[quote=Dannyboy;55781]I makes perfect sense you don't remember it cause it was barely mentioned. I believe this happened on Inferno 3.[/quote]
Thank you, I will go watch, I vaguely remember this. Wasn't Ace in love with Kara?
[quote=LilysMom;55787]Thank you, I will go watch, I vaguely remember this. Wasn't Ace in love with Kara?[/quote]
Well, I'd guess in lust with her, as I would think other guys from the shows probably are , with her being a Playmate and all. I guess he was just more flirtatious with her or followed her around like a puppy more.
[quote=V1man;55744]There is a backstory for each of those incidents you mention, but the only one I know all the details of is the one involving Susie. In that case, production was largely to blame for what happened. You do not intrude into the private space of a married woman when she is asleep. Period. Never. Further, BMP would have lost more cast members than Susie if she had left the show.[/quote]How was production to blame for what occurred? Because they "let" Ace do what he did? That's silly. All of these people are put on these shows knowing full well they cannot get physical. I don't care if she was scared or married or what, you DONT get physical. Furthermore, if Susie is so upset by the sight of drunk twentysomethings doing silly things, she shouldn't show up to a challenge. Has she not seen an episode before, what does she expect? This reminds me of when Jo freaked out because people were in her bed the only difference is she handled it like an adult (and a crazy person, but that is besides the point) and didn't get physical. The statement about never intruding on the privacy of a married woman is inconsequential. So your saying if Susie hadn't been married then you would consider her behaviors in the wrong? So it's fine if Ace had done this to Beth or someone that wasn't married!?!??! Say what!!?!?!? It doesn't matter if your young, old, married, or single I think everyone should expect the silly drunken behavior on challenges, it's pretty much a staple of the show.
And don't even get me started on people saying that she felt "threatened". I don't buy that for a second. She was taken off guard and reacted poorly. She broke the no violence rule and that should have at least been addressed but as I've already stated I doubt Ace would have even pushed to send her home so whatever.
Wait what REALLY happened to Jo? I didn't understand why she flipped out. I thought it was because she was annoyed that everyone was getting drunk and sexual.
[quote=jhl182;56070]Wait what REALLY happened to Jo? I didn't understand why she flipped out. I thought it was because she was annoyed that everyone was getting drunk and sexual.[/quote]
Kina, Alton, and someone else (Danny?) found Derrick passed out on Jo's bed and they put chocolate syrup all over him and it got everywhere. Then when she found the mess she flipped out and everything just escalated from there.
It was Jo's first challenge, and it was done about 11 years after her season on the RW (RW San Francisco). I think the challenge culture in more recent years is a little different for those who did the earlier seasons of RW and RR and for her to come on so many years later for her first challenge, I can understand it being too chaotic for her. And being in a house of with majority of the 36 people getting wild like that can be a lot to deal with. Perhaps any wild party days she may have had were behind her. I wish she would have joined those people who were not participating in all the mayhem and tried out a few more days better before leaving.
[QUOTE]Furthermore, if Susie is so upset by the sight of drunk twentysomethings doing silly things, she shouldn't show up to a challenge. Has she not seen an episode before, what does she expect?[/QUOTE]
I think there's a difference between having a problem with drunk twenty-somethings and having an expectation that they will not loom over you while you sleep. Ace definitely violated Susie's personal space in this instance, and I will point out two other things--first, when you are awakened from a deep sleep, it usually takes a few moments before you become fully aware of your surroundings and conscious thought fully returns. If, in those seconds, you perceive that someone is attacking you (even if it's not an entirely logical perception) you might react. Second, we don't know Susie's history. There are some women, particularly women who have been known to be cast on these types of shows, for whom finding an unfamiliar man in or very close to their bed in the middle of the night could be a very unpleasant or even traumatic event.
Should it have turned violent in any way? No. But the key to me is that Susie had been sleeping. If she had just been sitting around and Ace drunkenly approached her and she hit him, that to me would be entirely different. People can't exert the same conscious control over their actions immediately after being woken up than they can while they're fully awake.
