Why? This is another of those "since we didn't see it, it must not have happened" arguments, and again, I don't think those stand up very well.Originally Posted by gizmo1;2219276;
The producers want dramatic people to stay to provoke controversy and interest in the show. Sending Marcel home early would have eliminated the provocateur who made the others react and kept the show interesting. It wasn't in their best self-interest to send him home.
Cliff, on the other hand, got physical. There was no sidestepping sending him home when that happened.
Any reaction from the others to Marcel getting caught and simply warned is pretty easy to exclude from the aired footage. We can't conclude nobody said anything simply because we weren't shown it.
I saw a cause and effect in those "superior" complaints. Cause: Marcel boasts about his superiority. Effect: People say "no, he's not superior." That doesn't prove either side right, but them answering his own claim of superiority doesn't automatically cast their comments into a light where they are "trying to act superior". It's a response, not an unprovoked reaction, and its usually only unprovoked actions where people get accusations of having a big ego tossed at them.Seems to me a lot of sour grapes from people who consistenly complained about how superior Marcel seemed to think he was, but who in the next breath said he wasn't the equal of them and didn't deserve to be there. So, who is acting superior?