LOSER LODGE: PONDEROSA LINK
MRS. CLEAN
I stopped in to see how shallow Eliza really is.
She is.
Obveeus
I'm not sure why you think of this as 'shallow', but it is interesting. The
Jury Lodge this season seems to consist of a small 'community center' and
tents to sleep in. Not exactly luxury even if it does have a stocked fridge
and toilet paper.
Eliza lists her predicted boot order: Jason, Erik, Alexis, Natalie as the
Fans go down in order.
MRS. CLEAN
How shallow Eliza is! What do I wear for the first appearance as a
Juror? This? Or, this? I thought it was juvenile.
Obveeus
"MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How shallow Eliza is! What do I wear for the first appearance as a
>Juror? This? Or, this? I thought it was juvenile.
By your definition, all women, and everyone appearing on TV are shallow.
When I watched the scene, it looked very prompted to me, like the producers
were trying to get video/pictures of her in the outfits before they helped
decide which she would wear. Clothing on this show is all subject to
producer approval.
MRS. CLEAN
Thanatos
<98e9df6f-b902-46c6...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/video/ponderosa.php
>
> I stopped in to see how shallow Eliza really is.
Why is she the only one there? It's my understanding that they don't let
anyone go home when they're voted off, so shouldn't there be like ten
other people there already?
Bigolhomo
Not everybody has a closet full of interchangeable muumuus like you do
dear. Some people actually put some effort into their appearance,
especially when they know it's being televised.
--
Bigolhomo
D-W
I think the jury members go to a different place than the non-jury
people...
Thanatos
D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Odd. Why would it matter at that point?
Anim8rFSK
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <kqqvv3tc79ufem101...@4ax.com>,
> D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:54:39 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article
> > ><98e9df6f-b902-46c6...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/video/ponderosa.php
> > >>
> > >> I stopped in to see how shallow Eliza really is.
> > >
> > > Why is she the only one there? It's my understanding that
> > > they don't let anyone go home when they're voted off, so
> > > shouldn't there be like ten other people there already?
>
> > I think the jury members go to a different place than
> > the non-jury people...
>
> Odd. Why would it matter at that point?
Same reason you sequester any jury I guess.
Didn't they send the non jurors in Africa on a safari?
This is why I wondered why Kathleen thought she was going home when she
quit. I thought they all went to a hotel.
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
LDC
<goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
True, she had SO many other things she should be doing. Jeez, how
petty (and shallow) some posters are. Did it ever occur the clothes
modeling was carefully planned for the filming?
Steven L.
> "MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/video/ponderosa.php
>>
>> I stopped in to see how shallow Eliza really is.
>>
>> She is.
>
> I'm not sure why you think of this as 'shallow', but it is interesting. The
> Jury Lodge this season seems to consist of a small 'community center' and
> tents to sleep in.
Yeah. That means that if the area gets hit with another huge
thunderstorm and downpour, the jurors still have to sleep through all
that in tents. Kathy would have freaked out if she got voted off and
had to sleep through all that again.
I think the custom shelter that CBS built for the Koror tribe in S10 was
better, frankly.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
alooo
"MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>How shallow Eliza is! What do I wear for the first appearance as a
>Juror? This? Or, this? I thought it was juvenile.
So what do you think she should be talking about? Should she be guessing
what the day's news was?
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <atropos-4A86C8...@news.giganews.com>,
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <kqqvv3tc79ufem101...@4ax.com>,
> > D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:54:39 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article
> > > ><98e9df6f-b902-46c6...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/video/ponderosa.php
> > > >>
> > > >> I stopped in to see how shallow Eliza really is.
> > > >
> > > > Why is she the only one there? It's my understanding that
> > > > they don't let anyone go home when they're voted off, so
> > > > shouldn't there be like ten other people there already?
> >
> > > I think the jury members go to a different place than
> > > the non-jury people...
> >
> > Odd. Why would it matter at that point?
>
> Same reason you sequester any jury I guess.
But most juries don't all share in the experience of the "crime".
They're all contestants. What does it matter whether they mingle after
the game is over?
> This is why I wondered why Kathleen thought she was going
> home when she quit.
Yeah, she apparently didn't think that whole thing through very well.
Odd that Probst didn't bring that up when he was having that
heart-to-heart talk with her.
Thanatos
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Yeah. That means that if the area gets hit with another huge
> thunderstorm and downpour, the jurors still have to sleep through all
> that in tents.
Not really. How hard would it be to grab your blanket and pillow and go
sleep in a chair in the community center during a storm?
Thanatos
LDC <ldco...@san.spamblocker.com> wrote:
> True, she had SO many other things she should be doing. Jeez, how
> petty (and shallow) some posters are. Did it ever occur the clothes
> modeling was carefully planned for the filming?
There are apparently a not insignificant number of people who think
these reality shows are truly reality and not staged performances. I
have to wonder if these are the same people who think professional
wrestling is real also.
do...@webtv.net
"Not everybody has a closet full of interchangeable muumuus like you do
dear."
:-)
do...@webtv.net
"Can't wait to see how shallow Parvati is."
If she can accommodate James...I don't think she IS that shallow.
Hey Now! <double rimshot>
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> But most juries don't all share in the experience of the "crime".
> They're all contestants. What does it matter whether they mingle after
> the game is over?
The best way to limit spiler leaks is to let fewer people know the outcome
of the game. Why would Survivor want the prejury members to know the rest
of the game's boot order? Why would Survivor want the prejury members to
have opportunity to influence the jury? It is rather surprising that you
don't see the reasoning behind keeping the early game boots away from the
jury members.
>> This is why I wondered why Kathleen thought she was going
>> home when she quit.
