love with was not who we thought he was and she had her heart broken. At this point you desire for her to win the 125k in hopes that the money will bring her some happiness. Instead Nick chooses *keep* inflicting further pain to Rachel. At this point your *fuming*. Then Nick carries himself in a way that you find disturbing, which only makes you more mad.

Look I am not saying that your emotions are strong as if you knew Rachel personally, but I can tell that you did have an emotional connection with her. There is nothing wrong with this, nothing to be ashamed of. It's just important to recognize it when you're trying to form conclusions that should be based entirely on reason and not emotions.

I watch this show because of the behavior people exhibit, as individuals and part of a small social group. The structure of the game causes people to behave in many ways that I find interesting.

Revo,

I don't know about the missing posts. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to see them before they were removed. Clearly, there isn't going to be a bridge to unite the camps.

Your post was excellent - showing how facts, truths, and emotions shape what we think, conclude, see, and do.

We can not forget the edit has been proven to be so decidedly deceptive. We know these story lines are either contrived and forced or contain a nugget of truth that is twisted and warped to add drama. Why, for instance, were Nick and Rachel NOT ALLOWED to watch the final episodes together and be able to discuss them before the finale? The ending was masterfully set up. Chris B was hated and his actions lost him votes. That automatically put Nick and Rachel in the limelight. Did they or did they not have a partnership and loyalty to each other. If they didn't, would they still share? I'm sure the show was praying that there was going to be a unique ending from previous seasons. It is fascinating. In all the ways that Rachel was not loyal to Nick, he was not loyal to her. She made a choice to share that was probably more emotionally based, and he made a choice to keep that was more factually based (at least facts as he saw them to be).

Bach or Bad - both, can only survive and excel in ratings, if they maintain two distinct sides of a debate during and after the show. Regardless of the outcome, this was another successful season for them. Meanwhile, they stirred enough emotion, that people still believe that Arie was a better man for Emily than Jef...and will die fighting in their convictions. People still disagree on whether Nick is a good guy or not. People still hate Jason even though Melissa claimed that she didn't want him either and they both moved on into happy marriages. The list is long.

IMO, based on truth, facts and my emotions, the worse thing that happened to Rachel was what involved Michael. He played a clearly vulnerable woman; knowingly deceiving her. The financial loss pales in comparison. Wounds of the heart run deep - especially those based on deception.

Avg-Joe wrote:

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

ironcat wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them?

I can only speak for myself but have no problem with someone arguing their side of it however do draw the line when I'm being told that I'm just being emotional and not rational. I find that to be condescending and I tend to shut down & stop reading those posts once those words come into play. It's great that people have such strong feelings but perhaps can disagree without disparaging someone else's opinions.

It's obvious that it is I who you are referring to so let me respond. Reread what I wrote because I didn't say you are *just* being emotional and *not* rational. You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process. When I look at your posts in this thread and the Episode 3 BP3 Discussion thread I don't see any logical arguments made by you that show why Nick was wrong to select *keep*. Instead I see statements like these:

albean99 wrote:"He's such a tool. I'm glad he can justify it for himself but I'm not buying it."

"I think Nick came across as a total jerk tonight. He's a bitter, whiny baby who didn't care that he wouldn't have made it to the end without Rachel."

"He lied to his partner and he was horrible to her after he kept the money."

"I guess I can't blame the others for not being friends with him given that he's a creep underneath the faux nice guy exterior."

"It's fine for him to not make friends on the show but why be so bitter about it afterward?"

Your only argument -- which you mentioned at least four times -- is that Nick lied to Rachel, that's it. If I am mistaken then please correct me. The problem with this argument is that Nick didn't lie. Lying is when a person makes a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive. According to Nick, when he told her he was going to choose *share* he fully intended to do so, therefore, he wasn't telling her a lie. Only after he viewed the final two episodes and saw more of her ill behavior did he ultimately decide to change his mind. You would be right to argue that he *broke his promise* to Rachel, but that doesn't mean he lied to her.

You used terms like bitter, whinny baby, horrible, jerk and creep to describe Nick and his behavior, meanwhile he was arguable the most reserved and admirable contestant on the show. How many times could he have flipped out on Rachel for all her nonsense, but instead remained calm and levelheaded? You don't think all the things that Rachel did and said hurt Nick? He took all of her shit and let it build up inside, which he released after he won. And what exactly did he do after he won -- which has no relevance on whether he was justified to select *keep* -- that was so "horrible" and made him out to be a "creep"? When was he "whinny"? He thanked Rachel and the other contestants and he explained in detail his reasons why he made his final decision.

The only thing he did that looked objectionable was when he was looking at Rachel while smiling with his hand raised in a first. According to Nick he was just looking that direction at people in the crowd and he was not flaunting Rachel. The guy just won the game and 250k and he couldn't help but feel happy. Is he not entitled to celebrate? The pro-Rachel crowd never considers Nicks feelings and perspective. It's all about Rachel and what's in her best interest. I'm sorry, but I can't help think that you and others were emotionally invested in Rachel's well being, particularly because of what Michael did to her. These emotions would also explain how none of you in the pro-Rachel camp hold Rachel to the same standard as you do Nick and are quick to sweep her wrong doings under the rug. The girl betrayed her *best friend* Jaclyn and not one person has anything to say about it.

If you feel I am wrong with my assessment than please elaborate and if I have offended you I apologize.

I'm sorry but I don't read posts that begin with "You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process.". You can disagree with what I had to say but don't talk about my motives for saying it. It's insulting and really not necessary. You can talk up Nick all you want. We have the right to dislike or criticize the contestants on the show with or without emotions coming into play. Watching a tv show and interpreting what we watch is subjective and therefore not black and white. This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point. I'm out of here now. Somehow the thread turned into a Nick thread and it's the last place I want to be.

Btw it wasn't just your post that I was talking about.

Perhaps you were referring to other posters as well, however, once I saw you write about emotions I knew that you were referring to me.

I have studied psychology and neurology rather extensively and let me say by no means was I trying to *insult* you when I suggested that emotions may have dictated your decision making process. We are emotional creatures and emotions play a much larger role in how we think and what we believe than most people realize.

Beliefs are concepts that are created in our consciousness, or mind, and transcend the spoken word — and they are more than simply a mental acceptance or a conviction. It is common place for most people to assign emotions or judgment to their beliefs. A person may have such a deep emotional attachment to a belief that they are ready to die, or in some cases, kill for their beliefs. Of course, not all emotional attachments to beliefs are this extreme but most of us have experienced an emotional response to having our beliefs challenged. Having our beliefs challenged can come in many forms such as (to name a few):

Verbal disagreements;
Seeing or hearing about some action taking place that we don’t agree with;
Personal actions that go against our conscience.

