creekdipper

Well, one thing's for sure...as long as Matt is still in the game, some people will bring up religion in the Survivor threads (and it always seems to begin with those who have a problem with Matt's beliefs...rather ironic, isn't it?).

Sigh. There really isn't much point in commenting about the whole debate that started a few pages back (you know...my "rant"...as opposed to the several anti-Matt posts that were just "good, clean fun"). Like someone from the opposite viewpoint said, it really is like talking to a brick wall (the old "Someone on the Internet is Wrong" cartoon comes to mind).

Is it really that hard to understand the following?

(1) Matt never said that God is "rigging" the challenges. He said that it was "God's will" that he continue in the game. To Matt, everything that happens to him is God's will...he made that clear when he got sent back to RI. We can all sit back & say that Matt made dumb moves, but none of us could be sure that Andrea wouldn't stick with Matt or that someone else might flip. Before the vote, Matt said that he'd stay loyal to his former alliance & accept whatever happened. That's exactly what he did. It's may not be good Survivor strategy, but that's what he has chosen as his route. From the reaction of some of the contestants...especially the other tribe...he has gained a considerable amount of sympathy. If he were to survive future challenges (you know, God's will) and make it to the Final Tribal, he seems to have gained some fans for his openness and hasn't made enemies (unless his disclosure of Mike's offer & Andrea's feeling that he betrayed her comes back to haunt him). If he goes home during the next RI duel, it's all a moot point anyway.

(2) I pointed out to a fellow Survivor enthusiast who posts here about the difference between making fun of Matt & poking fun at Phillip...and this was before catching up on the last few pages (and actually seeing a few posts about strategy!). Matt has certain religious beliefs shared by millions. Phillip, on the other hand, believes that he is the embodiment of 007, thinks he should have been in charge of the tribe due to his age (despite being the consummate follower), butchers the English language & regales the tribe with tales of the Bushido Code and other b.s. (Lion, Gorilla, etc.) reminiscent of Coach, constantly wants to hug the young chicks after bossing them around, and other things that endear him to the audience. Even his own tribemates openly laugh at him at Tribal. Phillip's gender, sexual preferences, race, religion, etc. wouldn't make one bit of difference...he would still be considered something of a buffoon (unless he's employing the most brilliant strategy in the history of Survivor).

(3) The producers obviously try to find something about each contestant to distinguish them from the others ("Coach", "Boston" Rob (why continue that moniker when it was originally chosen to set him apart from another Rob...just as with "Purple Kelly"?), Farmer Ralph, etc.). It's like the contestants on the Amazing Race...they even refer to different teams by their attributes (The Cowboys, The Cheerleaders, The Goths, Globetrotters, etc.). In the case of Matt, they play up his expressions of faith. If you were paying attention closely, you noticed that they didn't show him leading a prayer before the meal & you saw him sharing a bottle with Rob. I think only Natalie is a teetotaler in the bunch to judge from Jeff's comments.

(4) Someone seemed to think that it's hypocritical to point out the snarky comments about Matt & then bring up Rob.

Sigh...sigh...even heavier sigh.

I have been a member of DVDTalk Forums for around ten years, and I know how "the system" works. If someone brings up an analogous situation to illustrate the unfairness of something, that illustration suddenly is characterized as doing exactly what one is criticizing. It's an old political trick...like taking a sound bite out of context. It's similar to someone tossing horse manure onto someone's lawn & the party who "takes umbrage" (to quote a wag) tosses it back to demonstrate the offense...and the first party acts as if the other person started it. How messed up is that? Yet some use that tactic to attempt to justify the original bad behavior. Pretty common tactic, and often effective to those who don't employ critical thinking.
The entire point is that I don't remember anyone bringing up Rob's mocking comments about the three who were having a religious discussion BEFORE all of the piling-on toward Matty. I also thought that Mike just might be trying to appeal to Matt's sensitivities in an effort to flip him, but Rob seemed to be taking a lot of glee in his comments (or trying to entertain his groupie) by saying things like "Christian Coalition", etc. Yes, Rob COULD be a very religious person...however, his comment that he "wouldn't have much to add" (except "Amen"...which sent little Natalie into giggling spasms) and his comment that "he doesn't have anything against God" aren't the sort of sentiments that I've ever heard from a devout person. I'm sure that God is very pleased with Rob for "not having anything against Him", but that sounds pretty indifferent to me. Maybe it sounds like sincere devotion to others here...if so, I'd like to hear their idea of what complacency would sound like. His "I go to church" might mean he goes weekly or twice a year (as many do). So what? A lot of people go to college but flunk out because they're there for the wrong reasons. At any rate, it's hard to see how Rob's comments could be interpreted as favorable toward religion...they sound more consistent with the posters here who mock Matt's beliefs. Rob's explanation about disliking seeing anyone bond over common interests sounded logical, but they also sounded self-serving...almost as though Rob was trying too hard to not seem like he was against religion.