>
> Yeah, she apparently didn't think that whole thing through very well.
> Odd that Probst didn't bring that up when he was having that
> heart-to-heart talk with her.
The same could be said for the idiot, Johnny Fairplay, who quit the game so
he could be with his ANTM girlfriend and impending baby sooner. He had even
been through the game before, yet he still claims his excuse for quitting
was to get back with his family sooner.
Anim8rFSK
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-66E4D...@news.west.cox.net>,
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-4A86C8...@news.giganews.com>,
> > Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <kqqvv3tc79ufem101...@4ax.com>,
> > > D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:54:39 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In article
> > > > ><98e9df6f-b902-46c6...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/video/ponderosa.php
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I stopped in to see how shallow Eliza really is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is she the only one there? It's my understanding that
> > > > > they don't let anyone go home when they're voted off, so
> > > > > shouldn't there be like ten other people there already?
> > >
> > > > I think the jury members go to a different place than
> > > > the non-jury people...
> > >
> > > Odd. Why would it matter at that point?
> >
> > Same reason you sequester any jury I guess.
>
> But most juries don't all share in the experience of the "crime".
> They're all contestants. What does it matter whether they mingle after
> the game is over?
Well, we don't know where they are. If they aren't appearing on camera
every week, like the jury is, there's no reason to have them close at
hand. They're probably having a fine time in a hotel in a city
someplace.
>
> > This is why I wondered why Kathleen thought she was going
> > home when she quit.
>
> Yeah, she apparently didn't think that whole thing through very well.
> Odd that Probst didn't bring that up when he was having that
> heart-to-heart talk with her.
Although she *might* have gotten to go straight home. I think Jenna
did, but then she had a lot better reason. I wonder what they can do to
you if you insist on going home when you're supposed to stay in the
Obveeus
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
That's a good point. They can't physically restrain you and hold you
prisoner but I suppose since there's a contract involved, they can hold
you civilly liable for the breach and invoke any damages clauses that
may apply, so it may be quote costly to the contestant to defy them. And
they certainly don't have to pay for your trip home, which can be pretty
pricey from those parts of the world.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > But most juries don't all share in the experience of the "crime".
> > They're all contestants. What does it matter whether they mingle after
> > the game is over?
>
> The best way to limit spiler leaks is to let fewer people know the outcome
> of the game. Why would Survivor want the prejury members to know the rest
> of the game's boot order?
Well, if they're being sequestered somewhere, what does it matter if
they know the elimination order? They can't tell anyone about it.
> Why would Survivor want the prejury members to
> have opportunity to influence the jury?
My question is, who cares? I mean, it's not like it really matters. No
one's life or freedom is at stake. It's just a game show. So what if one
of the earlier members tells Eliza, "I never liked that Ozzy guy anyway.
He was rude to me" or something similar. Big deal.
Ed Stasiak
>
> Although she *might* have gotten to go straight home. I think Jenna
> did, but then she had a lot better reason.
I don't feel Jenna's reason for quitting was any more valid then Krazy
Kathleen's, as Jenna knew her mom was sick with cancer when she
signed up to be on S8 All Stars (and IIRC, her mom was already
battling cancer when Jenna signed up to do S6 Amazon).
Steven L.
Yours is a strange argument. The point is that the assigned sleeping
accommodations are poor for that type of climate. The community center
isn't intended to hold all the jurors sleeping there at night, and
wasn't designed that way.
It's like saying "Those folks in tribe A shouldn't complain how bad
their conditions are--they could always switch to tribe B"
Steven L.
Call it women's intuition then. When Jenna signed up for S8, her mom
was seriously ill but not yet on the verge of death. Jenna took herself
out of the game when she suddenly started feeling she had to get back to
her mom. And it's a good thing she did, because her mom died only days
later.
Steven L.
> In article <nu200494mvpqf4j58...@4ax.com>,
> LDC <ldco...@san.spamblocker.com> wrote:
>
>> True, she had SO many other things she should be doing. Jeez, how
>> petty (and shallow) some posters are. Did it ever occur the clothes
>> modeling was carefully planned for the filming?
>
> There are apparently a not insignificant number of people who think
> these reality shows are truly reality and not staged performances.
But they're at least partly right.
Survivor is a mix of both truth and fiction. The hunger and the bad
conditions are real enough; it's not like CBS secretly transports the
Survivors to a luxury hotel and four-star restaurant whenever the camera
is turned off. The Survivors are not actors playing the roles of being
hungry and tired; they really are hungry and tired. And the TC voting
is real enough; it's not like MB tells the Survivors whom to vote off next.
"Staged" is too strong a word for what reality TV is like.
"Storyboarded" is more like it: Lots of actual events take place, some
of which the editors and writers select and stitch together into a
dramatic narrative. Clever cinematography is used to heighten the
dramatic experience.
In that sense, a reality show is different in degree but not in kind
from a highly polemical documentary. Films like "Triumph of the Will"
and "Bowling for Columbine" also take footage of real events, but films
them in dramatic cinematography and organizes them into a narrative that
hammers home a particular message.
I'm sure Leni Reifenstahl could have filmed some other footage that
wouldn't have reflected as well on the then new Germany, but that
footage wound up on the cutting room floor because it didn't fit the
narrative she was trying to tell.
Survivor is no different in that regard.
Anim8rFSK
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <ftqh05$dpr$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > But most juries don't all share in the experience of the "crime".
> > > They're all contestants. What does it matter whether they mingle after
> > > the game is over?
> >
> > The best way to limit spiler leaks is to let fewer people know the outcome
> > of the game. Why would Survivor want the prejury members to know the rest
> > of the game's boot order?
