TWoP Forums > 4-2: "There's No 'I' In Team" 2005.9.29

Full Version: 4-2: "There's No 'I' In Team" 2005.9.29

TWoP Forums > Current TWoP Shows > The Apprentice > The Apprentice General Gabbery

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

CrumbyButtons

Oct 2, 2005 @ 9:12 pm

From page 1:

Mouthy McBlabsalot [/quote]
Too perfect! Why exactly is she getting so much camera time? Did someone spill celery tonic on the footage of the other women? Every few minutes, there's Mouthy again. Seriously, there are others on the team, right?

I totally agree with Lucabella To me, as long as the car is green, it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a question mark. Either way, it looks to me like the car is the one that is full of envy because it's green. The question mark would only make it look like you are asking the car "Why are you green? Are you green with envy?"

I thought the morph from old to new was a neat idea, but since it went from b/w to color, I didn't really notice that the car morphed. I just noticed that it went from b/w to color. But then, I'm just wimmin folk, so I don't know much about the automobiles. (Actually, I really don't. I don't think it has anything to do with gender though, I just HATE driving.)

Thanks legaleagle44 - it's nice to know I'm not alone!

legaleagle44

Oct 2, 2005 @ 9:30 pm

But then, I'm just wimmin folk, so I don't know much about the automobiles. (Actually, I really don't. I don't think it has anything to do with gender though, I just HATE driving.)[/quote]

It's not a gender thing at all, CrumbyButtons. I'm a 44-year-old white male who hates driving, has never owned a car or even a driver's license (and has never had the desire to own either one), and knows next to nothing about cars--and cares even less about them!

AdrienneP

Oct 3, 2005 @ 12:02 am

Although it would be interesting to know if Chris ever really "got it." [/quote]
I'm sure he didn't. His post-axe cab ride was all about Markus and how terrible he was, etc. I know it's probably too soon after being fired to be a gracious loser, but jeez, he was almost obsessed with Markus. Not one word about how he might have done things differently or if he himself could have been wrong.

Had he kept his cool at the presentation, he would not have attracted negative attention from Trump, and he could have used that chip as a power play.[/quote]
Hmm... I'm wondering if this wasn't actually a clever move by Markus. Not that I agree with his method, you never disagree with your team in front of a client. But this is a competition, not a "normal" presentation. By speaking out, Markus was on record as disagreeing with the team, even before they knew if they won or lost. If they won, great, no harm that can't be fixed. But if they lose, he's armed with ammunition going into the boardroom that hey, I never agreed with this presentation and told them so. Everyone knows he disagreed, including Trump. So he's in a position to say, "I'm not responsible for this, I never liked the ideas," and it's backed up by his earlier statement.

Not to say that strategy isn't tricky; you are definitely pegged as disloyal and a traitor to your team, and you'd have to do some serious PR to get back in good graces, but it could be done.

Pundit

Oct 3, 2005 @ 1:54 am

Too perfect! Why exactly is she getting so much camera time? Did someone spill celery tonic on the footage of the other women? Every few minutes, there's Mouthy again. Seriously, there are others on the team, right?[/quote]
IMO, this is an easy one to answer: it furthers the story. Each episode has one or two themes/strories about interaction/friction among the wannabes; they probably need to edit it that way or we would just be watching a mish-mash.

The sad thing is, he had a big chip to use to great effect in the boardroom with the green/envy thing[/quote]
Hmmm, do you really think so, blocked? Overall, I agree that Markus had some rabbits he could have pulled out of his hat. But I don't think his "question mark fix" was really a fix at all, so not much of a chip. Now, if I recall correctly, he did protest the green envy tag line altogether (albeit his raising the issue at the client meeting was WAY out of line). So kudos to him for that. But it's not much leverage to be able to say in the boardroom: "I told them it was a lousy idea but no one would listen to me." Just shows that you have no respect from your teammates, that they won't listen to you even when you are right. I'm back to that little boy analogy, stomping his feet to get attention. Obviously not Trump material, although I doubt I need to say that to anyone here, LOL.

blocked writer

Oct 3, 2005 @ 6:11 am

Hmmm, do you really think so, blocked? Overall, I agree that Markus had some rabbits he could have pulled out of his hat. But I don't think his "question mark fix" was really a fix at all, so not much of a chip.[/quote]

I do think so, Pundit. Maybe "great effect" is an exaggeration, but I do think it was an advantage that he could have used much better in the boardroom. He'd just have to spin it right.