When we experience these things, the emotions that we’ve attached to our beliefs can become *disturbed* causing us to react emotionally. We may become defensive or even angry due to the disturbance of these emotions.

Just look what you wrote:

albean99 wrote:"It's insulting and really not necessary."

"This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point."

Being "insulted" and to be "fuming" are rather strong emotional feelings. You couldn't have confirmed what I said any better.

There was a person (Rachel) on the show who you formed a connection with. You likely felt happiness for her that she was falling in love with who we all thought was a good guy. Then she gets torn from him and you feel sympathy for her, as she is having a tough time. Later you learn that her entire relationship was bogus, the man (Michael) she was falling in love with was not who we thought he was and she had her heart broken. At this point you desire for her to win the 125k in hopes that the money will bring her some happiness. Instead Nick chooses *keep* inflicting further pain to Rachel. At this point your *fuming*. Then Nick carries himself in a way that you find disturbing, which only makes you more mad.

Look I am not saying that your emotions are strong as if you knew Rachel personally, but I can tell that you did have an emotional connection with her. There is nothing wrong with this, nothing to be ashamed of. It's just important to recognize it when you're trying to form conclusions that should be based entirely on reason and not emotions.

I watch this show because of the behavior people exhibit, as individuals and part of a small social group. The structure of the game causes people to behave in many ways that I find interesting.

Revo,

I don't know about the missing posts. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to see them before they were removed. Clearly, there isn't going to be a bridge to unite the camps.

Your post was excellent - showing how facts, truths, and emotions shape what we think, conclude, see, and do.

We can not forget the edit has been proven to be so decidedly deceptive. We know these story lines are either contrived and forced or contain a nugget of truth that is twisted and warped to add drama. Why, for instance, were Nick and Rachel NOT ALLOWED to watch the final episodes together and be able to discuss them before the finale? The ending was masterfully set up. Chris B was hated and his actions lost him votes. That automatically put Nick and Rachel in the limelight. Did they or did they not have a partnership and loyalty to each other. If they didn't, would they still share? I'm sure the show was praying that there was going to be a unique ending from previous seasons. It is fascinating. In all the ways that Rachel was not loyal to Nick, he was not loyal to her. She made a choice to share that was probably more emotionally based, and he made a choice to keep that was more factually based (at least facts as he saw them to be).

Bach or Bad - both, can only survive and excel in ratings, if they maintain two distinct sides of a debate during and after the show. Regardless of the outcome, this was another successful season for them. Meanwhile, they stirred enough emotion, that people still believe that Arie was a better man for Emily than Jef...and will die fighting in their convictions. People still disagree on whether Nick is a good guy or not. People still hate Jason even though Melissa claimed that she didn't want him either and they both moved on into happy marriages. The list is long.

IMO, based on truth, facts and my emotions, the worse thing that happened to Rachel was what involved Michael. He played a clearly vulnerable woman; knowingly deceiving her. The financial loss pales in comparison. Wounds of the heart run deep - especially those based on deception.

Well someone said that I was a "condescending asshole" and that "I love to hear myself talk and talk and talk" and people like me must have an "imbedded rewind trigger". He/she also asked the question "why are smart people so dumb at times", suggesting that I made an obvious error in judgment when I made my post.

It's nice to know that there are people such as yourself who actually think highly of my post and that I wasn't out of line. I actually thought I did a good job of making my case -- touching on a delicate issue -- without being condescending. I felt I responded to his/her post well and showed that you can actually rebut what people say without getting all emotional and bent out of shape. It would have been nice if an admin would have left it up for others to see.

Another post that was deleted was your post. You don't see any of your posts missing? I just happened to have a second computer in my house that I left on with the page opened, so I print screened it. I would post the image of you post, but I think the admins wouldn't be too happy about it. I'll just write the first sentence to refresh your memory and if you request, I'll PM you.

You wrote: "In other words, Revo, tip-toe through the landmines and know they can shift at any time"

Anyway, getting back to what you said here. You wrote: "Your post was excellent - showing how facts, truths, and emotions shape what we think, conclude, see, and do."

We read stories and watch films that are *fiction*, yet many times we will form an emotional bond to characters and when something bad happens to them we have emotional responses such as sadness, anger, etc. Here (BP3) we are viewing real people interacting with other real people in real life circumstances over the coarse of weeks. There is much time between the episodes for us to ponder about what we have witnessed and to reinforce beliefs about the show and its characters. As I have mentioned in my other post, it is common for us to assign emotions to our beliefs. This is how the human mind works. So naturally when there is a conclusion like the one we all witnessed in the finale, we will all have emotional responses. These emotional responses will vary in type and severity depending on what beliefs were formed, connections were made to the characters, the actions of the characters, etc. This is a very complex subject that I am just sketching.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that when you sweep away all of the emotions and analyze what took place using reason alone, one will conclude that Nick had justification for selecting to keep the winnings. So there is no misunderstanding, I am not saying that we should not consider the contestants emotions, because we absolutely need to. I think one of the primary reasons why Nick was justified in selecting "keep" was precisely because of the emotional harm that was inflicted upon him by Rachel. She said mean things to him, showed him no respect at times and made it crystal clear that she was not concerned at all about him and his chances of winning. Some of you may say, well what about the fact that Rachel was emotionally harmed by being torn from Michael. This is not Nick's fault. It wasn't him who took Michael away. Now, I am not saying we should just ignore Rachel's feelings. It was fine for her to be upset and the considerate thing to do was to be understand of this, which Nick was. The problem was that Rachel didn't just cry and pout for minutes, an hour or even a few, but she went on and one and one and engaged in behavior that was unacceptable like trying to get your partner and yourself voted off. If Rachel would have just sobbed for a few hours or even that entire night and then the next morning came ready to play with full dedication to her partnership with Nick, I think Nick would have selected to share the winnings, but she didn't. Instead she went way overboard and ultimately it gave Nick good reasons to do what he did.

Finally, I don't see any strong arguments by the pro-Rachel/anti-Nick crowd. I see a lot of dodging of the facts, failure to hold Rachel to the same standard as they hold Nick and just a lot of emotion with very little logic and reason.

revo74 wrote:

Avg-Joe wrote:

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

ironcat wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them?

I can only speak for myself but have no problem with someone arguing their side of it however do draw the line when I'm being told that I'm just being emotional and not rational. I find that to be condescending and I tend to shut down & stop reading those posts once those words come into play. It's great that people have such strong feelings but perhaps can disagree without disparaging someone else's opinions.

It's obvious that it is I who you are referring to so let me respond. Reread what I wrote because I didn't say you are *just* being emotional and *not* rational. You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process. When I look at your posts in this thread and the Episode 3 BP3 Discussion thread I don't see any logical arguments made by you that show why Nick was wrong to select *keep*. Instead I see statements like these:

albean99 wrote:"He's such a tool. I'm glad he can justify it for himself but I'm not buying it."