>
> Well, if they're being sequestered somewhere, what does it matter if
> they know the elimination order? They can't tell anyone about it.
They can tell people about it between the end of taping and the actual
voting show. If the non-jury guys don't get to mingle with the jury
guys, that's a lot fewer people that know who the final two are.
>
> > Why would Survivor want the prejury members to
> > have opportunity to influence the jury?
>
> My question is, who cares? I mean, it's not like it really matters. No
> one's life or freedom is at stake. It's just a game show. So what if one
> of the earlier members tells Eliza, "I never liked that Ozzy guy anyway.
> He was rude to me" or something similar. Big deal.
Yeah. While I agree with you it's no big deal, if I had 2 hotels, I'd
stick the first batch in the other hotel, if for no other reason than
'why not?'
kenny blankenship
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <atropos-D7C561...@news.giganews.com>,
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > There are apparently a not insignificant number of people who think
> > these reality shows are truly reality and not staged performances.
> > I have to wonder if these are the same people who think
> > professional wrestling is real also.
>
> Well, let's ask.
>
> Kenny?
Yes?
Anim8rFSK
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
Sure, although in hindsight, Jenna was right.
kenny blankenship
> But most juries don't all share in the experience of the "crime".
> They're all contestants. What does it matter whether they mingle
> after the game is over?
For the jury, the game isn't over.
kenny blankenship
> My question is, who cares? I mean, it's not like it really matters.
> No one's life or freedom is at stake. It's just a game show.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oooo, you're gonna get roasted for that one...
Thanatos
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Thanatos wrote:
> > In article <mMWdnRKU0YnZqZ3V...@earthlink.com>,
> > "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah. That means that if the area gets hit with another
> >> huge thunderstorm and downpour, the jurors still have to
> >> sleep through all that in tents.
> >
> > Not really. How hard would it be to grab your blanket and
> > pillow and go sleep in a chair in the community center
> > during a storm?
>
> Yours is a strange argument.
Why? Because I'd think for myself in situations like that instead of
just accepting what's given to me?
> The point is that the assigned sleeping
> accommodations are poor for that type of climate.
That may be your point but it's not mine. My point is that if weather
conditions deteriorate, there are alternatives to just suffering through
it for those who put a bare minimum of thought into it.
> The community center isn't intended to hold all the jurors
> sleeping there at night
Whether that's what it's intended for is irrelevant. Apparently you'd
rather stay in a tent during a monsoon instead of going into a solid
structure just because the community center isn't "intended" for sleep?
Every hear that old saw "He's too stupid to come in from out of the
rain?"
> and wasn't designed that way.
It's designed to weather a tropical storm a helluva lot better than a
nylon tent, chief.
> It's like saying "Those folks in tribe A shouldn't complain how bad
> their conditions are--they could always switch to tribe B"
It's actually nothing like saying that. Analogies aren't your strong
point, are they?
Thanatos
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> Anim8rFSK wrote
> >>
> >> Although she *might* have gotten to go straight home. I think Jenna
> >> did, but then she had a lot better reason.
> >
> > I don't feel Jenna's reason for quitting was any more valid then Krazy
> > Kathleen's, as Jenna knew her mom was sick with cancer when she
> > signed up to be on S8 All Stars (and IIRC, her mom was already
> > battling cancer when Jenna signed up to do S6 Amazon).
>
> Call it women's intuition then.
How about we call it what it really is-- coincidence.
Thanatos
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Thanatos wrote:
> > In article <nu200494mvpqf4j58...@4ax.com>,
> > LDC <ldco...@san.spamblocker.com> wrote:
> >
> >> True, she had SO many other things she should be doing. Jeez, how
> >> petty (and shallow) some posters are. Did it ever occur the clothes
> >> modeling was carefully planned for the filming?
> >
> > There are apparently a not insignificant number of people who think
> > these reality shows are truly reality and not staged performances.
>
> But they're at least partly right.
>
> Survivor is a mix of both truth and fiction. The hunger and the bad
> conditions are real enough; it's not like CBS secretly transports the
> Survivors to a luxury hotel and four-star restaurant whenever the camera
> is turned off. The Survivors are not actors playing the roles of being
> hungry and tired; they really are hungry and tired. And the TC voting
> is real enough; it's not like MB tells the Survivors whom to vote off next.
Sure and the crowds and the ring are real in wrestling, too. And those
chairs actually hurt when the contenders get smacked with them. Doesn't
mean the whole things not a put-on, however.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> Well, if they're being sequestered somewhere, what does it matter if
> they know the elimination order? They can't tell anyone about it.
The show finishes filming and the final TC vote is made...then months go by
before the show airs on TV. These contestants are not sequestered for those
months. Instead, they all return to their 'normal lives', so they most
definitely have opportunity to tell people what happened. The fewer people
that know who actually made it to the end, the better. All the jury members
have to stick around since they are still part of the game. The pre-jury
members are not, so there is absolutely no reason for them to have access to
the knowledge of which players made it to the end, much less have access to
influence the final voting.
>> Why would Survivor want the prejury members to
>> have opportunity to influence the jury?
>
> My question is, who cares? I mean, it's not like it really matters. No
> one's life or freedom is at stake. It's just a game show.
So, if we play cards together, you won't mind if I thumb through the deck
and pick out the cards I want. Its just a game, so who cares, right?
Obveeus
there was no coincidence. In season 6 her mom had cancer. In season 8, by
the time she left to start filming, her mom was in a hospice. Jenna knew
very well that her mother was not likely going to live another 39 days. her
mom pushed her to go on the show anyway. Once she got there, she realized
that that wasn't what she wanted to do with her mom's final days.