"I told them it was a lousy idea but no one would listen to me." Just shows that you have no respect from your teammates, that they won't listen to you even when you are right. [/quote]

If he left off the part about no one listening to him, and just stated that he was the only one to have a problem with the idea, I do believe it would have been effective. IIRC, the clients specifically mentioned the green car as one of the things they disliked, so it was something that could show Trump he had an idea worth considering.

The overall presentation was wanting (though I did like the morphing car), and the question mark wouldn't have saved them. But savvy use of mentioning his dissenting opinion would have looked so much better in the boardroom than at the presentation. He would have achieved the same goal - letting Trump know that he was right and his teammates were wrong - without earning himself the disloyal tag.

But I don't think it's going to matter much in the end. There's been debate on whether or not the winner has a real job, or if it's mostly PR. But there's no doubt that PR is a part of it, and the winner needs to be articulate in interviews, promos, etc. When Markus blathered nonsensically over the phone on the first task to Trump, I believe he lost the competition right there. We'll see if he proves me wrong, but I wouldn't lay any odds on it.

pacestick

Oct 3, 2005 @ 9:22 am

Short point about Markus being marginilized for being a disruptive force. I believe that Trump saw it different this time because Markus was correct. Not only was he correct but one of the CHOSEN MEN (forget who they all look alike to me) aggreed that Marcus was right but that they would not listen to him to make a point. I think the driving factor in this case was that the item he thought was wrong was the exact item the ad ex picked up on when ripping the ad apart.

Also with this firing Trump is, I believe, attempting to make the show more interesting. He will not fire someone who, even though an idiot, was not at fault. This SHOULD prevent alliances from forming and making everyone perform to their best.

blackwing

Oct 3, 2005 @ 9:36 am

Pundit

Oct 3, 2005 @ 9:40 am

saavy use of mentioning his dissenting opinion [/quote]

I agree, although I don't think he's capable of "savvy." Even if he chose the right words, his tone would be wrong (that little boy again). Either way, of course he's never going to get the job. Aside from his lack of finesse and/or professionalism (the way he handled himself in the client meeting and boardroom), he lacks leadership (no one listens to him) and other skills (e.g., couldn't manage the traffic).

Pace, I think if Chris had skilllfully insisted to George that Marcus was not "marginalized" (a loaded term) but merely removed from a task he could not perform, it might have gone better for him (Chris).

tiggertwo

Oct 3, 2005 @ 10:18 am

Apprenticekid said:

Why not have a few ideas to present at some point during the interview? Eliminating ideas that the client dislikes is an incredible opportunity to not get killed at presentation. I love the fact that Markus HAD THE BALLS to speak up and “float” an idea. The frat boys took Donald's claim about Markus talking too much and made him a marked man, Period.

The whole claim about disloyalty on Markus' part is also a joke. The frat boys were abusing him this entire task and he fought back and spoke up. Wait a second Trumpy, I thought people were supposed to fight back. Josh said Markus needed to get some balls - well, it looks like the boys don't like Markus with balls.

Burnett is obviously twisting every bit of footage on file to portray Markus as they please. All that ridiculous background music whenever Markus talks is just too obvious. None of the other Candidates are treated to this kind of ridicule by Burnett's hacks.

Everyone is going to harp on the talking too much thing no matter what Markus does. These guys should have enough brain power to come up with something original on Markus, I am tired of the broken record.[/quote]

Okay, somebody has to say it: Markus, is that you? Welcome to TWoP!

Nutjob

Oct 3, 2005 @ 11:01 am

Pace, I think if Chris had skilllfully insisted to George that Marcus was not "marginalized" (a loaded term) but merely removed from a task he could not perform, it might have gone better for him (Chris). [/quote]

ITA. Chris needed to use the same types of terms Kristi did to describe Melissa last week: distraction, negative, babysit. I don't think he conveyed well enough that that Markus kept screwing up everything he gave him to do, so he basically had to "bench" him.

That being said, I still don't think it would have kept Chris from getting fired. It was quite obvious that TD had made up his mind to fire either Chris or Mark, and the only way Chris was going to save his skin was to bring Mark into the BR with him. But since they're bff, that didn't happen.