"I think Nick came across as a total jerk tonight. He's a bitter, whiny baby who didn't care that he wouldn't have made it to the end without Rachel."

"He lied to his partner and he was horrible to her after he kept the money."

"I guess I can't blame the others for not being friends with him given that he's a creep underneath the faux nice guy exterior."

"It's fine for him to not make friends on the show but why be so bitter about it afterward?"

Your only argument -- which you mentioned at least four times -- is that Nick lied to Rachel, that's it. If I am mistaken then please correct me. The problem with this argument is that Nick didn't lie. Lying is when a person makes a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive. According to Nick, when he told her he was going to choose *share* he fully intended to do so, therefore, he wasn't telling her a lie. Only after he viewed the final two episodes and saw more of her ill behavior did he ultimately decide to change his mind. You would be right to argue that he *broke his promise* to Rachel, but that doesn't mean he lied to her.

You used terms like bitter, whinny baby, horrible, jerk and creep to describe Nick and his behavior, meanwhile he was arguable the most reserved and admirable contestant on the show. How many times could he have flipped out on Rachel for all her nonsense, but instead remained calm and levelheaded? You don't think all the things that Rachel did and said hurt Nick? He took all of her shit and let it build up inside, which he released after he won. And what exactly did he do after he won -- which has no relevance on whether he was justified to select *keep* -- that was so "horrible" and made him out to be a "creep"? When was he "whinny"? He thanked Rachel and the other contestants and he explained in detail his reasons why he made his final decision.

The only thing he did that looked objectionable was when he was looking at Rachel while smiling with his hand raised in a first. According to Nick he was just looking that direction at people in the crowd and he was not flaunting Rachel. The guy just won the game and 250k and he couldn't help but feel happy. Is he not entitled to celebrate? The pro-Rachel crowd never considers Nicks feelings and perspective. It's all about Rachel and what's in her best interest. I'm sorry, but I can't help think that you and others were emotionally invested in Rachel's well being, particularly because of what Michael did to her. These emotions would also explain how none of you in the pro-Rachel camp hold Rachel to the same standard as you do Nick and are quick to sweep her wrong doings under the rug. The girl betrayed her *best friend* Jaclyn and not one person has anything to say about it.

If you feel I am wrong with my assessment than please elaborate and if I have offended you I apologize.

I'm sorry but I don't read posts that begin with "You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process.". You can disagree with what I had to say but don't talk about my motives for saying it. It's insulting and really not necessary. You can talk up Nick all you want. We have the right to dislike or criticize the contestants on the show with or without emotions coming into play. Watching a tv show and interpreting what we watch is subjective and therefore not black and white. This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point. I'm out of here now. Somehow the thread turned into a Nick thread and it's the last place I want to be.

Btw it wasn't just your post that I was talking about.

Perhaps you were referring to other posters as well, however, once I saw you write about emotions I knew that you were referring to me.

I have studied psychology and neurology rather extensively and let me say by no means was I trying to *insult* you when I suggested that emotions may have dictated your decision making process. We are emotional creatures and emotions play a much larger role in how we think and what we believe than most people realize.

Beliefs are concepts that are created in our consciousness, or mind, and transcend the spoken word — and they are more than simply a mental acceptance or a conviction. It is common place for most people to assign emotions or judgment to their beliefs. A person may have such a deep emotional attachment to a belief that they are ready to die, or in some cases, kill for their beliefs. Of course, not all emotional attachments to beliefs are this extreme but most of us have experienced an emotional response to having our beliefs challenged. Having our beliefs challenged can come in many forms such as (to name a few):

Verbal disagreements;
Seeing or hearing about some action taking place that we don’t agree with;
Personal actions that go against our conscience.

When we experience these things, the emotions that we’ve attached to our beliefs can become *disturbed* causing us to react emotionally. We may become defensive or even angry due to the disturbance of these emotions.

Just look what you wrote:

albean99 wrote:"It's insulting and really not necessary."

"This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point."

Being "insulted" and to be "fuming" are rather strong emotional feelings. You couldn't have confirmed what I said any better.

There was a person (Rachel) on the show who you formed a connection with. You likely felt happiness for her that she was falling in love with who we all thought was a good guy. Then she gets torn from him and you feel sympathy for her, as she is having a tough time. Later you learn that her entire relationship was bogus, the man (Michael) she was falling in love with was not who we thought he was and she had her heart broken. At this point you desire for her to win the 125k in hopes that the money will bring her some happiness. Instead Nick chooses *keep* inflicting further pain to Rachel. At this point your *fuming*. Then Nick carries himself in a way that you find disturbing, which only makes you more mad.

Look I am not saying that your emotions are strong as if you knew Rachel personally, but I can tell that you did have an emotional connection with her. There is nothing wrong with this, nothing to be ashamed of. It's just important to recognize it when you're trying to form conclusions that should be based entirely on reason and not emotions.

I watch this show because of the behavior people exhibit, as individuals and part of a small social group. The structure of the game causes people to behave in many ways that I find interesting.

Revo,

I don't know about the missing posts. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to see them before they were removed. Clearly, there isn't going to be a bridge to unite the camps.

Your post was excellent - showing how facts, truths, and emotions shape what we think, conclude, see, and do.

We can not forget the edit has been proven to be so decidedly deceptive. We know these story lines are either contrived and forced or contain a nugget of truth that is twisted and warped to add drama. Why, for instance, were Nick and Rachel NOT ALLOWED to watch the final episodes together and be able to discuss them before the finale? The ending was masterfully set up. Chris B was hated and his actions lost him votes. That automatically put Nick and Rachel in the limelight. Did they or did they not have a partnership and loyalty to each other. If they didn't, would they still share? I'm sure the show was praying that there was going to be a unique ending from previous seasons. It is fascinating. In all the ways that Rachel was not loyal to Nick, he was not loyal to her. She made a choice to share that was probably more emotionally based, and he made a choice to keep that was more factually based (at least facts as he saw them to be).

Bach or Bad - both, can only survive and excel in ratings, if they maintain two distinct sides of a debate during and after the show. Regardless of the outcome, this was another successful season for them. Meanwhile, they stirred enough emotion, that people still believe that Arie was a better man for Emily than Jef...and will die fighting in their convictions. People still disagree on whether Nick is a good guy or not. People still hate Jason even though Melissa claimed that she didn't want him either and they both moved on into happy marriages. The list is long.

IMO, based on truth, facts and my emotions, the worse thing that happened to Rachel was what involved Michael. He played a clearly vulnerable woman; knowingly deceiving her. The financial loss pales in comparison. Wounds of the heart run deep - especially those based on deception.