BTR, I get the impression from your jury handling comments (and other show
related comments) that you don't even watch Survivor. So, why are you here?
D-W
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote
>>>
>>> Although she *might* have gotten to go straight home. I think Jenna
>>> did, but then she had a lot better reason.
>>
>> I don't feel Jenna's reason for quitting was any more valid then Krazy
>> Kathleen's, as Jenna knew her mom was sick with cancer when she
>> signed up to be on S8 All Stars (and IIRC, her mom was already
>> battling cancer when Jenna signed up to do S6 Amazon).
>
>Call it women's intuition then. When Jenna signed up for S8, her mom
>was seriously ill but not yet on the verge of death. Jenna took herself
>out of the game when she suddenly started feeling she had to get back to
>her mom. And it's a good thing she did, because her mom died only days
>later.
And how did that help her mother exactly ???
Anim8rFSK
D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
IIRC, Jenna got back to her before she died.
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And how did that help her mother exactly ???
>
> IIRC, Jenna got back to her before she died.
Yes, but even more to the point: Jenna didn't do it to help her mother.
Jenna did it for herself. She made the decision that trying for yet another
million wasn't as important to her as being with her Mom in the final hour.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> >> Anim8rFSK wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> Although she *might* have gotten to go straight home. I think Jenna
> >> >> did, but then she had a lot better reason.
> >> >
> >> > I don't feel Jenna's reason for quitting was any more valid then Krazy
> >> > Kathleen's, as Jenna knew her mom was sick with cancer when she
> >> > signed up to be on S8 All Stars (and IIRC, her mom was already
> >> > battling cancer when Jenna signed up to do S6 Amazon).
> >>
> >> Call it women's intuition then.
> >
> > How about we call it what it really is-- coincidence.
>
> there was no coincidence. In season 6 her mom had cancer. In season 8, by
> the time she left to start filming, her mom was in a hospice. Jenna knew
> very well that her mother was not likely going to live another 39 days. her
> mom pushed her to go on the show anyway. Once she got there, she realized
> that that wasn't what she wanted to do with her mom's final days.
Well, then the original poster's comments stand. Why go on the show if
you want to be with your mother in a time of crisis?
> BTR, I get the impression from your jury handling comments
> (and other show related comments) that you don't even watch
> Survivor. So, why are you here?
I've watched every episode this season, your faulty impressions
notwithstanding. Just because I see no practical reason for segregating
voted-out players doesn't mean I don't watch the show. (And I'm curious
about what other show-related comments you're talking about-- if it's
this Jenna thing, none of what you described above was actually
presented *on* the show. All I saw was her deciding she wanted to leave
because of her mother.)
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Well, if they're being sequestered somewhere, what does it matter if
> > they know the elimination order? They can't tell anyone about it.
>
> The show finishes filming and the final TC vote is made...then months go by
> before the show airs on TV. These contestants are not sequestered for those
> months. Instead, they all return to their 'normal lives', so they most
> definitely have opportunity to tell people what happened. The fewer people
> that know who actually made it to the end, the better.
Last post it was about influencing other cast-offs. Now it's because the
producers don't trust them to keep their mouths shut-- despite an
ironclad contract with severe financial penalties for not doing so.
> >> Why would Survivor want the prejury members to
> >> have opportunity to influence the jury?
> >
> > My question is, who cares? I mean, it's not like it really matters. No
> > one's life or freedom is at stake. It's just a game show.
>
> So, if we play cards together, you won't mind if I thumb through the deck
> and pick out the cards I want. Its just a game, so who cares, right?
That's a ridiculous analogy. You're still in the card game. These
cast-offs are not.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-2ECA0F...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <ftr6cr$ttn$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > Well, if they're being sequestered somewhere, what does it matter if
>> > they know the elimination order? They can't tell anyone about it.
>>
>> The show finishes filming and the final TC vote is made...then months go
>> by
>> before the show airs on TV. These contestants are not sequestered for
>> those
>> months. Instead, they all return to their 'normal lives', so they most
>> definitely have opportunity to tell people what happened. The fewer
>> people
>> that know who actually made it to the end, the better.
>
> Last post it was about influencing other cast-offs. Now it's because the
> producers don't trust them to keep their mouths shut-- despite an
> ironclad contract with severe financial penalties for not doing so.
I'm just responding to the incorrect claim you made that the pre-jury boots
couldn't tell anyone the boot order even if they were allowed to stay at the
same lodging as the post-jury boots. You cannot claim that I changed the
subject when it is very clear from the quote above that my response is
directly to your comment.
>> >> Why would Survivor want the prejury members to
>> >> have opportunity to influence the jury?
>> >
>> > My question is, who cares? I mean, it's not like it really matters. No
>> > one's life or freedom is at stake. It's just a game show.
>>
>> So, if we play cards together, you won't mind if I thumb through the deck
>> and pick out the cards I want. Its just a game, so who cares, right?
>
> That's a ridiculous analogy. You're still in the card game. These
> cast-offs are not.
The castoff would STILL BE IN THE CARD GAME if they were allowed to mingle
with and influence the jury members. The jury IS part of the game.
Bigolhomo
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <0eovv3ptvqr7mnmf0...@4ax.com>,
> Bigolhomo <br...@whatever.com> wrote:
>
>> >How shallow Eliza is! What do I wear for the first appearance as a
>> >Juror? This? Or, this? I thought it was juvenile.
>>
>> Not everybody has a closet full of interchangeable muumuus like you do
>> dear. Some people actually put some effort into their appearance,
>> especially when they know it's being televised.
>
>...says the big ol' homo.
This wasn't clever the first time you said it, is there some reason
you feel the need to repeat it? Or am I supposed to be insulted by it
somehow?