Kate Monster

Oct 3, 2005 @ 11:03 am

From several pages back:

Chris was clearly fired because he failed to bring the right person with him to the final boardroom. I'm speaking of course of Randal. I mean, has ANY Apprentice ever checked out of a task more? I mean, he LEFT before the task was completed! I think it was a real failure on Chris's part to not pin the blame on Randal's shoulders where it belonged. Any candidate who really wanted to win would have sucked it up and stuck out the task, and Randal didn't. He left, and Chris gave up a prime chance to bring that up in the Boardroom, because I think Trump might have been mighty displeased with Randal's actions, had he been made aware of them.[/quote]
I actually got a good chuckle out of this--because I had (jokingly) thought the same thing when the episode aired. Especially since Trump is so inconsistent, it would have been hi-larious.

LAST YEAR:
Trump, second-to-last episode: "There's nothing wrong with crying."
Trump, finale: "I. DON'T. LIKE. CRYING."

THIS YEAR:
Trump, Week One: "Randal, we're going to let you go home for your grandmother's funeral."
Trump, Week Two: "Randal, you abandoned your teammates. I. DON'T. LIKE. QUITTERS."

Quiddler

Oct 3, 2005 @ 1:17 pm

His post-axe cab ride was all about Markus and how terrible he was, etc. I know it's probably too soon after being fired to be a gracious loser, but jeez, he was almost obsessed with Markus. Not one word about how he might have done things differently or if he himself could have been wrong. [/quote]
[Jan Brady]All everyone ever talks about is Markus! Markus, Markus, Markus![/Jan Brady] heh

Okay, somebody has to say it: Markus, is that you? Welcome to TWoP![/quote]
Oh, tiggertwo, thanks for saying what I didn't dare. <hee!>

Trump, Week One: "Randal, we're going to let you go home for your grandmother's funeral."
Trump, Week Two: "Randal, you abandoned your teammates. I. DON'T. LIKE. QUITTERS."[/quote]BWAH! and ... so true. Frankly, it wasn't that far outside the realm of possibilities, was it?

ConanGrammarian

Oct 3, 2005 @ 2:27 pm

Both movies were bad, but the women's movie got better about half way through it. The men's never did.

"The Return of italian Intimidation" sounded like they were heralding the return of Mussolini and the Brown Shirts. What's next, "Buy a BMW and we'll throw in Poland as a bonus?"

The Green with Envy poster sucked.

I think Trump had no choice in firing Chris. He was clueless not to pick up on the fact that Trump had already made up his mind to get rid of Mark.

As bad as Markus is, Chris failed to convince Trump that Markus is causing problems that are affecting the team's ability to perform (like Kristi did last week with Melissa and the "lost by one sale" argument).

Chris tried to copy Kristi's somewhat risky move last week with bringing in only one other person and it backfired.

auntiemame

Oct 3, 2005 @ 3:57 pm

Yeah, but they'll spend a couple grand on a pair of shoes that they were only occassionally....[/quote]

Okay, this is slightly off-topic, but important, especially on the point of the debauched spending habits of the sexes. Even the best shoes women's shoes rarely top $700 a pair. And that is absolutely blingabulous, rhinestone-studded Manolo Blahnik heels or croc-skin or python-skin or something. Run-of-the-mill 'expensive' women's shoes are more in the range of $300 to $500. That wouldn't even buy the tires on a Lamborghini.

I do agree with apprenticekid that Donald Trump's "Markus talks too much" comment basically allowed the frat boys to declare open season on Markus. None of them would have been so bold without Trump's example.

uranushertz

Oct 3, 2005 @ 4:48 pm

When I see Marckus on the next episode, I'm sure I'll be hearing the Little-House-on-the-Prairie Twangy music (remember, from Laura's fantasies about being rich and the Olsen's being poor?).

lauriecake

Oct 3, 2005 @ 6:22 pm

Trump, Week One: "Randal, we're going to let you go home for your grandmother's funeral."
Trump, Week Two: "Randal, you abandoned your teammates. I. DON'T. LIKE. QUITTERS."[/quote]

Hee, Kate Monster, I don't think anyone would be surprised if that actually happened.

scarletsmith

Oct 3, 2005 @ 6:43 pm

Check the Media thread for a link to Mark (Markus) Garrison's website that includes a pretty detailed description of the differences between the actual task and the final on-screen product. If this isn't just a "punk'd" stunt, I must say I've got a little more respect for Markus after reading it.

