Nick Viall - BIP - Season 3 - *Sleuthing - Spoilers*

Nick has a way of acting innocent, lighting a match, throwing it to start a flame, and then walking away saying "who me?" with that smarmy smirk. That scene completely exemplifies that, which is passive aggressive behavior. I see a snake in that scene. Don't mean to rant but I have low tolerance for that kind of behavior.

I disagree, sparkler, Nick never walked away denying what he said or did - not him, maybe his fans, but that's not on him. Actually he is pretty good at arguing ... if he wants to and if he feels to make a point or give another perspective. Nick is also a Libra, so probably he has some kind of tendency to be as "fair" as possible to all parties, accepting good and bad, and thus he actually always tried to make people see the "positive" side of flawed people on the show. He calls it like he sees it, but never speaks out of malice, but rather with the intention of showcasing traits that people should be proud of or should try to improve. He smirks a lot, but smirks can mean so much more than just misleading ... often is a sign of uncomfortable situation, out of balance, irritated, sad or shocked ... Jordan (the latest F1) is another one who smirks often and people would interpret his smirks as him been insincere ...and that's why I believe these kinda guys get the "bad rap" because their communication is not always at their best.

I'm interested to see what leads into that conversation with Amanda. That said, while I would be more than happy for Nick to leave Amanda to continue to suck face with the tool, I agree with others that I don't think anything he said was so unreasonable and I also didn't see the passive aggressiveness.

He admits he didn't read the book, which makes his opinion slightly uninformed because he's only going by what he heard and he says that he doesn't know if it is true or not because how would he, he wasn't in their relationship? But he's just telling Amanda that the things he did hear were so bad that it would do her well to ask the right questions.

I'm sorry, I have no love for Andi but if a friend of mine was dating a guy that someone wrote the things that Andi did about Josh, I too would tell her to ask some tough questions and not just suck face and accept his vague, "it's a fictional book so how can I even respond to fiction" or whatever crap Josh pulled. This wasn't simply "we just didn't fit and it didn't work". This was accusations of emotional and verbal abuse. And Amanda has two small children who she has to be very conscious of who she's bringing into their lives.

I don't doubt for a second Nick's conversation with Amanda was producer driven and I don't doubt that he doesn't care for Josh but I also think he doesn't because there is something shifty and suspect about Josh in my opinion and I've always thought that. As much as the people who dislike Nick view him that way, I've never trusted Josh and his manic, slick self.

I always thought there were red flags there and so I see nothing wrong in someone saying, "listen, the things said were pretty bad so you need to not just get caught up in the smooth talking and some chiseled chest and ask some real damn questions." But that would require being responsible which with this franchise and group of famewhores, yeah no.

If there is even an ounce of truth to the book, then I am glad someone would take it seriously.

I personally didn't read the book but I did read the parts that A wrote about her ex-fiance (they were all posted here and in the media and SM, so hard to miss) and as much as I dislike A, they were very scary to read, especially since I have a sister who went through abuse and is a strong woman (another fallacy is that strong woman wouldn't go through that).

So the way I understand it is that Nick read the parts about J demonstrating, imo, abusive behavior (emotional and verbal is also abuse) at the worst and worrisome behavior at the least and Nick was concerned for Amanda - just as I would be and as all people should be, imo, especially if it is true.

Nice post lleyki. Thank you.

I hope after this week's epis "the book" doesn't get a rose and is sent packing.

To me, this is what Nick means: I don't know much about this guy Josh. I've heard things about him but I don't know if it's true. Find out yourself. Ask questions so you can learn more about this guy and make your own decision.

That's not throwing anyone under the bus. IMO.

sdmom wrote:To me, this is what Nick means: I don't know much about this guy Josh.  I've heard things about him but I don't know if it's true. Find out yourself. Ask questions so you can learn more about this guy and make your own decision.

That's not throwing anyone under the bus. IMO.

ITA. It's the opposite of throwing someone under a bus, it's being a friend and decent human being, imo.

I'd rather someone caution me about potential red-flags about a guy than not say anything and something terrible happens.

I didn't think it passive agressive at all for Nick to warn her. Lleyki I agree with what you said about the red flags on j which imo were evident from andis season. Very manic talking too fast and closed statements all the time. The problem imo is that if the behaviour allegations are factual then asking questions won't prove it either way. Imo she may find out the hard way. I have read get book and she really is nasty about Nick too and so selfish imo. Hope she kicks herself one day for turning Nick down. He deserves the best of things and to find a true partner.

Agree AAL - Many times there's a "bro code" (remember Jillian's season) that holds guys back from letting their female friends in on a guy's behavior. Nick didn't even go that far to actually warn Amanda about Josh -- he was very clear about why he wanted to approach her and he was very clear that he wanted her to ask tough questions because she deserves to. I think asking tough questions is just good practice and every woman should be given that advice about any guy she dates before she gets engaged.  Nick told Amanda she is an amazing person and that she needs to ask some tough questions because she does not deserve to be exposed to the "nasty" treatment that Josh is allegedly capable of (as discussed by Andi). I agree with Nick that Andi's descriptions of Josh are pretty nasty - emotional abuser is a huge label!

There were enough articles in magazines that had excerpts that Nick wouldn't have to read it to know much of what was said.

I didn't read that book, but I think I read enough to know what she had said about Nick and Josh. So yeah, we don't need to read the actual book to know what's been written.