 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ObveeusObveeus Date: Dec 23, 2007 18:32
Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
Sheesh, I atleast expected them to make it a 'to be continued' leg.
Do you think that the stupid 'extra task' will end up coming before a
bunching point so that it won't even matter?
|
| |
|
| | 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rich PiehlRich Piehl Date: Dec 23, 2007 18:35
Obveeus wrote:
> Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
Obviously whoever gave us that info was wrong...or was intentionally
misled by somebody
>
> Sheesh, I atleast expected them to make it a 'to be continued' leg.
>
> Do you think that the stupid 'extra task' will end up coming before a
> bunching point so that it won't even matter?
>
>
That would be my guess. After all they put the fast forward on a
non-elim...again.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
That's one of the problems in this country
The nuts don't know they're nuts.
|
| Show full article (0.64Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Ar QAr Q Date: Dec 23, 2007 18:37
>
> Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
>
> Sheesh, I atleast expected them to make it a 'to be continued' leg.
>
> Do you think that the stupid 'extra task' will end up coming before a
> bunching point so that it won't even matter?
>
There are one "to be continued" and two non-elimination legs.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: madams53madams53 Date: Dec 23, 2007 18:48
"Rich Piehl" NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:4WEbj.45$tQ5.37@newsfe07.lga...> Obveeus wrote:
>> Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
>
> Obviously whoever gave us that info was wrong...or was intentionally
> misled by somebody
>
>>
>> Sheesh, I atleast expected them to make it a 'to be continued' leg.
>>
>> Do you think that the stupid 'extra task' will end up coming before a
>> bunching point so that it won't even matter?
>
>
> That would be my guess. After all they put the fast forward on a
> non-elim...again.
|
| Show full article (0.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ObveeusObveeus Date: Dec 23, 2007 18:53
"Rich Piehl" NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>> Do you think that the stupid 'extra task' will end up coming before a
>> bunching point so that it won't even matter?
>
> That would be my guess. After all they put the fast forward on a
> non-elim...again.
Yep. The only good thing about that is that it increases the odds that the
next Fast Forward will be on an elimination leg. From TAR seasons past, the
trend is towards 1 of 2 FFs being on useful legs and about half of the
non-elimination legs to be followed up with a leg in which there is almost
zero chance at catching up (while the other half are followed up by bunching
points or another non-elimination leg).
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Barbara L SherrillBarbara L Sherrill Date: Dec 23, 2007 18:52
"Rich Piehl" NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:4WEbj.45$tQ5.37@newsfe07.lga...> Obveeus wrote:
>> Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
>
> Obviously whoever gave us that info was wrong...or was intentionally
> misled by somebody
>
>>
That somebody was Jonathan Littman who is an executive producer. He rarely
travels with the race.. he mainly does the editing.
|
| Show full article (0.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: zathraszathras Date: Dec 23, 2007 19:22
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:53:33 -0500, "Obveeus" aol.com> wrote:>
>"Rich Piehl" NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>
>> After all they put the fast forward on a
>> non-elim...again.
>
>Yep. The only good thing about that is that it increases the odds that the
>next Fast Forward will be on an elimination leg.
Didn't Phil say that this was the only Fast Forward in the race?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: deltadelta Date: Dec 23, 2007 19:55
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:32:12 -0500, "Obveeus" aol.com> wrote:
>
>Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
>
I could have sworn that Phil said that at the beginning of this
season. But seeing the responses from others I guess I am wrong. I
which I had kept my recording of the first show. Anyone still have it?
>Sheesh, I atleast expected them to make it a 'to be continued' leg.
>
>Do you think that the stupid 'extra task' will end up coming before a
>bunching point so that it won't even matter?
>
Probably not. As usual they will all bunch up. LIke tonight they were
all hours apart on the bus and they all caught up on the ferry.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael BlackMichael Black Date: Dec 23, 2007 20:23
"Obveeus" (Obveeus@ aol.com) writes: > Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
>
No, I think people here said there'd be no non-elimination legs.
Some of us were certain that Phil had said there'd be some this Race,
right at the beginning. And the debate was over who was certain
they'd heard right.
Michael
> Sheesh, I atleast expected them to make it a 'to be continued' leg.
>
> Do you think that the stupid 'extra task' will end up coming before a
> bunching point so that it won't even matter?
>
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Barbara L SherrillBarbara L Sherrill Date: Dec 24, 2007 00:05
"delta" somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:habum3l98i17dlpjckqngs7scgg92vlrib@4ax.com...> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:32:12 -0500, "Obveeus" aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Didn't they say that there would not be any non-elimination legs?
>>
> I could have sworn that Phil said that at the beginning of this
> season. But seeing the responses from others I guess I am wrong. I
> which I had kept my recording of the first show. Anyone still have it?
>
Phil said there were 8 elimination legs and from what Littman said in Pre
interviews about TAR 12... everyone assumed Littman was telling the truth
and it would be TBC legs...... Now we know not to listen to Littman.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