--
Bigolhomo
Bigolhomo
>In article <ftr6kp$v9t$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> >> >> Anim8rFSK wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Although she *might* have gotten to go straight home. I think Jenna
>> >> >> did, but then she had a lot better reason.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't feel Jenna's reason for quitting was any more valid then Krazy
>> >> > Kathleen's, as Jenna knew her mom was sick with cancer when she
>> >> > signed up to be on S8 All Stars (and IIRC, her mom was already
>> >> > battling cancer when Jenna signed up to do S6 Amazon).
>> >>
>> >> Call it women's intuition then.
>> >
>> > How about we call it what it really is-- coincidence.
>>
>> there was no coincidence. In season 6 her mom had cancer. In season 8, by
>> the time she left to start filming, her mom was in a hospice. Jenna knew
>> very well that her mother was not likely going to live another 39 days. her
>> mom pushed her to go on the show anyway. Once she got there, she realized
>> that that wasn't what she wanted to do with her mom's final days.
>
>Well, then the original poster's comments stand. Why go on the show if
>you want to be with your mother in a time of crisis?
Which is exactly why she left, she realized she had made the wrong
choice. Going home to be with your dying mother is quite a vaiid
reason for quitting.
--
Bigolhomo
Obveeus
"Bigolhomo" <br...@whatever.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:25:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>...says the big ol' homo.
>
> This wasn't clever the first time you said it, is there some reason
> you feel the need to repeat it? Or am I supposed to be insulted by it
> somehow?
Elmo is flirting...or at least trying to flirt.
Jason Wuthrich
news:ANIM8Rfsk-03D5D...@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <Qu6Mj.181565$Si7....@fe08.news.easynews.com>,
> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> I don't feel Jenna's reason for quitting was any more valid then Krazy
>> Kathleen's, as Jenna knew her mom was sick with cancer when she
>> signed up to be on S8 All Stars (and IIRC, her mom was already
>> battling cancer when Jenna signed up to do S6 Amazon).
>
> Sure, although in hindsight, Jenna was right.
Ironically, it was Jenna's mother who convinced her to go on S8.
The Horny Goat
Steven L.
That's a very cynical way of looking at it. It sounds like you've never
been in that situation yourself.
When a loved one close to you dies, you may want to spend as much time
with her as possible before she departs this earth. That's not just to
make you feel good. It's a *duty* that you owe *her*. To be there when
it's her time to depart.
Steven L.
That's often the way it is when a parent is near death: Her first worry
is what will happen to her children after she's gone. In this case,
Jenna's mom wanted her to be happy and perhaps even wealthy afterward.
Cynics like Obveeus just don't understand the mutual duty that a parent
and child have for each other at this time. The parent is really trying
to push the child out of the nest: "Please go on without me." Whereas
the child sees it as her duty to be at the parent's side at the end.
I've been there, done that.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bKedneY0w85Vo5_V...@earthlink.com...
> Obveeus wrote:
>> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And how did that help her mother exactly ???
>>> IIRC, Jenna got back to her before she died.
>>
>> Yes, but even more to the point: Jenna didn't do it to help her mother.
>> Jenna did it for herself. She made the decision that trying for yet
>> another million wasn't as important to her as being with her Mom in the
>> final hour.
>
> That's a very cynical way of looking at it. It sounds like you've never
> been in that situation yourself.
There is nothing cynical about it. Jenna's Mom told her to go on the show,
to live her own life, to not let her illness get in the way of Jenna's own
plans. Jenna decided for herself that the best plan for her was to be with
her mom. Jenna did what she wanted for herself and her own peace of mind.
That doesn't make it wrong. That doesn't make it any less meaningful. It
just makes it the way life works. Jenna's mom was unconscious the whole
time and recieved no benefit from Jenna's return. Jenna, however, received
'peace of mind' for herself.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Cynics like Obveeus just don't understand the mutual duty that a parent
> and child have for each other at this time. The parent is really trying
> to push the child out of the nest: "Please go on without me." Whereas
> the child sees it as her duty to be at the parent's side at the end.
>
> I've been there, done that.
Living at home in your mom's basement doesn't make you a better person.
Your claims of having 'a higher understanding' of this situation are off
base.
D-W
D-W
D-W
Completely agreed.
Ed Stasiak
>> Steven L. wrote
I believe that Steven L. is older then me and I'm 40 years old and
while I don't know how old you are, from what you've said in the
past I'm guessing you're a young whipper-snapper.
So it's not really a case of "higher understanding" looking-down-
our-nose-at-you, it's just as Steven said; been there, done that.
My Mom is almost 86 years old and while she's thankfully healthy as
a horse (I was forced to "seize" her ladder, after I caught her cleaning
her gutters a couple of years back...) and she drives me up the wall
just about every time I see her, I still feel an innate duty towards her
that I wouldn't feel towards anybody else.
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> My Mom is almost 86 years old and while she's thankfully healthy as
> a horse (I was forced to "seize" her ladder, after I caught her cleaning
> her gutters a couple of years back...) and she drives me up the wall
> just about every time I see her, I still feel an innate duty towards her
> that I wouldn't feel towards anybody else.
Sure, but none of that has anything to do with Jenna's situation or Steven's
non-understanding of what I wrote.
The Horny Goat
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>That's a very cynical way of looking at it. It sounds like you've never
>been in that situation yourself.
>
>When a loved one close to you dies, you may want to spend as much time
>with her as possible before she departs this earth. That's not just to
>make you feel good. It's a *duty* that you owe *her*. To be there when
>it's her time to depart.
So if Jenna had done the right thing and said no to season 8 would you
have welcomed her on this season?