Well someone said that I was a "condescending asshole" and that "I love to hear myself talk and talk and talk" and people like me must have an "imbedded rewind trigger". He/she also asked the question "why are smart people so dumb at times", suggesting that I made an obvious error in judgment when I made my post.

It's nice to know that there are people such as yourself who actually think highly of my post and that I wasn't out of line. I actually thought I did a good job of making my case -- touching on a delicate issue -- without being condescending. I felt I responded to his/her post well and showed that you can actually rebut what people say without getting all emotional and bent out of shape. It would have been nice if an admin would have left it up for others to see.

Another post that was deleted was your post. You don't see any of your posts missing? I just happened to have a second computer in my house that I left on with the page opened, so I print screened it. I would post the image of you post, but I think the admins wouldn't be too happy about it. I'll just write the first sentence to refresh your memory and if you request, I'll PM you.

You wrote: "In other words, Revo, tip-toe through the landmines and know they can shift at any time"

Anyway, getting back to what you said here. You wrote: "Your post was excellent - showing how facts, truths, and emotions shape what we think, conclude, see, and do."

We read stories and watch films that are *fiction*, yet many times we will form an emotional bond to characters and when something bad happens to them we have emotional responses such as sadness, anger, etc. Here (BP3) we are viewing real people interacting with other real people in real life circumstances over the coarse of weeks. There is much time between the episodes for us to ponder about what we have witnessed and to reinforce beliefs about the show and its characters. As I have mentioned in my other post, it is common for us to assign emotions to our beliefs. This is how the human mind works. So naturally when there is a conclusion like the one we all witnessed in the finale, we will all have emotional responses. These emotional responses will vary in type and severity depending on what beliefs were formed, connections were made to the characters, the actions of the characters, etc. This is a very complex subject that I am just sketching.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that when you sweep away all of the emotions and analyze what took place using reason alone, one will conclude that Nick had justification for selecting to keep the winnings. So there is no misunderstanding, I am not saying that we should not consider the contestants emotions, because we absolutely need to. I think one of the primary reasons why Nick was justified in selecting "keep" was precisely because of the emotional harm that was inflicted upon him by Rachel. She said mean things to him, showed him no respect at times and made it crystal clear that she was not concerned at all about him and his chances of winning. Some of you may say, well what about the fact that Rachel was emotionally harmed by being torn from Michael. This is not Nick's fault. It wasn't him who took Michael away. Now, I am not saying we should just ignore Rachel's feelings. It was fine for her to be upset and the considerate thing to do was to be understand of this, which Nick was. The problem was that Rachel didn't just cry and pout for minutes, an hour or even a few, but she went on and one and one and engaged in behavior that was unacceptable like trying to get your partner and yourself voted off. If Rachel would have just sobbed for a few hours or even that entire night and then the next morning came ready to play with full dedication to her partnership with Nick, I think Nick would have selected to share the winnings, but she didn't. Instead she went way overboard and ultimately it gave Nick good reasons to do what he did.

Finally, I don't see any strong arguments by the pro-Rachel/anti-Nick crowd. I see a lot of dodging of the facts, failure to hold Rachel to the same standard as they hold Nick and just a lot of emotion with very little logic and reason.

LOL, to me I dont care about a strong argument or not. I dont like Nick, and I think what he did to Rachel was a terrible thing to do. He saw everything that Rachel said about him a week before the finale, and still told her he was going to share with her. He was being a con artist. He could have told her that since he saw the shows he is not sure what he is going to do, but no he decided to continue to convince her that he was going to share, and to me that is a coniving backstabber. I would have alot more respect for Nick if he would have done it that way, versus the way he did it. You can write a book about how wonderful Nick is and how he had justification for what he did, but I am not buying it. I have every right t feel this way, and nobody is going to convince me differently. I think he is low class for how he rubbed it in her face. It was disrespectful and hurtful, and just completely uneccessary. The fact that the man has to keep retweeting fans saying how great he is and that he did the right thing speaks louder than words to me. Karma will get him one day, and when it does, I will be the first one to be .

What I wonder is how many people go on the show, and how many of us would go on the show if offered, with the goal of winning just half of the money. If that's your goal from the get go, fine, but if it's not, the only way to do it is to do pretty much what Nick did. The argument that he shouldn't have led Rachel to believe he would share the money is kind of moot, because had he done that, there would be no way to pull off winning all the money in the first place. And honestly, the only way that someone can probably expect to even be in a situation where they could win all the money and not get lynched by angry fans in future seasons is to get to the end with a partner they haven't really bonded with; otherwise, I shudder to think what the backlash will be like, if it's this bad for Nick.

People who are still so outraged should perhaps target this outrage at the BP producers, who put in the "prisoner's dilemma" specifically to encourage this kind of ending. Although I doubt they would take fans' opinions into account, they are the ones responsible for the possibility, and future probablility, of this "cruel" ending, not any of the contestants.

ironcat wrote:What I wonder is how many people go on the show, and how many of us would go on the show if offered, with the goal of winning just half of the money. If that's your goal from the get go, fine, but if it's not, the only way to do it is to do pretty much what Nick did. The argument that he shouldn't have led Rachel to believe he would share the money is kind of moot, because had he done that, there would be no way to pull off winning all the money in the first place. And honestly, the only way that someone can probably expect to even be in a situation where they could win all the money and not get lynched by angry fans in future seasons is to get to the end with a partner they haven't really bonded with; otherwise, I shudder to think what the backlash will be like, if it's this bad for Nick.

People who are still so outraged should perhaps target this outrage at the BP producers, who put in the "prisoner's dilemma" specifically to encourage this kind of ending. Although I doubt they would take fans' opinions into account, they are the ones responsible for the possibility, and future probablility, of this "cruel" ending, not any of the contestants.

I respect what you are saying ironcat, but there is no outrage here. What happens in their lives doesn't affect my life one way or another. Nick has to take responsibility for his own actions, the producers are not to blame about that. He choose to run around the stage like a loon in front of Rachel, even when he knew she had to be hurting, not just about Michael, but about loosing 125,000. When Rachel wanted to talk to him, he not only ran away from her like a coward, but then would not even take her call the next day. I think a person who has any type of compassion for the other person, would have taken her call. I am not a fan of Rachels. I didn't even really remember her much from Ben's season, but I dont think she deserved him to rub it in her face the way he did. What kind of person does that to another human being. I disagree with Nick that he didn't owe her anything. He did owe her respect after taking all the money, and he clearly showed her none. I understand lying is part of the game, but I cant respect a man who acts like a two year old after he just ripped a woman's heart out of her chest. The fact that he keeps retweeting tweets about how wonderful he is, tells me more about him than anything he has said in the past few weeks. JMO

To me, there are two separate issues. The first is was Nick justified in aiming to win all the money, and I feel unequivocally that he was, as that option is in the format for a reason (to be used), and the ONLY way to succeed in winning all the money is to convince your partner first that you plan to share, which involves lying/misleading in THIS CONTEXT ONLY. Therefore, I don't feel the criticism of Nick's behavior to get to that point, is at all justified; he did what he needed to do in order to win all the money.