[QUOTE=Jayden;56062]How was production to blame for what occurred? Because they "let" Ace do what he did? That's silly. All of these people are put on these shows knowing full well they cannot get physical. I don't care if she was scared or married or what, you DONT get physical. Furthermore, if Susie is so upset by the sight of drunk twentysomethings doing silly things, she shouldn't show up to a challenge. Has she not seen an episode before, what does she expect? This reminds me of when Jo freaked out because people were in her bed the only difference is she handled it like an adult (and a crazy person, but that is besides the point) and didn't get physical. The statement about never intruding on the privacy of a married woman is inconsequential. So your saying if Susie hadn't been married then you would consider her behaviors in the wrong? So it's fine if Ace had done this to Beth or someone that wasn't married!?!??! Say what!!?!?!? It doesn't matter if your young, old, married, or single I think everyone should expect the silly drunken behavior on challenges, it's pretty much a staple of the show.
And don't even get me started on people saying that she felt "threatened". I don't buy that for a second. She was taken off guard and reacted poorly. She broke the no violence rule and that should have at least been addressed but as I've already stated I doubt Ace would have even pushed to send her home so whatever.[/QUOTE]
Jayden, there is just so much fundamentally wrong with the above, but I doubt you have even the slightest interest in the facts.
-- Of course it wouldn't be OK if Ace did it to Beth. She is also married, and given her training as a kickboxer, the result would have been far more than Susie's response.
-- But directly to your overall point, what I expect is for Bunim Murray's lead counsel to admonish the challenge executive producer, Justin Booth, to closely follow the Game Show Act and California law in the conduct of their contracted parties engaged in the making of an entertainment program. I further expect the producers to fully live up to there own obligations to provide on-site security as stated in the cast contracts.
-- Whether or not you "buy" info anything is not particularly relevant. Under common law, every person is entitled to reasonable and proportional self-defense. Given that the producers knowingly created an environment allowing for such behavior as you described as common on challenges, it stands only as ripe fruit to be plucked before a jury in a civil suit against BMP. What happened during I3 is a direct result of potential litigation that remained squarely in front of BMP as that challenge began. Susan Meister's response was 1) within the bounds of her contract, and 2) proportional, under the law, to the situation encountered.
[quote=V1man;57219]
-- Whether or not you "buy" info anything is not particularly relevant. Under common law, every person is entitled to reasonable and proportional self-defense. Given that the producers knowingly created an environment allowing for such behavior as you described as common on challenges, it stands only as ripe fruit to be plucked before a jury in a civil suit against BMP. What happened during I3 is a direct result of potential litigation that remained squarely in front of BMP as that challenge began. Susan Meister's response was 1) within the bounds of her contract, and 2) proportional, under the law, to the situation encountered.[/quote]
I still dont understand how Susie's response could have been within the bounds of her contract. I can understand your position now since clearly you represent or represented Susie but unless her contract stated that when she [B]reasonably[/B] felt in danger she could use physical violence then she did violate such clause. Even if the contract did have such a clause, what is reasonable is not what she felt was reasonable but what the average person would've felt it was reasonable under the same circumstances. Given all the circumstances and Ace's relatively calmed character I cannot picture a civil jury concluding that Susie's reaction was reasonable, and this is assuming that the contract even provide for this.
As for the potential civil suit agaisnt BMP at least when it comes to this instance I think it would've been interesting to see BMP submit as evidence in a court of law the video of Susie's conversation with Ace in which she tells him "if I tell you to leave my bed 3 times and you dont leave how am I supposed to make you leave?" I guess that shows how proportional her reaction was. To me that conversation clearly shows what her real intent for hitting Ace was and that was to force him to leave, to [B]make[/B] him leave.
Also, while under common law every person is entitled to reasonable and [I]proportional defense [/I]it is also true that a contract is law between the parties and by virtue of entering into a contract anyone can willingly give up rights afforded to them by the law. That is why I insist that what matters is what the contract says and if the contract makes an exception for those situations in which the person feels like they are being threatened. Anyone representing Susie would have had a hard time trying to convince a jury that she was actually in danger or that it was reasonable for her to feel that she was actually in danger. Unless the intent is to set aside the contract, principles of common law would be irrelevant.
