> shawn gmail.com> wrote in
> news:a7dh24t8mta662bfvfa7nk9guq9q0tf0it@4ax.com:
>
>

>>On 12 May 2008 12:56:30 GMT, JimH ccmhf.org> wrote:
>>
>>

>>>Vandar yahoo.com> wrote in news:3M%%Vj.45128$ye3.42716
>>>@fe119.usenetserver.com:
>>>
>>>

>>>>When you consider that Amanda made it to finale in both seasons she was
>>>>on, it becomes quite clear that she's a very good player of the game.
>>>>She not only deserved to be there, she deserved to win.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>
>>>All it proves is that Amanda is a great sidekick.

>>
>>No, it proves that she's a great player on her own. Able to make the
>>right alliances and do well enough at social and physical game to stay
>>in it till the end. Not many players can do that. Her only real
>>failing is that she doesn't know how to work the jury. If she had seen
>>the responses to her jury performance from China she might have done a
>>better job this season at working the jury. Certainly she probably
>>would have known how to work Cirie( tell her that Cirie was much
>>better than Parvati at the game and at manipulating people so it was
>>too much of a risk to bring her to the F2.) She might not have gotten
>>Cirie's vote, but she would have won more respect from Cirie and many
>>of the other members of the jury with that kind of response.
>>
>>
>>

>
>
> Anyone who is unable to convince not merely one but TWO juries does not
> deserve to win. Getting to F2 is not the same winning the game. That's half
> the game, and she failed it twice.