(Given my own mother departed all too suddenly rather than slowly this
is not something I'm able to discuss from any personal experience)
Bigolhomo
Is that what it is? Why didn't he just grab my crotch then? That
passes for flirting among gay men in LA.
--
Bigolhomo
Bigolhomo
You really need it explained to you why going home to be with your
dying mother should take precedence over being on a reality show?
--
Bigolhomo
Nova
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ufwMj.313616$ic2.1...@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>...I'm 40 years old...> My Mom is almost 86 years old...
That would make your mom 45 when you were born.
Back then, giving birth at that age was even more problematic than it is
now, so just tell your mom for me:
GO MOM!!!!
Ed, you keep on being the great son that you are, you and your mom both
deserve it.
Nova
Nova
"MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98e9df6f-b902-46c6...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/video/ponderosa.php
What am I doing wrong? When I click on this link, all I get is a 15 second
commercial for some product.
Nova
Obveeus
"Nova" <None> wrote in message
news:_IKdnQNTLKfwk57V...@earthlink.com...
Do you live in the USA? If not, the CBS content may be blocked for you?
Horny Goat? Other Canadians, can you guys see the CBS website videos?
Obveeus
"Bigolhomo" <br...@whatever.com> wrote in message
That might work in LA, but it is a bit harder to do over the internet.
Besides, not everyone is so forward. Some people still operate like little
kids in gradeschool, pulling the hair and calling names of the person they
most adore.
Anim8rFSK
"Nova" <None> wrote:
That happens first, and then the screen goes black while the clip loads.
The clip then slowly plays, in 10 second chunks, with about 30 second
pauses each time. It's a really really lousy site.
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
D-W
wrote:
Yes. Since my presence or lack of presence would not alter the
outcome, why go ???
Similarly, I have never understood the "need/desire" for family
members to gather in hospital waiting rooms when someone is sick or
having surgery. What is the point ???
alooo
"D-W" <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>You really need it explained to you why going home to be with your
>>dying mother should take precedence over being on a reality show?
> Yes. Since my presence or lack of presence would not alter the
> outcome, why go ???
He wrote "dying" not "dead" and since it's been well-documented that
positive energy/reinforcement/prayer can improve a patients' health, it
*could* make a difference being there. If I were out of the country and
somebody died, I wouldn't fly home to look at a box but if a loved one were
dying, I would absolutely want to be with that person, if not for their sake
then for my own. That said, it sounds like Jenna's mom was in bad shape
before she went to the island so she never should have gone.
> Similarly, I have never understood the "need/desire" for family
> members to gather in hospital waiting rooms when someone is sick or
> having surgery. What is the point ???
I'll agree with you on that one. It's one thing to be there when the person
wakes up but if it's going to be an 8 hour surgery, I'll come back in 7h
59m.
D-W
>
>"D-W" <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>You really need it explained to you why going home to be with your
>>>dying mother should take precedence over being on a reality show?
>
>> Yes. Since my presence or lack of presence would not alter the
>> outcome, why go ???
>
>
>He wrote "dying" not "dead" and since it's been well-documented that
>positive energy/reinforcement/prayer can improve a patients' health, it
>*could* make a difference being there. If I were out of the country and
>somebody died, I wouldn't fly home to look at a box but if a loved one were
>dying, I would absolutely want to be with that person, if not for their sake
>then for my own. That said, it sounds like Jenna's mom was in bad shape
>before she went to the island so she never should have gone.
"if not for their sake then for my own"
I am not trying to be argumentative, but what benefit would you get
from being with a dying person, and how would they benefit from your
being there ???
shawn
Two very important reasons. One, the person may be able to speak and
it may be your last chance to speak with that person. It may not
matter to you but most people want that chance even if nothing of
consequence is said. Secondly it's an opportunity to be there for the
person whether they know it or not, and whether anyone else knows
about it or not. As someone else said in this thread there's a sense
of duty/obligation that is served by being there. You may not feel
such a sense of duty but it seems that most of us do. I know I didn't
waste any time heading down to check on my parents when they had their
heart troubles even though it took me hours to get there. I wouldn't
have felt right if I hadn't been there for them, even though there was
nothing I could do and I couldn't even see them until after they got
finished with surgeries.
Obveeus
> In article <_IKdnQNTLKfwk57V...@earthlink.com>,
> "Nova" <None> wrote:
>
>> "MRS. CLEAN" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:98e9df6f-b902-46c6...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/video/ponderosa.php
>>
>> What am I doing wrong? When I click on this link, all I get is a 15
>> second
>> commercial for some product.
>>
>> Nova
>
> That happens first, and then the screen goes black while the clip loads.
> The clip then slowly plays, in 10 second chunks, with about 30 second
> pauses each time. It's a really really lousy site.
I've never had that problem. Sounds like you have a lousy computer and/or
internet connection.
D-W
wrote:
So it is a selfish notion with no benefit to the person doing the
dying.
>Secondly it's an opportunity to be there for the
>person whether they know it or not, and whether anyone else knows
>about it or not.
Again, sounds a bit selfish to me.
>As someone else said in this thread there's a sense
>of duty/obligation that is served by being there. You may not feel
>such a sense of duty but it seems that most of us do.
Not sure if you speak for "most" of Usenet, but I guess I was just
raised with differing values. I was not brought up to believe I
"owed" my relatives anything simply because we were related.
>I know I didn't
>waste any time heading down to check on my parents when they had their
>heart troubles even though it took me hours to get there. I wouldn't
>have felt right if I hadn't been there for them, even though there was
>nothing I could do and I couldn't even see them until after they got
>finished with surgeries.