blocked writer

Oct 3, 2005 @ 7:29 pm

The thing about being marginalized though, is that to me it indicates that no one wants to work with you, or that you can't work with others. If every male PM from now on marginalizes Markus, his "it wasn't my fault because I was marginalized" defense doesn't really hold water with me. Does he get to skate by every week because someone else made a huge mistake, while he was merely marginalized?[/quote]

This is a good point, blackwing. Markus started off so poorly last week, and continued to mess up this week. The whole "Is there anything I can be doing better?" speech he gave in the first episode marked him as weak. It's one thing to ask for the team's opinion on a specific aspect of the task, or to brainstorm ideas. But it's another thing altogether to ask what he did, the way he did it. That kind of general question (almost pleading) showed just how insecure he felt. He was reluctant to step up in the first place, and I don't really blame him for that, because it is difficult to be the first PM on your team.

But he should have sucked up his insecurities. I think his bad showing last week made him determined that he would turn it all around this week. But he was so hyper and anxious to prove himself that he kept stumbling throughout the task. I don't know if it would have helped him that much in the long run, but if he could have chilled out a bit, (like accepting the rejection of "smooth as silk" with good grace), he would have been out of the line of fire, and bought himself a bit more time.

Oh well, I must stop obsessing about what might have been in this scenario. I just wish for once, the contestants would bring some consistently high-level competition.

ETA:

I just clicked on the link for Markus's website, and I didn't get to the details of the task, because the writing on the front page gave me a headache. I don't think he's doing himself a favor with that site.

tiggeril

Oct 3, 2005 @ 7:38 pm

"The Return of italian Intimidation" sounded like they were heralding the return of Mussolini and the Brown Shirts. What's next, "Buy a BMW and we'll throw in Poland as a bonus?"[/quote]
All the potato-and-cheese pirogi I can eat? I am so there.

RainbowRat

Oct 3, 2005 @ 10:07 pm

Pundit

Oct 4, 2005 @ 12:01 am

I just wish for once, the contestants would bring some consistently high-level competition.[/quote]
They never fail to amaze me with the errors they make. I guess I've just been around too long - it all looks pretty simple to me.

nubbs

Oct 4, 2005 @ 5:21 am

Did the losing team get to play with the Leafs?

WinkyDink

Oct 4, 2005 @ 4:09 pm

FWIW, I was just now perusing die-cast car sites and lo! There was a lime-green Lamborghini!
So maybe the guys knew something!

ETA: Thank you, Quiddler! I was remiss, as I was actually searching for the elusive white 1972 240-Z!

Quiddler

Oct 4, 2005 @ 4:19 pm

Oh, c'mon, WinkyDink! You can't tease us like that and not give us a link!

Ooooooh....pretty..... (hee!)

ETA: Hey! I just became a Video Archivist! I'd like to thank everyone *cough*realityrfamewhores*cough* who helped make this possible. A special holla! to the (i)nimitable Markus, whose (i)talian (i)diocy (i)nspired me to make more than my fair share of posts this week. (snicker)

RDJisAOK

Oct 5, 2005 @ 1:37 pm

"The Return of italian Intimidation" [/quote]

That sounds like a really bad Indiana Jones movie title.

Funnyuntil

Oct 5, 2005 @ 1:43 pm

While watching this week's episode, I found myself trying to recall if Markus had been on the "Jack and the Beanstalk" project or on the "Hansel and Gretel" project.

This is sad. Very, very sad. I hope I'm not forced (in order to preserve some mental clarity) to choose between Trump and Martha.

ryan506

Oct 5, 2005 @ 2:00 pm

blocked writer:When Markus spoke up at the presentation and said he was the only one to disagree about the green sign, I thought it was incredibly disloyal. No matter what differences they had, I don't think anyone should say something like that in front of a client.[/quote]ITA as well. The whole point of being in a team is presenting a unified front, and if someone isn't on board with an idea, either they have to be persuaded to join in, or removed from the presentation so that they don't detract. The team is only as strong as its weakest link (to use a tired old cliche), and that is Markus without question. I doubt he's going to last much longer.

dleameadow

Oct 5, 2005 @ 4:14 pm

I liked this episode alot it reminded me of the glory days of Season 1 where the people on this show were friendly, and relatable. I do have two people who I wish were gone though.

Markus: One prays after this stupifying episode Markus will no longer grace our television screens. I did not think the other men were excluding him I mean even Trump (Trump who does everything in excess) though Markus was too much.