I usually agree with a lot of your positions [B]V1man [/B]but on this one I don't. Yes I know you know a lot more than I do about what hapenned here but at least when it comes to the legal aspect of this, as a fellow attorney myself (both civil and common law educated) I feel equally prepared to analyze the situation and it is my opinion that if you represent Susie, this would not be a case that would have had good chances of winning. Then again, what the contract (the law between the parties) states is key and noone has stated that there were any exceptions for the no violence clause.
[QUOTE=Dannyboy;57327]I still dont understand how Susie's response could have been within the bounds of her contract. I can understand your position now since clearly you represent or represented Susie but unless her contract stated that when she [B]reasonably[/B] felt in danger she could use physical violence then she did violate such clause. Even if the contract did have such a clause, what is reasonable is not what she felt was reasonable but what the average person would've felt it was reasonable under the same circumstances. Given all the circumstances and Ace's relatively calmed character I cannot picture a civil jury concluding that Susie's reaction was reasonable, and this is assuming that the contract even provide for this.
As for the potential civil suit agaisnt BMP at least when it comes to this instance I think it would've been interesting to see BMP submit as evidence in a court of law the video of Susie's conversation with Ace in which she tells him "if I tell you to leave my bed 3 times and you dont leave how am I supposed to make you leave?" I guess that shows how proportional her reaction was. To me that conversation clearly shows what her real intent for hitting Ace was and that was to force him to leave, to [B]make[/B] him leave.
Also, while under common law every person is entitled to reasonable and [I]proportional defense [/I]it is also true that a contract is law between the parties and by virtue of entering into a contract anyone can willingly give up rights afforded to them by the law. That is why I insist that what matters is what the contract says and if the contract makes an exception for those situations in which the person feels like they are being threatened. Anyone representing Susie would have had a hard time trying to convince a jury that she was actually in danger or that it was reasonable for her to feel that she was actually in danger. Unless the intent is to set aside the contract, principles of common law would be irrelevant.
I usually agree with a lot of your positions [B]V1man [/B]but on this one I don't. Yes I know you know a lot more than I do about what hapenned here but at least when it comes to the legal aspect of this, as a fellow attorney myself (both civil and common law educated) I feel equally prepared to analyze the situation and it is my opinion that if you represent Susie, this would not be a case that would have had good chances of winning. Then again, what the contract (the law between the parties) states is key and noone has stated that there were any exceptions for the no violence clause.[/QUOTE]
Your assumption is flawed at its foundation. I do not now, nor have I ever represented Susie. In the course of another legal matter, I did find it necessary to interview -- pre-deposition -- several people from I3 because the actions of BMP were relevant to another civil matter. Further, I have the advantage of having the specific contract language available to me in addition to notes of conversations between myself and BMP's counsel. I am convinced that BMP's decision process during I3 was driven by lessons learned from a prior incident and by their concern for the company's massive vulnerability to (still) pending litigation.
A minor point... under California Title X, the cast is literally held hostage (in re: Jo's call to local police at the beginning of G2) by the producer. Any harassment as the elements may indicate of one cast member to another is the responsibility of the mutual contracting party (the producer). A group of Stanford women law students and I made this the basis of a complaint on behalf of the hostage parties to CBS during Big Brother 4. The result was that the "Four Horsemen" were admonished in the Diary Room to cease all harassing behavior.
I was just watching this.
Coral, please come back to a challenge!
[url=http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/88640/corals-interview.jhtml#id=1532342]Coral's Interview | Video | MTV[/url]
Okay I want to say this about the Inferno 2.
I don't understand why Derrick was upset at Jodi for putting Veronica in the Inferno. All she(and the rest of the good guys team) did was play the game and outsmarted them. The Bad Asses really had no right to be upset anyway's being that they did some shady crap themselves.
That is all.
[quote=Debut Album;65295]Okay I want to say this about the Inferno 2.
I don't understand why Derrick was upset at Jodi for putting Veronica in the Inferno. All she(and the rest of the good guys team) did was play the game and outsmarted them. The Bad Asses really had no right to be upset anyway's being that they did some shady crap themselves.