The second issue is his behavior at the finale and post show. I admit that I haven't been following him post show because I really don't care about these people, other than enjoying analyzing and debating the "human nature" aspects of these contestants, so I'll only speak about how he acted on the finale. I have already said that he was not gracious, but considering the circumstances that led up to it, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of branding him an awful human being with despicable character, as some have done; I don't make snap judgments about people I come across in real life based on their behavior in one situation either, so I'm affording him the same courtesy. Perhaps he is a creep, and when the intensity of the moment dies down somewhat, he will prove it with his actions, in which case I'll reevaluate my opinion of him. However, since as I said, none of these people interest me enough to keep up with them, I probably won't know about it (unless I read it here!).

prettyinpink wrote:

revo74 wrote:

Avg-Joe wrote:

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

revo74 wrote:

albean99 wrote:

ironcat wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them?

I can only speak for myself but have no problem with someone arguing their side of it however do draw the line when I'm being told that I'm just being emotional and not rational. I find that to be condescending and I tend to shut down & stop reading those posts once those words come into play. It's great that people have such strong feelings but perhaps can disagree without disparaging someone else's opinions.

It's obvious that it is I who you are referring to so let me respond. Reread what I wrote because I didn't say you are *just* being emotional and *not* rational. You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process. When I look at your posts in this thread and the Episode 3 BP3 Discussion thread I don't see any logical arguments made by you that show why Nick was wrong to select *keep*. Instead I see statements like these:

albean99 wrote:"He's such a tool. I'm glad he can justify it for himself but I'm not buying it."

"I think Nick came across as a total jerk tonight. He's a bitter, whiny baby who didn't care that he wouldn't have made it to the end without Rachel."

"He lied to his partner and he was horrible to her after he kept the money."

"I guess I can't blame the others for not being friends with him given that he's a creep underneath the faux nice guy exterior."

"It's fine for him to not make friends on the show but why be so bitter about it afterward?"

Your only argument -- which you mentioned at least four times -- is that Nick lied to Rachel, that's it. If I am mistaken then please correct me. The problem with this argument is that Nick didn't lie. Lying is when a person makes a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive. According to Nick, when he told her he was going to choose *share* he fully intended to do so, therefore, he wasn't telling her a lie. Only after he viewed the final two episodes and saw more of her ill behavior did he ultimately decide to change his mind. You would be right to argue that he *broke his promise* to Rachel, but that doesn't mean he lied to her.

You used terms like bitter, whinny baby, horrible, jerk and creep to describe Nick and his behavior, meanwhile he was arguable the most reserved and admirable contestant on the show. How many times could he have flipped out on Rachel for all her nonsense, but instead remained calm and levelheaded? You don't think all the things that Rachel did and said hurt Nick? He took all of her shit and let it build up inside, which he released after he won. And what exactly did he do after he won -- which has no relevance on whether he was justified to select *keep* -- that was so "horrible" and made him out to be a "creep"? When was he "whinny"? He thanked Rachel and the other contestants and he explained in detail his reasons why he made his final decision.

The only thing he did that looked objectionable was when he was looking at Rachel while smiling with his hand raised in a first. According to Nick he was just looking that direction at people in the crowd and he was not flaunting Rachel. The guy just won the game and 250k and he couldn't help but feel happy. Is he not entitled to celebrate? The pro-Rachel crowd never considers Nicks feelings and perspective. It's all about Rachel and what's in her best interest. I'm sorry, but I can't help think that you and others were emotionally invested in Rachel's well being, particularly because of what Michael did to her. These emotions would also explain how none of you in the pro-Rachel camp hold Rachel to the same standard as you do Nick and are quick to sweep her wrong doings under the rug. The girl betrayed her *best friend* Jaclyn and not one person has anything to say about it.

If you feel I am wrong with my assessment than please elaborate and if I have offended you I apologize.

I'm sorry but I don't read posts that begin with "You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process.". You can disagree with what I had to say but don't talk about my motives for saying it. It's insulting and really not necessary. You can talk up Nick all you want. We have the right to dislike or criticize the contestants on the show with or without emotions coming into play. Watching a tv show and interpreting what we watch is subjective and therefore not black and white. This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point. I'm out of here now. Somehow the thread turned into a Nick thread and it's the last place I want to be.

Btw it wasn't just your post that I was talking about.

Perhaps you were referring to other posters as well, however, once I saw you write about emotions I knew that you were referring to me.

I have studied psychology and neurology rather extensively and let me say by no means was I trying to *insult* you when I suggested that emotions may have dictated your decision making process. We are emotional creatures and emotions play a much larger role in how we think and what we believe than most people realize.

Beliefs are concepts that are created in our consciousness, or mind, and transcend the spoken word — and they are more than simply a mental acceptance or a conviction. It is common place for most people to assign emotions or judgment to their beliefs. A person may have such a deep emotional attachment to a belief that they are ready to die, or in some cases, kill for their beliefs. Of course, not all emotional attachments to beliefs are this extreme but most of us have experienced an emotional response to having our beliefs challenged. Having our beliefs challenged can come in many forms such as (to name a few):

Verbal disagreements;
Seeing or hearing about some action taking place that we don’t agree with;
Personal actions that go against our conscience.

When we experience these things, the emotions that we’ve attached to our beliefs can become *disturbed* causing us to react emotionally. We may become defensive or even angry due to the disturbance of these emotions.

Just look what you wrote:

albean99 wrote:"It's insulting and really not necessary."

"This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point."

Being "insulted" and to be "fuming" are rather strong emotional feelings. You couldn't have confirmed what I said any better.

There was a person (Rachel) on the show who you formed a connection with. You likely felt happiness for her that she was falling in love with who we all thought was a good guy. Then she gets torn from him and you feel sympathy for her, as she is having a tough time. Later you learn that her entire relationship was bogus, the man (Michael) she was falling in love with was not who we thought he was and she had her heart broken. At this point you desire for her to win the 125k in hopes that the money will bring her some happiness. Instead Nick chooses *keep* inflicting further pain to Rachel. At this point your *fuming*. Then Nick carries himself in a way that you find disturbing, which only makes you more mad.

Look I am not saying that your emotions are strong as if you knew Rachel personally, but I can tell that you did have an emotional connection with her. There is nothing wrong with this, nothing to be ashamed of. It's just important to recognize it when you're trying to form conclusions that should be based entirely on reason and not emotions.