This is the part I do not understand. There was no benefit to them,
no benefit to yourself, yet it cost you to be there. So all downside
and no upside that I can see.
Anim8rFSK
D-W <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So it is a selfish notion with no benefit to the person doing the
> dying.
I certainly hope you find out, first hand, and soon.
Ed Stasiak
>> shawn wrote
>>
>> Two very important reasons. One, the person may be able to speak
>> and it may be your last chance to speak with that person. It may not
>> matter to you but most people want that chance even if nothing of
>> consequence is said.
>
> So it is a selfish notion with no benefit to the person doing the dying.
You don't know that it will be of no benefit to the person who is dying
and it depends on how the person is dying.
If it's due to a sudden accident, then the dying person (and surviving
family/friends) almost assuredly wants to say good-by before they're
gone.
On the other hand, when my Dad was dying of emphysema, my Mom
and I went to the hospital everyday to see him and he was glad for that
but I got the feeling he didn't want us there when he actually passed
away (and we weren't, we got a call from the hospital around 3:00am
or so that he was gone).
But I know that _I_ do want my family and friends there when I kick
the bucket. If nothing else, I'd rather the last people I see be them and
not some random nurse or doctor.
Now after I gone it doesn't matter, but I've suggested to my buddies
that I'd like to be cremated and have my ashes shot out of a potato
gun over the Au Sable River.
>> Secondly it's an opportunity to be there for the person whether they
>> know it or not, and whether anyone else knows about it or not.
>
> Again, sounds a bit selfish to me.
I guess it's just a spiritual thing that you don't seem to feel (or maybe
you just haven't encountered it yet?) but if that's "selfish", then so be
it.
>> As someone else said in this thread there's a sense of duty/obligation
>> that is served by being there. You may not feel such a sense of duty
>> but it seems that most of us do.
>
> Not sure if you speak for "most" of Usenet, but I guess I was just
> raised with differing values. I was not brought up to believe I
> "owed" my relatives anything simply because we were related.
I'd say it's a safe bet that most people on the planet feel a duty towards
their family and friends to be there when they die.
Ed Stasiak
>> Anim8rFSK wrote
>>
>> That happens first, and then the screen goes black while the clip loads.
>> The clip then slowly plays, in 10 second chunks, with about 30 second
>> pauses each time. It's a really really lousy site.
>
> I've never had that problem. Sounds like you have a lousy computer
> and/or internet connection.
Yeah, sounds like the problem is on your end, Anim8rFSK. Both vids
worked fine for me also.
Obveeus
There is a reason that they always show a byte missing from that Apple.
D-W
wrote:
>> D-W wrote
>>> shawn wrote
>>>
>>> Two very important reasons. One, the person may be able to speak
>>> and it may be your last chance to speak with that person. It may not
>>> matter to you but most people want that chance even if nothing of
>>> consequence is said.
>>
>> So it is a selfish notion with no benefit to the person doing the dying.
>
>You don't know that it will be of no benefit to the person who is dying
>and it depends on how the person is dying.
>
>If it's due to a sudden accident, then the dying person (and surviving
>family/friends) almost assuredly wants to say good-by before they're
>gone.
>
>On the other hand, when my Dad was dying of emphysema, my Mom
>and I went to the hospital everyday to see him and he was glad for that
>but I got the feeling he didn't want us there when he actually passed
>away (and we weren't, we got a call from the hospital around 3:00am
>or so that he was gone).
>
>But I know that _I_ do want my family and friends there when I kick
>the bucket. If nothing else, I'd rather the last people I see be them and
>not some random nurse or doctor.
Having been on both sides of this fence, I quite preferred having
no-one close to me seeing me in that state.
>Now after I gone it doesn't matter, but I've suggested to my buddies
>that I'd like to be cremated and have my ashes shot out of a potato
>gun over the Au Sable River.
>
>>> Secondly it's an opportunity to be there for the person whether they
>>> know it or not, and whether anyone else knows about it or not.
>>
>> Again, sounds a bit selfish to me.
>
>I guess it's just a spiritual thing that you don't seem to feel (or maybe
>you just haven't encountered it yet?) but if that's "selfish", then so be
>it.
Hence the question. I am trying to get the whole spiritual thing.
>>> As someone else said in this thread there's a sense of duty/obligation
>>> that is served by being there. You may not feel such a sense of duty
>>> but it seems that most of us do.
>>
>> Not sure if you speak for "most" of Usenet, but I guess I was just
>> raised with differing values. I was not brought up to believe I
>> "owed" my relatives anything simply because we were related.
>
>I'd say it's a safe bet that most people on the planet feel a duty towards
>their family and friends to be there when they die.
Why ??? What purpose or advantage is there to being there ??? Why
would anyone want to see another person whither into death ???
Obveeus
"D-W" <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why ??? What purpose or advantage is there to being there ??? Why
> would anyone want to see another person whither into death ???
So they can get first dibs on the person's stuff?
See, Steven, that was a cynical comment.
People visit the dying (and the dead for that matter) to get 'closure' and
to help them through their own grieving process. They want to be able to
tell themselves that they did what they could, even if that was nothing more
than witness the end. Even if you don't personally feel that way, is it
really beyond your ability to know/understand that most others do feel that
way?
The Horny Goat
>> What am I doing wrong? When I click on this link, all I get is a 15
>> second commercial for some product.
>
>Do you live in the USA? If not, the CBS content may be blocked for you?
>Horny Goat? Other Canadians, can you guys see the CBS website videos?
I haven't tried this past week but previously the answer was no.
However they WERE available via the Global TV site - I don't have the
URL at hand but Google 'Global TV Survivor' and you'll find it quick
enough.