Kristi: Needs to shut up badly. If the rest of your team votes for the PM to be exempt just go along with it, because if not everyone will be looking at you as a person who is just being bitchy.

blocked writer

Oct 5, 2005 @ 6:09 pm

ITA as well. The whole point of being in a team is presenting a unified front, and if someone isn't on board with an idea, either they have to be persuaded to join in, or removed from the presentation so that they don't detract. The team is only as strong as its weakest link (to use a tired old cliche), and that is Markus without question. I doubt he's going to last much longer. [/quote]

This is what perplexes me, ryan506 - it shouldn't be that hard for the contestants to figure out that when they're still in team mode on a task, they should be working together as well as they possibly can. When they get to the boardroom, they become competitors again.

Sometimes they get so busy undermining and plotting against each other, they seem to forget that if they lose, ANY of them could get fired. They don't have to agree with everything that goes on, but they should always be united in front of a client. As tiresome as Chris's sports analogies were (rowing the boat in the same direction), he had a good point. Whether or not they like each other, whether they resent the PM, what the hell ever conflicts may arise, they need to get over it, quick. They'll have enough time to air that stuff in the boardroom, as they should.

ETA:

I think the ability to work together for a win is the quality that ultimately enabled Kendra to win last season. Tana and Craig treated her like crap on a couple of occasions (especially Craig). Despite that, Kendra was able to keep her eye on the ball, and she even won a task when it was just her and Craig on the team.

ConanGrammarian

Oct 5, 2005 @ 6:21 pm

"The Return of italian Intimidation" sounded like they were heralding the return of Mussolini and the Brown Shirts. What's next, "Buy a BMW and we'll throw in Poland as a bonus?"[/quote]

RainbowRat: Bwah!!! But I'd rather have the Sudetenland.[/quote]

Will you take a Czech?

Sometimes they get so busy undermining and plotting against each other, they seem to forget that if they lose, ANY of them could get fired.[/quote]

The problem is that if they continue to dominate the opposing team, some them will be arbitrarily transferred to the losing team via some elementary school playground team choosing methodology.

So, what's the use of building a strong cohesive team that might become your opponent in four or five weeks?

Even if you're a strong team player, you could end up on the other team - depending upon what method Trumpy choses this season to shuffle the teams.

I hate to advocate Survivor-esque tactics, but you're better off building a strong core clique within your team and having a few sheep to throw to the wolves when the time comes.

Rose Dawn Scott

Oct 5, 2005 @ 6:53 pm

I hate to advocate Survivor-esque tactics, but you're better off building a strong core clique within your team and having a few sheep to throw to the wolves when the time comes.[/quote]

I can see the logic in that, but on the other hand, the teams are going to get shuffled at some point, one way or the other. If Trump's looking for a Team Player, he's going to keep his eye out for someone who can work well with whomever his/her teammates are (Pamela's downfall, back in her day).

There's also no guarantee your inner circle will stay together through the merge -- Trump decides who's going, even if the whole team agrees on who *should* go (Chris's downfall, last week).

Trump really did everything short of begging Chris to bring Mark in there, didn't he? I've decided I don't like Mark even worse than I didn't like him when he came up with the envious green car idea. Boo, hiss, bah, humbug.

blocked writer

Oct 5, 2005 @ 7:04 pm

So, what's the use of building a strong cohesive team that might become your opponent in four or five weeks?

I hate to advocate Survivor-esque tactics, but you're better off building a strong core clique within your team and having a few sheep to throw to the wolves when the time comes.[/quote]

I get your point, and that's a way to go, but I just can't agree that it is the best plan. If you are able to build a cohesive team and a few people get switched in a corporate reshuffle, that original team isn't the same strong team. For that matter, the strongest people could be switched with you. Or maybe not, but that's the point, you never know what's going to happen.

One of the reasons for going out there and doing your best each time as opposed to forming cliques is that the so-called weak link(s) might soon be your PM, or you migh get traded with them. The problem with plotting against certain people is that it can easily become a vicious cycle - they can become motivated to plot against you, AND they might be more successful. It can also cause peeple to make the wrong choice, like Chris did by leaving Mark in the suite and only taking Markus in the boardroom.

JMHO, but I think people should go all out every week trying to kick the other team's ass, even if that team consists of people who were former teammates of yours.

ConanGrammarian

Oct 5, 2005 @ 7:11 pm

...the teams are going to get shuffled at some point, one way or the other. If Trump's looking for a Team Player, he's going to keep his eye out for someone who can work well with whomever his/her teammates[/quote]

It's still up in the air whether Trump wants a "team player" or someone who can dominate the other players in a way that makes them think he/she is a team player.