I watch this show because of the behavior people exhibit, as individuals and part of a small social group. The structure of the game causes people to behave in many ways that I find interesting.

Revo,

I don't know about the missing posts. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to see them before they were removed. Clearly, there isn't going to be a bridge to unite the camps.

Your post was excellent - showing how facts, truths, and emotions shape what we think, conclude, see, and do.

We can not forget the edit has been proven to be so decidedly deceptive. We know these story lines are either contrived and forced or contain a nugget of truth that is twisted and warped to add drama. Why, for instance, were Nick and Rachel NOT ALLOWED to watch the final episodes together and be able to discuss them before the finale? The ending was masterfully set up. Chris B was hated and his actions lost him votes. That automatically put Nick and Rachel in the limelight. Did they or did they not have a partnership and loyalty to each other. If they didn't, would they still share? I'm sure the show was praying that there was going to be a unique ending from previous seasons. It is fascinating. In all the ways that Rachel was not loyal to Nick, he was not loyal to her. She made a choice to share that was probably more emotionally based, and he made a choice to keep that was more factually based (at least facts as he saw them to be).

Bach or Bad - both, can only survive and excel in ratings, if they maintain two distinct sides of a debate during and after the show. Regardless of the outcome, this was another successful season for them. Meanwhile, they stirred enough emotion, that people still believe that Arie was a better man for Emily than Jef...and will die fighting in their convictions. People still disagree on whether Nick is a good guy or not. People still hate Jason even though Melissa claimed that she didn't want him either and they both moved on into happy marriages. The list is long.

IMO, based on truth, facts and my emotions, the worse thing that happened to Rachel was what involved Michael. He played a clearly vulnerable woman; knowingly deceiving her. The financial loss pales in comparison. Wounds of the heart run deep - especially those based on deception.

Well someone said that I was a "condescending asshole" and that "I love to hear myself talk and talk and talk" and people like me must have an "imbedded rewind trigger". He/she also asked the question "why are smart people so dumb at times", suggesting that I made an obvious error in judgment when I made my post.

It's nice to know that there are people such as yourself who actually think highly of my post and that I wasn't out of line. I actually thought I did a good job of making my case -- touching on a delicate issue -- without being condescending. I felt I responded to his/her post well and showed that you can actually rebut what people say without getting all emotional and bent out of shape. It would have been nice if an admin would have left it up for others to see.

Another post that was deleted was your post. You don't see any of your posts missing? I just happened to have a second computer in my house that I left on with the page opened, so I print screened it. I would post the image of you post, but I think the admins wouldn't be too happy about it. I'll just write the first sentence to refresh your memory and if you request, I'll PM you.

You wrote: "In other words, Revo, tip-toe through the landmines and know they can shift at any time"

Anyway, getting back to what you said here. You wrote: "Your post was excellent - showing how facts, truths, and emotions shape what we think, conclude, see, and do."

We read stories and watch films that are *fiction*, yet many times we will form an emotional bond to characters and when something bad happens to them we have emotional responses such as sadness, anger, etc. Here (BP3) we are viewing real people interacting with other real people in real life circumstances over the coarse of weeks. There is much time between the episodes for us to ponder about what we have witnessed and to reinforce beliefs about the show and its characters. As I have mentioned in my other post, it is common for us to assign emotions to our beliefs. This is how the human mind works. So naturally when there is a conclusion like the one we all witnessed in the finale, we will all have emotional responses. These emotional responses will vary in type and severity depending on what beliefs were formed, connections were made to the characters, the actions of the characters, etc. This is a very complex subject that I am just sketching.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that when you sweep away all of the emotions and analyze what took place using reason alone, one will conclude that Nick had justification for selecting to keep the winnings. So there is no misunderstanding, I am not saying that we should not consider the contestants emotions, because we absolutely need to. I think one of the primary reasons why Nick was justified in selecting "keep" was precisely because of the emotional harm that was inflicted upon him by Rachel. She said mean things to him, showed him no respect at times and made it crystal clear that she was not concerned at all about him and his chances of winning. Some of you may say, well what about the fact that Rachel was emotionally harmed by being torn from Michael. This is not Nick's fault. It wasn't him who took Michael away. Now, I am not saying we should just ignore Rachel's feelings. It was fine for her to be upset and the considerate thing to do was to be understand of this, which Nick was. The problem was that Rachel didn't just cry and pout for minutes, an hour or even a few, but she went on and one and one and engaged in behavior that was unacceptable like trying to get your partner and yourself voted off. If Rachel would have just sobbed for a few hours or even that entire night and then the next morning came ready to play with full dedication to her partnership with Nick, I think Nick would have selected to share the winnings, but she didn't. Instead she went way overboard and ultimately it gave Nick good reasons to do what he did.

Finally, I don't see any strong arguments by the pro-Rachel/anti-Nick crowd. I see a lot of dodging of the facts, failure to hold Rachel to the same standard as they hold Nick and just a lot of emotion with very little logic and reason.

LOL, to me I dont care about a strong argument or not. I dont like Nick, and I think what he did to Rachel was a terrible thing to do. He saw everything that Rachel said about him a week before the finale, and still told her he was going to share with her. He was being a con artist. He could have told her that since he saw the shows he is not sure what he is going to do, but no he decided to continue to convince her that he was going to share, and to me that is a coniving backstabber. I would have alot more respect for Nick if he would have done it that way, versus the way he did it. You can write a book about how wonderful Nick is and how he had justification for what he did, but I am not buying it. I have every right t feel this way, and nobody is going to convince me differently. I think he is low class for how he rubbed it in her face. It was disrespectful and hurtful, and just completely uneccessary. The fact that the man has to keep retweeting fans saying how great he is and that he did the right thing speaks louder than words to me. Karma will get him one day, and when it does, I will be the first one to be .

"I don't care about a strong argument or not." Well that's a pretty pathetic statement.

Nick *didn't* see "everything that Rachel said (or did) about him a week before the finale. Nick had no idea that Rachel confronted the other couples in an attempt to have them voted off. He learned about this the night before the finale when he viewed the last two episodes. There were other things she did and said that he wasn't aware of either. Maybe the problem here is that you are simply blind to all the facts and your timeline is screwed up.

I am not certain, but I believe the last conversation they had before seeing each other at the finale took place by phone two weeks before hand. At that time Nick told her he would share the winnings. Nick then saw the last two episodes, reflected on everything that happened and concluded that she wasn't a *good partner* to him. He also knew that he got more than halfway through the game without her as a partner in the first place. He put these two facts together and realized he didn't "owe" her anything and therefore decided to choose to keep the winnings.