D-W
No. That helps me understand a lot. That is exacly what I have been
seeking. If "most others" feel this need I guess I needed some reason
to understand it. I may not feel like "most others" very often but I
do make an effort to try to understand them...
alooo
"D-W" <D_D...@hotmail.com> wrote
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:56:04 -0700, "alooo" <u...@uh.net> wrote:
>>He wrote "dying" not "dead" and since it's been well-documented that
>>positive energy/reinforcement/prayer can improve a patients' health, it
>>*could* make a difference being there. If I were out of the country and
>>somebody died, I wouldn't fly home to look at a box but if a loved one
>>were
>>dying, I would absolutely want to be with that person, if not for their
>>sake
>>then for my own. That said, it sounds like Jenna's mom was in bad shape
>>before she went to the island so she never should have gone.
>
>
> "if not for their sake then for my own"
>
> I am not trying to be argumentative, but what benefit would you get
> from being with a dying person, and how would they benefit from your
> being there ???
I answered the second part of your question in my first sentence. Others
have since answered the first part, which includes getting closure for
yourself.
shawn
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> What am I doing wrong? When I click on this link, all I get is a 15
>>> second commercial for some product.
>>
>>Do you live in the USA? If not, the CBS content may be blocked for you?
>>Horny Goat? Other Canadians, can you guys see the CBS website videos?
>
>I haven't tried this past week but previously the answer was no.
You should probably be able to get around that block if you can find
an anonymous web proxy that is located in the USA. Off hand the only
one I can think of is http://anonymouse.org/ , but I think that one is
located in Germany. I'm sure there are some and looking it up on
Google should turn them up.
Nova
> "Nova" <None> wrote:
>> What am I doing wrong? When I click on this link, all I get is a 15
>> second
>> commercial for some product.
> That happens first, and then the screen goes black while the clip loads.
> The clip then slowly plays, in 10 second chunks, with about 30 second
> pauses each time. It's a really really lousy site.
>
Thanks, I tried again and finally got the first clip to play, but when I
tried to click on Replay, it wouldn't work.
I downloaded the second clip and while it was loading, I went to the
bathroom and when I came back it had already played, again, it wouldn't let
me replay it.
I give up.
Nova, living in USA, Pacific Northwest, using the cheapest dialup I could
find, so maybe that's the problem...
shawn
selfish??? maybe.. if the person that is ill doesn't recover then the
only benefit is to yourself (or to commiserate with other family
members.) If the person is able to communicate then you can talk with
them and help provide some moral support.
>
>>Secondly it's an opportunity to be there for the
>>person whether they know it or not, and whether anyone else knows
>>about it or not.
>
>
>Again, sounds a bit selfish to me.
So you would stay away because you aren't selfish? By going about your
normal life you are not being selfish? Anything we do can be made to
look selfish if you want to work at it.
>>As someone else said in this thread there's a sense
>>of duty/obligation that is served by being there. You may not feel
>>such a sense of duty but it seems that most of us do.
>
>
>Not sure if you speak for "most" of Usenet, but I guess I was just
>raised with differing values. I was not brought up to believe I
>"owed" my relatives anything simply because we were related.
I think I can safely say it's the most common feeling since it's the
one that I have heard from many people from a young age. It's in
literature, in TV and movies and it's what I've observed over and over
again. When my dad was in the hospital every other person in the
cardiac ward had family visit them. Many stayed there for hours on
end. So it sure seems to me that most people feel they should be there
with their relatives but it's not a reliable survey so feel free to
disagree with my thinking.
>
>>I know I didn't
>>waste any time heading down to check on my parents when they had their
>>heart troubles even though it took me hours to get there. I wouldn't
>>have felt right if I hadn't been there for them, even though there was
>>nothing I could do and I couldn't even see them until after they got
>>finished with surgeries.
>
>
>This is the part I do not understand. There was no benefit to them,
>no benefit to yourself, yet it cost you to be there. So all downside
>and no upside that I can see.
That's how you feel and that's fine. I got a great benefit from being
there. If I hadn't gone I would have felt awful even if no one said a
word. It's part of being a family member that you are there to help
support each other, and especially when someone is near their end.
It's okay if you don't feel that need, but I haven't found many people
that feel that way.
D-W
wrote:
I would not consider competing in a million-dollar game to be my
"normal life".
As I said, I do not understand. What was your "great benefit" ???
"It's part of being a family member" suggests you viewed your visit as
an obligation ???
The Horny Goat
>>That's how you feel and that's fine. I got a great benefit from being
>>there. If I hadn't gone I would have felt awful even if no one said a
>>word. It's part of being a family member that you are there to help
>>support each other, and especially when someone is near their end.
>>It's okay if you don't feel that need, but I haven't found many people
>>that feel that way.
>
>
>As I said, I do not understand. What was your "great benefit" ???
>
>"It's part of being a family member" suggests you viewed your visit as
>an obligation ???
My mother was taken in a heartbeat when struck down by a bus-sized RV.
I didn't have the chance for anything like what you describe.
My role was to do the eulogy (I've done ALL the family eulogies for my
parents and grandparents since I was 30 - this is part of the
responsibility of being the oldest of my generation) but otherwise got
through it.
The old timers here will recall there was a complicating factor that
made it especially hard which I don't feel like recounting for the
newbies' entertainment.
Would I have wanted those final moments? Yep. Given I was wanted for a
lucrative 3+ month contract out of the country at that time would I
have gone given her condition at the time? Likely not - though my
grandfather was on his last legs (of cancer just like Jenna's mother)
at the time my parents were scheduled to go to Hawaii (they had
non-refundable tickets and had saved for over a year). They went - and
he lasted another six months long after they get home.