That is all.[/quote]
I think Derrick just got caught up in his teammates sprouting off about how shady she was for doing that. And Dan said how everything was so peaceful and respectful between the two teams, and that vote changed everything.
I don't think it was shady at all. And I'm someone who thinks Julie is a shady person. But I thought she was being smart and sensible when she thought of that. The GGs could have picked whoever they wanted, the team was split in their decision, and they decided to work it so that whoever was picked could chose who they wanted to. Simple as that. Someone had to be picked anyway. What was shady was the BA team blocking the GG team canoe during that one mission, that's what was shady.
[quote=RW561015;65465]I think Derrick just got caught up in his teammates sprouting off about how shady she was for doing that. And Dan said how everything was so peaceful and respectful between the two teams, and that vote changed everything.
I don't think it was shady at all. And I'm someone who thinks Julie is a shady person. But I thought she was being smart and sensible when she thought of that. The GGs could have picked whoever they wanted, the team was split in their decision, and they decided to work it so that whoever was picked could chose who they wanted to. Simple as that. Someone had to be picked anyway. [B]What was shady was the BA team blocking the GG team canoe during that one mission, that's what was shady.[/B][/quote]
Exactly! That's what pissed me off so much about the Bad Asses getting mad at the Good Guys. At the end of the day they had no right to be pissed because they have done some shady in the game too. Who are they to get mad?
I was so happy that the BA lost. In the end they deserved to.
[quote=Debut Album;65497]Exactly! That's what pissed me off so much about the Bad Asses getting mad at the Good Guys. At the end of the day they had no right to be pissed because they have done some shady in the game too. Who are they to get mad?
I was so happy that the BA lost. In the end they deserved to.[/quote]
There you go. Cinderella wins, I tell you. LOL.
If you go to the real world/road rules videos on Google, it'll take you to this website that has a bunch of old videos. It has the full season of Battle of the Seasons and Battle of the Sexes 2. I started watching the challenge when I was in 7th or 8th grade. It was the challenge 2000 when Veronica and Amaya hated each other. I also remember this challenge for the sheer genius that Heather B. was. I don't understand why shes never been back! She was a good competitor and seemed like she really wanted to win.
Coral and Evan were an awesome duo..They brought they best out of the other..Also, if Coral were in Duel 2 i dont think Evan would be as stressed they seemed like the best of friends..i loved them together!!
Evan saying sweet stuff about Coral, back in the day...
[url=http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/98165/evans-interview-why-corals-so-powerful.jhtml#id=1536252]Evan's Interview: Why Coral's So Powerful | Video | MTV[/url]
[quote=Ms. Dynasty;65559]Coral and Evan were an awesome duo..They brought they best out of the other..Also, if Coral were in Duel 2 i dont think Evan would be as stressed they seemed like the best of friends..i loved them together!![/quote]
Yes, they were a great duo, but after G3 I don't know if Coral would have been chummy with him. He might have been more stressed with her there!
[quote=RW561015;65581]Yes, they were a great duo, but after G3 I don't know if Coral would have been chummy with him. He might have been more stressed with her there![/quote]
If you could please clarify on what happend on G3 with the 2, I can't recall what happend..
[quote=Ms. Dynasty;65591]If you could please clarify on what happend on G3 with the 2, I can't recall what happend..[/quote]
How do you not recall, did you watch any of it? He threw Her, Katie, and Beth under the bus. They called it "trim the fat" and it was said on every episode of the season. I love Evan but watching that was unbearable, especially after seeing how he treated Coral. I forgave him though.
Coral was really hurt by Evan especially being with the others in plotting all of this, since she considered him a friend. And with her being a feminist, it had to bother her even more to watch the show and see \Evan & Kenny go on and on over and over about the women and how useless they were and how they wished they could leave them buried (or whatever mean things they said that they thought was funny).
Can someone please explain to me why they don't consider Diem weak? I doubt that she would beat anyone in any physical challenge... except for like Brooke, but i really believe that they let her slide by in the duel because of the whole cancer thing which i can understand because no one wants to look that insensitive. But on g3, she didn't do anything to prove herself. Coral, Katie, and Beth would have taken her out.
Pages