If it is true that Nick's plan all along was to deceive Rachel by telling her he would share when he intended not to do so, then you have a much stronger case. We simply do not know if this is true. Either you trust what Nick said about his change of mind after viewing the final two episodes or you don't. I tend to believe him. Why? Well because it's a fact that he was given the last two episodes to watch the night before the finale. He had no access to them beforehand — and when he did view them he would see bad things that Rachel did that he had no idea about.

Even if Nick deliberately lied to Rachel and set her up for a finale betrayal that doesn't change the fact that Rachel was a bad partner to him. The only difference is that now Nick is a liar, which is exactly what 3/4 of the house were! Lying is part of the *game* and almost everyone did it! Why would you be super pissed at Nick for lying, but not all the other who did? At least be consistent. Why is it alright to lie all game long, but forbidden once you reach the finale? I doubt this was the case though.

No one is saying Nick is "wonderful" by the way, although up until he won he handled himself *far* better than Rachel did.

You wrote: "I have every right t feel this way, and nobody is going to convince me differently."
We all have the right to feel anyway we want, but if we refuse to examine counter-arguments that may prove our position(s) wrong then we are being thick-headed fools.

You wrote: "I think he is low class for how he rubbed it in her face. It was disrespectful and hurtful, and just completely uneccessary."
We all have different opinion about Nick's behavior after he won. Some thought it was horrible, some not so bad, others have no objection at all. However, we can't lose sight of the fact that Nick's behavior after he won was irrelevant to whether he had good reasons not to share the money with Rachel in the first place, since it was after the fact. I have come to realize the thing that most pro-Rachel/anti-Nick people are upset at the most is precisely Nick's behavior after he won.

If you're going to respond to this post then at least address what I am going to write now:

Why is it that you *completely* ignore or of Rachel's wrong doings? Why don't you hold her to the same standard as you hold everyone else? And finally, what is worse: Nick betraying a complete stranger who attempted to betray him first and was a bad partner to him or Rachel betraying here best friend (Jaclyn) and friend (Ed) for no good reason at all except because it was what was best for herself? I would love to hear you answer these questions.

LOL, because I have a different opinion than yours, that makes my opinion pathetic. I find that funny!!! I dont like him, I will never think there is justification for what he did, and obviously I have the right to my opinion. It is fine that you worship Nick and think it is ok to rub his winning in Rachel's face after she was clearly devastated for what he did to her. I dont care that he won the money, that is not what I have a problem with. I have stated how I feel about him running away from Rachel like the coward he is, and the fact he keeps retweeting tweets from his fans how wonderful he is, speaks to me much louder what kind of person he is than anything he had to say in his speech at the finale. You can call me pathetic all you want, although I think that is against the rules, but whatever. I have big shoulders, I can take it. So no big lectures are going to change my mind. I think he is a tool and I think what he did after the fact is not only classless but cowardly. JMO of course!!!


ETA: I didn't see Rachel run away from Ed and Jaclyn when they questioned her on what she did. I also saw real tears coming from Rachel and she actually talked to them to make amends, unlike the coward Nick who ran away from her. LOL, I mean really you run away from a woman, give me a break.

prettyinpink wrote:LOL, because I have a different opinion than yours, that makes my opinion pathetic. I find that funny!!! I dont like him, I will never think there is justification for what he did, and obviously I have the right to my opinion. It is fine that you worship Nick and think it is ok to rub his winning in Rachel's face after she was clearly devastated for what he did to her. I dont care that he won the money, that is not what I have a problem with. I have stated how I feel about him running away from Rachel like the coward he is, and the fact he keeps retweeting tweets from his fans how wonderful he is, speaks to me much louder what kind of person he is than anything he had to say in his speech at the finale. You can call me pathetic all you want, although I think that is against the rules, but whatever. I have big shoulders, I can take it. So no big lectures are going to change my mind. I think he is a tool and I think what he did after the fact is not only classless but cowardly. JMO of course!!!


ETA: I didn't see Rachel run away from Ed and Jaclyn when they questioned her on what she did. I also saw real tears coming from Rachel and she actually talked to them to make amends, unlike the coward Nick who ran away from her. LOL, I mean really you run away from a woman, give me a break.

You miscomprehended what I wrote. I never said *anything* about opinions. You said that you don't care about "strong arguments" and I replied that's a pathetic statement, which I stand by. We should all be open-minded to evidence and arguments, particularly when they are strong.

You wrote: "I will never think there is justification for what he did"
That's because you don't think Rachel did *anything* wrong. It's fine with you that Rachel said mean things to Nick numerous times. It's fine with you that Rachel didn't give a damn about Nick's chances of winning. It's fine with you that Rachel attempted to have them voted off. It's fine with you that Rachel tried to leave him three times. All of these things and more are perfectly fine with you. Rachel had her heart broken by Michael and from your point of view she was mistreated by Nick on the finale. As a result anything that Rachel did wrong is perfectly fine, let's just sweep it under the rug. This is your attitude.

He didn't *run* away from Rachel. First, he explained in detail why he made his decision while sitting on the same couch as her less than two feet away. He then explained himself further after he won and took questions from the other contestants. It's also important to note that this probably last much longer because they cut out a lot of scenes. The actual finale lasted over 9 hours. When Nick left, Rachel came after him like a psycho! He *did* stop and he told her exactly what he already said on stage. It's not his fault she wasn't satisfied with what he had to say or that she was frantic and unable to comprehend anything.

Once again I didn't call you "pathetic", reread what I wrote. I was talking generally. By the way it was you who called me a "condescending asshole" and that "I love to hear myself talk and talk and talk" and "I must have an "embedded rewind trigger" among other things. I wish the admins left that post of yours up there. You have some nerve talking about breaking rules.

You wrote: " I didn't see Rachel run away from Ed and Jaclyn when they questioned her on what she did. I also saw real tears coming from Rachel and she actually talked to them to make amends, unlike the coward Nick who ran away from her. LOL, I mean really you run away from a woman, give me a break."
Niick fully *explained* himself, we already covered this. I love the way this is how you replied to the questions I asked you. You completely *dodged* answering them. Why am I not surprised? Whether Rachel was apologetic about what she did to Jaclyn and Ed doesn't answer my question. Here is what I wrote:

revo74 wrote:[i]"If you're going to respond to this post then at least address what I am going to write now:

Why is it that you *completely* ignore or of Rachel's wrong doings? Why don't you hold her to the same standard as you hold everyone else? And finally, what is worse: Nick betraying a complete stranger who attempted to betray him first and was a bad partner to him or Rachel betraying here best friend (Jaclyn) and friend (Ed) for no good reason at all except because it was what was best for herself? I would love to hear you answer these questions.