I'll amend my earlier tactic to "build a strong core clique of players from both teams."

Mind you, I'm not advocating plotting against certain players - that's a negative and a sure-fire way to lose focus on winning. I'm just saying you shouldn't focus on making the whole team strong - you'll end up spending too much time on the Markuses, Omarosas, and Ivanas if you do and end up getting fired while they last until the late rounds.

Focus on building a core clique of allies that will help your team (whichever one you're on) win enough that you can stay in the game until the last few rounds (when, unfortunately, they'll be your strongest opponents - but you're "one of a million applicants" so some competition shouldn't scare you).

Scherzo

Oct 5, 2005 @ 7:35 pm

"The Return of italian Intimidation" [/quote]
Have none of these people heard of the Chicago Manual of Style? Or even passed English grammar?!

YouKnowMeAl

Oct 5, 2005 @ 8:22 pm

I can't wait to see what Alla wears tomorrow night. Shre's living proof that crack whores shop at Marshall's. Why does she want to work for Trump anyway, she's already got more money than a major league ball player. She is a gutsy take charge type and I wish her luck

RainbowRat

Oct 5, 2005 @ 8:26 pm

Will you take a Czech?[/quote]

*cough*hack*wheeze*snarf*giggle* Thank you Conan. I am your slave.

I recall when Boyfriend Bill made his first guest appearance on App 2, in the restaurant episode, he warned Jen C that "This is not a game [which it is, as Miss Alli pointed out but whatever]. You can't form alliances." Looked like a pointed reference to Survivor.

Rather than forming alliances, I would argue that the best way to make it to the final four would be to submerge your ego during the task, keep focused on the win, and do your best not to badmouth your teammates, either to other teammates or to the cameras. Either that or be the chick that Trump most wants to nail.

Rosebud1970

Oct 6, 2005 @ 5:54 pm

"Buy a BMW and we'll throw in Poland as a bonus?"[/quote]

BWAH!!!

welcomematt

Oct 6, 2005 @ 7:00 pm

blocked writer

If you are able to build a cohesive team and a few people get switched in a corporate reshuffle, that original team isn't the same strong team. [/quote]
I agree with this, and there's also another advantage that I think is yooge. Trump, Carolyn and George are not only looking for an apprentice; they are looking for a natural leader. A natural leader is someone who brings a bunch of people together for a common purpose. To not bring a team together as a cohesive unit just because they may no longer be a team is to miss the bigger picture, IMO.

Remember last season when Jen M, for the first half of the season, seemed to be respected by her colleagues? Even in the boardroom, I remember Ivana (!) saying that Jen M was level-headed and diplomatic. Jen M's 'fatal' mistake was to lose the good opinion of her teammates. When she started arguing with Ivana, and let her know she disliked her, Ivana turned on her, the alliance of Kevin, Ivana and Kelly was formed, and it was the beginning of the end for Jen M. A smart strategist on this show would never, ever let their teammates know their personal opinions about them because it becomes a weakness that can be exploited. Ivana's entire focus after Jen M. took her on was to denounce Jen M. out of the game completely. Ivana forgot she was trying to become an apprentice, and just wanted to beat Jen M. for the sake of beating her. And Jen M. is the one responsible for this dynamic, because up until that point, Ivana didn't seem to mind Jen M.

I think that making the team look good is more important than making yourself look good, because one follows naturally from the other. Look at Kwame from Season I. He seems to be a natural leader in this narrowly defined sense. Kwame did not have overwhelm me with creativity, or any other positive business trait except for what I'm talking about here. Everyone on the show seemed to like him, except for that brief kerfluffle about his pretending to be a celebrity early on. But he didn't offend people; he didn't create alliances, and by and large, people respected him. So in spite of not having a great idea, or even working terribly hard, he made it to the final 2.

tiggeril

Oct 6, 2005 @ 8:02 pm

Sneaking this in before the ep starts (hopefully): Trump's pronunciation of Lamborghini KILLS me.

Lamb-or-gini. Ugggh.

Rodney

Nov 14, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

I can't remember his name, but the guy who got fired first either last season or the one before, he complained that he wasn't given anything to do and he was marginalized. IIRC he got fired because George or Carolyn pointed out that he should have had more initiative and made sure he had something to do.[/quote]
You're talking about Rob from season 2.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.