Keith

[croftchrism]

I am not so sure.. it would really work though.. I think Scott is playing the honesty card as much as Keith is playing it but when it comes down to it, either of them would pick D/T. Basically.. it is bunch of nothing... nevertheless, interesting to watch.

Given that the guest have no idea how the winner is to be picked, the honesty card is a good one to play. For all the guest know, the winner could be picked by who can play with their nails the longest, then Charla would win, or on how many guys you hooked up with, Tara, etc... This show is so random that I really don't care who wins since I am sure to see Keith for at least 2 hours tonight!!! Other then that, its really not that important. Tara, Charla, Keith, Dave.... It is pretty much all becoming the same for me. At least Zach isn't going to win...

[Stargazer]

I posted this elsewhere but I'll throw in my two cents.
To be honest, I think that Keith was genuinely surprised at Pandora's Box when Dave waffled over who he would vote for. However, I think that Keith thought he might as well play up the honesty card since it had been dealt to him. I think he figured that it was one way to get a few points with Scott.

[Stargazer]

Tara, Charla, Keith, Dave.... It is pretty much all becoming the same for me. At least Zach isn't going to win...

I'm wouldn't be devasted no matter which of the final 3 couples win. I am rooting for Scott and Holly the least, because I really dont like Holly. Between the other two couples, though, I can see reasons why both should win.

[croftchrism]

I posted this elsewhere but I'll throw in my two cents.
To be honest, I think that Keith was genuinely surprised at Pandora's Box when Dave waffled over who he would vote for. However, I think that Keith thought he might as well play up the honesty card since it had been dealt to him. I think he figured that it was one way to get a few points with Scott.

Agreed. I don't think his genius was planned in advance. While he was doing it, I didn't think it would work, but low and behold, he swayed Scott to his side.

[RubenFan#205]

this still begs the question.. who wrote that question in the first place ?

Keith ? Tara ? Amy ? Scott ?

[calhoun]

I think that he is playing up to the idea of honesty in the game. I can't remember on what eposide it was, but the original guest said something along the lines of if you want me gone, tell me to my face (sorta like Toni did with Dave, but contradicted with Charla!). I think Keith was trying to say that although if he gets the power, he would vote off Scott, but wow, look at how honest he is and Scott should keep him due to his honesty! Strangely, it seemed to work! Keith is hot and smart!!! Break me off a piece of that!

I agree completely. Keith felt betrayed by Dave in Pandora's box not b/c he actually thought that Dave would vote him off first but because, in his mind, Dave was shady (yes, I said shady) with his answer about whom he would vote off in order to win bonus points with Scott in case Scott had a say in the next elimination. Keith went to Scott to neutralize that threat and make sure Scott kept Dave's shady answer in mind if Scott somehow had the power to choose between him and Dave. At that point, Keith was not asking Scott to give him the "power", because all of this happened before Amy's elimination and before anyone knew that there was a "power" to be had.

[RubenFan#205]

Agreed. I don't think his genius was planned in advance. While he was doing it, I didn't think it would work, but low and behold, he swayed Scott to his side.

I am not so sure, Scott would buy that. If I am Scott.. I would ask Keith.. hey.. since both you and I are honest man.. how about you give me your promise that you would keep me than I would do the same.. otherwise... the arguement doesn't even make sense.

[calhoun]

I am not so sure, Scott would buy that. If I am Scott.. I would ask Keith.. hey.. since both you and I are honest man.. how about you give me your promise that you would keep me than I would do the same.. otherwise... the arguement doesn't even make sense.

Ruben, your response implies that Scott had some sort of power that he didn't have. Scott didn't "buy" any of Keith's arguments -- he was playing his now lousy hand the best he could to stay in the game by using the honesty card himself. Scott knew that odds were that he and Holly were toast after it was confirmed that the person with vote-off power would be determined by vote of all the guests. At that point, he could either go to Dave, whom he doesn't trust at all and whom he knows is going to vote him off. Or, he could vote for Keith, with whom he could (and did) make a plea to Keith's ethics and guilt-trip him into picking Scott over Dave (Scott basically said to Keith, "I was honest and Dave was not. We've been talking big about honesty lately, but if you pick someone who's lied over someone who hasn't lied, then you're going back on everything you've been telling me about honesty.")

[Stargazer]

I am not so sure, Scott would buy that. If I am Scott.. I would ask Keith.. hey.. since both you and I are honest man.. how about you give me your promise that you would keep me than I would do the same.. otherwise... the arguement doesn't even make sense.

Keith's whole argument was that he was honest enough to tell Scott that he would stand by Dave. His whole honesty card would be gone if he agreed to vote for Scott.

[fluff]

As far as I can recall, Keith has not promised to keep Scott and Holly over Dave and Charla.
He actually said last episode that he didn't think he could vote DC out.
In booting Scott tonight, Keith could say that he is doing so out of fairness to Charla, there is no reason she should be booted because of trust issues between Keith and Dave.