After a night to think about this I find my feelings have not changed much. I'm still irate that their "privacy" included allowing former guests in give opinions and advice, under that pressure that's just AWFUL.
Here's some things I read I wanted to comment on:
"hey take it easy on Charla! Dave almost cost her everything, she's like 21 and a waitress? She has college to worry about, she has a family to worry about, she still lives at home with mommy, she needs to buy a house... [.....]
... if it wasn't for Dave she might not have been there for long, granted, but he DID almost cause her to get diddly squat last night so I feel no sympathy for him. I would've taken the money too, I would've gave him something after the show, but surely not half... that's just stupid."
Yes, that's right, no one else in the country has ever made it through waitressing and college without being given a quarter of a million dollars, so that's why she'd better take it. Much better than wasting all that time working, growing, and learning. Certainly much better than looking like a nice person and throwing half of it to someone who fed you in bed, held you when you bawled so hard you couldn't breathe, and loved you even in your robe and green face masque.
BTW, did Charla mention college? I thought she was worried about a house? It was funny that her family came into it too, because I believe what she said was that she wanted to buy herself a NICE house.
If Dave hadn't of been there, true, she would not have had the worry at the last couple of eleminations, because without Dave she would have been gone long before that, as you yourself pointed out.
The silliest part of the whole thing was that she could have given Dave half on the show and later said, Dave, I hate to do this, but I really think I may need some of that money. See, I want to do all these things, and after going over them with Charla Dave (who I feel wanted the gesture of her giving it, not the actual money) would have said "OK, I'll give you some of this money back."
"I know Dave was "playing the game" and all but he didnt play the game fairly....If you are on a 4 some, you dont lie, cheat or backstab the people that are in your group...not until you are in the final four at least...Then its "game on".....Which it is, A game."
What is "fair" in a game? Was it stated in the rules one must follw certian codes and ethics? That one must behave in a mannerly and orderly fashion? True, in the end ethics and morals DID matter, because it was a jury vote, but they didn't know it would end that way, and we can't really attack Dave for playing in a manipulative way (as did many of the others) when he followed the rules that they did have and played to win the GAME. GAME, not DATING SHOW.
Remind me not to play monoply with you. I'd rather not play with someone who didn't understand why I took money from them everytime they landed on my property. It's part of the game. Ways to use Monopoly's rules may be easily found for us, because we know ho wthe game is played and how it is won, they were not told those things and Dave simply played assuming it would be "last couple standing". He was wrong. It doens't make the way he played the game wrong.
"Second, another berating fest, wasn't that great (not) I was glad to here charla say that they haven't seen the tapes and she was sure alot of other things went on, that seemed to put the jury in there place. (smart girl)"
Yeah, because if she HAD viewed the tapes she would have seen Dave standing up for her, fighting for her, saying wonderful complimentive things about her, and even crying over her.
"I think sharing the money would have been going above and beyond. Every other reality game show makes alliances to get to the end but in the end the expectation is that only one will win."
This is NOT every other reality gane show. It was made CLEAR from the beginning that one COUPLE would win. They ASSUMED the COUPLE would be mates who had been together throughout the show. When one from EACH couple got the money that meant they could choose either to stay with what they had or split the prize with their other half of their original couple, like they thought they would have had to anywayz. The expectation was not that one individual would win. Note that what PH effectively did last night was NOT choose a couple TO win, but chose a couple OF winners. They picked two people and gave out two prizes, instead picking a couple and giving them one prize to split.
Ethics classes for years will have fun with this.
"And for those who think Keith's speech at the end was a bunch of crap-seriously, I think you should rethink that. I've seen a lot of fakeness in my life but this seemed really, honestly genuine."
Personally I thought it was funny. I actually believed he was taking a cheap shot at them and that they all bit the hook and swallowed the bait was hilarious. Then he came out with that claptrap about sending them all to Vegas. What?!
Now, if I had to select a couple to win the Paradise Hotel "game" based on their actions and how they played with the others (LOL), I would have granted the prizes to Keith and Scott. They played the game quietly and carefully without lying and backstabbing even when they were emotionally tense and frustrated as heck.