The upshot is this: any objective person here who doesn't have an axe to grind or simply get off on criticizing religion...and I've met quite a few people who never let an opportunity to bash Christians go to waste...would acknowledge that anyone who posted each week about the 'sinful' skimpy bikinis, the use of the pagan immunity idols, the swearing, the blurred-out exposed body parts, etc. would be either ridiculed or told to find another forum. Their comments wouldn't be characterized as "having a little fun"...they'd be called Bible-thumping, fanatical rants.

Personally, I couldn't care less if those who don't like Matt's beliefs want to hijack the thread each week to rant. It's a free country...anyone can rant as much as they want. No skin off my teeth. I'm not "offended" (sorry!)...just confused at why you get your jollies criticizing someone who seems to be well-liked by most of the people on the island.

Heck, the anti-Matt posts are actually entertaining since they reveal much more about the posters than they do Matt.

And I still won't suggest that you find another forum if you don't like my rants since that would seem...I don't know...intolerant, maybe?

However, I'm now pulling for Matt to stay in the game as long as possible...not because of his religious beliefs, but because he makes quite a few people get their panties in a wad.

Never try to teach a pig to sing...it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

creekdipper

On an nonreligious note, did you notice Grant smiling & nodding appreciatively in the Natalie gif above?

dino88

Rewriting history, I see.

creekdipper

Now that you mention it, you're right...I don't mind if they rewrite history, either.

davidh777

Clearly, playing the game of Survivor is not rocket science

mgbfan

This would have been a good comeback if it was the post I had responded to. But it wasn't, which just makes it desperate. A for effort, though.

mgbfan

Yeah, clearly, you don't care a bit....

HokieGAK

Jeff's comments aren't related to Natalie's being a teetotaler. She's not yet 21.

Setzer

You still can't read but keep trying, you'll get it eventually.

Eric D.

What are you, fourteen? You can't back up any of the crap that you say so you keep going back to the same pathetic retorts. It's actually pretty embarrassing to read.

And just because you apologized doesn't mean I forgive you or believe that it was genuine. That has nothing to do with my reading comprehension, sweetheart. You called everybody with an opposing religious view stupid and you can't change that. Since you obviously can't take the heat, maybe next time you should think before posting. Now I'd done talking to a brick wall. Have a nice life, bro.

TimeandTide

Even funnier is his nodding in perfect rhythm with her hips.

mgbfan

Bingo. I wasted a good 10-15 minutes of my life trying to reason with the brick wall in question. So you did better than me by getting out quick.

xx2000xx

Phillip, Rob, Russel, Matt, Stephanie (hottest Survivor girl ever) have gotten the most air-time, and that's for a reason. Phillip is the only person worthy of coming back for another season, as they did a horrible casting job. But you know Matt will come back at some point for the female demographic and him being good at challenges like Stephanie and edit: For the God factor too, as it happens on all reality shows and sparks a debate in homes and of course on the internet. I still don't remember almost half the names of the people there as they don't really add anything.

If Russell/Rob weren't on, even though they have their haters here, they made the season interesting because without them it would've been a train wreck. In a year or so they will make it so Phillip and Coach are on the same team, as they would be soul mates forever, or mortal enemies, but whatever the case it will be comedy gold.

MrE

No sympathy here. The Xtian-in-question is definitely overdue for bashing. I don't play Monopoly with a cross in my hand. It was ridiculous for him to play Survivor with a Bible. Made even more so by his insistence on indulging in ethical (and frequently hypocritical) soliliquies.

Howie2000

This show seemed to do just fine for years and many seasons without going overboard making everything from the prespective of people Jeff Probst had a mancrush on.


This is seriously a horrible season because we know nothing about anyone left besides Phillip and Rob. The better season fans actually have rooting interesting in who goes or doesn't next week instead of just hating or loving 1 or 2 big personalities.



You can say its bad casting but they ignored people in Heroes Vs Villians who were contestants from previous seasons who were entertaining. Are you gonna say snarky contestants like Colby, Jerri,Danielle Sugar,Randy and Tyson were boring despite being funny charecters in there previous seasons.

They also did this in Samoa and the people they ignored were entertaining bitchy charecters in the Ponderosa videos .

Josh-da-man

Matt's the only survivor to have been voted off at two consecutive (for him) tribal councils. Kind of makes him come off like a loser.

creekdipper

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

creekdipper

Not really.

Now, if he gets voted off at FIVE consecutive councils....

Well, at least he didn't break down blubbering like Russell.

creekdipper

At least you called him 'sweetheart'.

(Sung to "Daisy, Daisy..." as performed by HAL).

creekdipper

So a group of shipwrecked survivors find a case of beer floating in the ocean & then tell one of the castaways, "Sorry, Sweetie...but you're underage".

Thanks for pointing out the reason (I didn't realize her age), but the situation brings up an interesting point. It seems that each successive season of Survivor gives more & more 'luxury items' to the contestants. Remember the early seasons when the contestants looked like they were literally starving by the end of the show? The endurance challenges were a real effort back then since they got weaker & weaker.

No hammer, nails, etc. to rely on, either.

Now...Beach chairs to lounge in? Seriously??