If you're view is the right one then you should be able to answer these questions in an acceptable way. The fact that you repeatedly dodge them speaks volumes about the validity of your view(s).

revo74 wrote:

prettyinpink wrote:LOL, because I have a different opinion than yours, that makes my opinion pathetic. I find that funny!!! I dont like him, I will never think there is justification for what he did, and obviously I have the right to my opinion. It is fine that you worship Nick and think it is ok to rub his winning in Rachel's face after she was clearly devastated for what he did to her. I dont care that he won the money, that is not what I have a problem with. I have stated how I feel about him running away from Rachel like the coward he is, and the fact he keeps retweeting tweets from his fans how wonderful he is, speaks to me much louder what kind of person he is than anything he had to say in his speech at the finale. You can call me pathetic all you want, although I think that is against the rules, but whatever. I have big shoulders, I can take it. So no big lectures are going to change my mind. I think he is a tool and I think what he did after the fact is not only classless but cowardly. JMO of course!!!


ETA: I didn't see Rachel run away from Ed and Jaclyn when they questioned her on what she did. I also saw real tears coming from Rachel and she actually talked to them to make amends, unlike the coward Nick who ran away from her. LOL, I mean really you run away from a woman, give me a break.

You miscomprehended what I wrote. I never said *anything* about opinions. You said that you don't care about "strong arguments" and I replied that's a pathetic statement, which I stand by. We should all be open-minded to evidence and arguments, particularly when they are strong.

You wrote: "I will never think there is justification for what he did"
That's because you don't think Rachel did *anything* wrong. It's fine with you that Rachel said mean things to Nick numerous times. It's fine with you that Rachel didn't give a damn about Nick's chances of winning. It's fine with you that Rachel attempted to have them voted off. It's fine with you that Rachel tried to leave him three times. All of these things and more are perfectly fine with you. Rachel had her heart broken by Michael and from your point of view she was mistreated by Nick on the finale. As a result anything that Rachel did wrong is perfectly fine, let's just sweep it under the rug. This is your attitude.

He didn't *run* away from Rachel. First, he explained in detail why he made his decision while sitting on the same couch as her less than two feet away. He then explained himself further after he won and took questions from the other contestants. It's also important to note that this probably last much longer because they cut out a lot of scenes. The actual finale lasted over 9 hours. When Nick left, Rachel came after him like a psycho! He *did* stop and he told her exactly what he already said on stage. It's not his fault she wasn't satisfied with what he had to say or that she was frantic and unable to comprehend anything.

Once again I didn't call you "pathetic", reread what I wrote. I was talking generally. By the way it was you who called me a "condescending asshole" and that "I love to hear myself talk and talk and talk" and "I must have an "embedded rewind trigger" among other things. I wish the admins left that post of yours up there. You have some nerve talking about breaking rules.

You wrote: " I didn't see Rachel run away from Ed and Jaclyn when they questioned her on what she did. I also saw real tears coming from Rachel and she actually talked to them to make amends, unlike the coward Nick who ran away from her. LOL, I mean really you run away from a woman, give me a break."
Niick fully *explained* himself, we already covered this. I love the way this is how you replied to the questions I asked you. You completely *dodged* answering them. Why am I not surprised? Whether Rachel was apologetic about what she did to Jaclyn and Ed doesn't answer my question. Here is what I wrote:

revo74 wrote:[i]"If you're going to respond to this post then at least address what I am going to write now:

Why is it that you *completely* ignore or of Rachel's wrong doings? Why don't you hold her to the same standard as you hold everyone else? And finally, what is worse: Nick betraying a complete stranger who attempted to betray him first and was a bad partner to him or Rachel betraying here best friend (Jaclyn) and friend (Ed) for no good reason at all except because it was what was best for herself? I would love to hear you answer these questions.

If you're view is the right one then you should be able to answer these questions in an acceptable way. The fact that you repeatedly dodge them speaks volumes about the validity of your view(s).

Oh ok!!!! :giggle:

prettyinpink wrote:

ironcat wrote:What I wonder is how many people go on the show, and how many of us would go on the show if offered, with the goal of winning just half of the money. If that's your goal from the get go, fine, but if it's not, the only way to do it is to do pretty much what Nick did. The argument that he shouldn't have led Rachel to believe he would share the money is kind of moot, because had he done that, there would be no way to pull off winning all the money in the first place. And honestly, the only way that someone can probably expect to even be in a situation where they could win all the money and not get lynched by angry fans in future seasons is to get to the end with a partner they haven't really bonded with; otherwise, I shudder to think what the backlash will be like, if it's this bad for Nick.

People who are still so outraged should perhaps target this outrage at the BP producers, who put in the "prisoner's dilemma" specifically to encourage this kind of ending. Although I doubt they would take fans' opinions into account, they are the ones responsible for the possibility, and future probablility, of this "cruel" ending, not any of the contestants.

I respect what you are saying ironcat, but there is no outrage here. What happens in their lives doesn't affect my life one way or another. Nick has to take responsibility for his own actions, the producers are not to blame about that. He choose to run around the stage like a loon in front of Rachel, even when he knew she had to be hurting, not just about Michael, but about loosing 125,000. When Rachel wanted to talk to him, he not only ran away from her like a coward, but then would not even take her call the next day. I think a person who has any type of compassion for the other person, would have taken her call. I am not a fan of Rachels. I didn't even really remember her much from Ben's season, but I dont think she deserved him to rub it in her face the way he did. What kind of person does that to another human being. I disagree with Nick that he didn't owe her anything. He did owe her respect after taking all the money, and he clearly showed her none. I understand lying is part of the game, but I cant respect a man who acts like a two year old after he just ripped a woman's heart out of her chest. The fact that he keeps retweeting tweets about how wonderful he is, tells me more about him than anything he has said in the past few weeks. JMO

A few small points: 1) Nick didn't rip out Rachel's heart. Michael did. 2) Nick did win the game without cheating. 3) Nick insists that he and Rachel will talk in the future and explained why he didn't return her call the next day. As a man, I will say, this is absolutey brilliant. No good outcome every comes from a conversation with a woman that is steeped in raw emotion. 4) Rachel had a bad day. No doubt. But, think that Nick doesn't have feelings. Guys might act tough, but what people say to and about us affects us like it does any human being. He was disregarded and disrespected the entire show and into the finale. They both need time away from the season to let the dust settle. Rachel was not the only person hurt in that partnership.

Just finished reading the rest of this thread. Might be a good idea to 'move on'. Everyone on BP3 are at peace, content, and happy for Nick. They all report having moved on with their lives. Rachel, Jacqln and Ed are the only people who are upset with Nick. In time, the dust will settle around them too.

BTW, I would have done the exact same thing that Nick did for all the same reasons, and more: a pretty girl who wouldn't give me the time of day, not even to take interest in me as a possible friend. I'd have kept the money - especially if a few shots gave me "liquid courage".