Glad Joanna is gone, too much religion on the show will drive anyone nuts. Hope Heidi is next, can't stand her voice.

Is anyone still watching this show? :)

Cry Me A River
 

I hope that they keep that Shawna beotch around for weeks. And I hope she cries and whines and moans every week. Hell, I hope she wins.

Best case scenario would be for the women to win the next couple of immunity challenges so there is no chance she could be voted off.

These people know what they are getting into. You can't tell me every player has not seen all the previous Survivor editions.

Don't know why I feel this way i just do. I'm usually not a mean-spirited person.

BBP

Current odds to win (yes you can actually bet on this crap):

Matt 4/5
Jenna 6/5
Heidi 6/1
Butch 7/1
Jeanne 8/1
Rob 8/1
Shawna 8/1
Deena 10/1
Dave 10/1
Alex 15/1
Christy 20/1
Roger 25/1

It really surprises me that you could bet on this (http://www.bodog.com/global/schedule...ines&SPORT=NSE), given that the show is already over and all you would need is a leak from CBS.

Men are stronger than women are.
Men can run faster, swim faster, lift more, climb faster, jump higher, carry more...
It's not sexist, its a fact.
I'm sure you could get some old washed up tennis player(say like Boby Riggs) and match him up against the best female tennis player in her prime (say Billie Jean King) and the women will probably win.
But if you take the best or even the average male basketball player (or soccer, tennis, baseball, swimmer, sprinter... ) the man will win easily.
Do you agree or not ?
If not, then I won't try to explain why eliminating physical challenge helps the women and hurts the men.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cdollaz
Your statement really makes no sense. There has not been a challenge yet that has favored the women. In fact, alot of the challenges have involved items that men generally have had more experience with (fishing, using knifes, etc.), therefore favoring the men.

---

Really ?
Eliminating all of the physical challenges hurts the men therefore favors the women.

Alot of the challenges involved fishing and using knives ?
The last show had 1 fishing challenge, that's it.

I'm not saying the physical challenges are the only thing men are good at or that the women are smarter.

I'm saying all of the Survivor shows have had physical challenges
(some very physical) of at least half of the challenges.
Now, since it's men vs women there are no physical challenges ?
Why ?

There were women in previous Survivor shows.
But before the men and women were on the same teams.

Ummm, you just answered your own question...

Could some Photoshop whiz come up with an appropriate "It's a lost cause" image for Struz? :D

FS

How can Matt be such a high favorite? If the men lose again, he's the most likely to get the boot for his past associations with Rob and Daniel, the Blunder Twins.

It is a lost cause between you and cdollaz.
Both of you are insisting that removing physical challenges does not benefit the women.

I've been saying all along that the reason they have eliminated the physical challenges is because the men would easily win them.

Exactly what I have been saying.
So when they eliminate the physcial challenges it benefits the women.

They shouldn't change Survivor because they split the teams differently this year.

Survivor has always been about winning the challenges to win rewards or immunity.
There's no action anymore.
Now it's, unlock yourselves with the keys, then solve the puzzle, then guess who has the shampoo...it's soooo boring !

What most people here are saying is that eliminating the more physical challenges does not favor the women. Instead, it levels the playing field by taking away an advantage that the men would have in a purely physical challenge. "Handicapping" the men is not the same thing as "favoring" the women.
But that seems to be exactly what you are saying, by continually saying that the challenges are favoring the women.

To put it another way: If you were going one-on-one with someone from the NBA who had one hand tied behind his back, his performance would be "hurt" -- but that does not mean that your performance would be "favored". Only that an unfair advantage has been taken away and that you at least have a chance at winning.

If you take an away one groups strength you are penalizing that group. If you penailze one group and not the other than it's an advantage for the group that is not penailized.


If you take away the physical challenges, then yes the challenges
are favoring the women because you're taking away the men's
superior physical strengths.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skorp
To put it another way: If you were going one-on-one with someone from the NBA who had one hand tied behind his back, his performance would be "hurt" -- but that does not mean that your performance would be "favored". Only that an unfair advantage has been taken away and that you at least have a chance at winning.

---

But that's what I am saying. Why should the game be altered ?
Survivor is (was) a physical game. It's supposed to be tough.
This isn't Jeopardy.
They are changing the game to "level the playing field" which is wrong.

C'mon, lets get back to this betting thing. Anyone know any CBS executives? ;)

(Btw, you can even bet on the American Idol winner too)