JEDI

Same here.

Pretty simple, really. When casting agents run into good-looking, interesting people while they are out and about, or looking for people for other shows, they give them a short little informal interview, then ask them if they'd be interested in being on a reality TV show called Big Brother. If they are, then they are asked to come in when the more extensive interviews take place, as if they've been selected from the pool of candidates. (There are some exceptions, who are hand-picked for novelty reasons, like Rachel's sister Elissa, or Russell Hanz's brother Willie, or Jeff and Jackie from The Amazing Race.) How do we, the viewers, know if they were recruited? It invariably comes out on the live feeds, when houseguests talk about production (which they know they are not allowed to do, but unable to resist, due mostly to boredom). So someone will mention first-round interviews, and the recruited houseguest(s) will mention they skipped that step, etc.

One of the remaining three WILL be your winner. Who you WANT to win, and who you THINK will win, are not always one and the same. So plesae vote in the poll to let us know what you think.

Either Steve or Vanessa will win Final HoH. Then they will either take each other, or pick Liz. Which scenario do YOU think most likely?

Way to go, Steve! Congratulations on winning Part 2 of the Final HoH competition!

I agree that jurors should base their votes on certain criteria. Different jurors can have different criteria matter more to them. And if they want to base their vote on who they like more, or who they dislike less, that is their prerogative, of course. One of my favourite jurors ever was from the first season of Survivor. (I think his name was Greg.) And his only question to the finalists was "Pick a number from 1 to 10". And he based his vote on that. I thought that was brilliant. While some said it showed a lack of respect for the finalists and the game itself, I thought it just showed that he didn't feel competent to judge because he had been out of the game too long, so he did what he thought was fair. Ultimately, jurors can only be asked to vote for one or the other, even if they are given guidelines, the final choice (and how they arrive at it) is completely up to them, which is why bitter juries and bitter jury members are part of the game that should be considered by the houseguests when evicting.

As someone already mentioned around here somewhere, with Steve getting a lot of comparisons made to Ian Terry, who beat Dan by a unanimous vote from a jury who many considered to be too bitter to acknowledge Dan's masterful game play, Vanessa could end up repeating that experience. The last thing Austin said (to Liz) before walking out the door was "Win the game. Win the game."

If Liz is not in Final Two, I'm curious to see if Austin will stick to his guns about not voting for Vanessa. Obviously, his wound over her betrayal, back-stabbing and evicting him, was only moments old and still very fresh when he said it. Possibly, given time to decompress in the jury house, and maybe a visit from a guest advisor during jusry debating could open his mind to changing his opinion. It might depend on who wins final HoH, and who takes whom to Final Two.

I'm not sure how the system determines when the "once per day" resets. It could be a certain fixed time for everyone, or it could keep track of exactly when everyone voted and count 24 hours before letting them vote again.

Yup, she definitely said it. Just like she always does.

You could be, but you're not! That was SPOT ON! I wasn't sure if he threw it or not, and we saw last night that he definitely didn't. He just lost, without throwing, fair and square.

Well, he really thinks he screwed up. And he definitely did, if he threw it. Not because Vanessa won, necessarily, but he could have won the competition and STILL used it on her if he wanted, taking her off the block to cast the only vote. Ultimately, he would have given himself all the power, and time to decide. That would have added to his accomplishments in the game, regardless of who gets evicted.

I'm thinking he did it because she was sad and depressed about losing Austin. And because at this point it doesn't matter who the official nominees are, since whoever holds the power of veto determines who casts the only vote.

It's basically like the game show "The Price Is Right". Steve could have bid $1, and still won the entire showcase, because Johnny Mac went over the actual retail price.

Time to vote! http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_brother/favorite-houseguest-vote/ Let us know who you're voting for, and why!

http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_brother/favorite-houseguest-vote/ Maybe voting will only initially open after it airs on the West Coast? I would have given it a try, but didn't feel like opening an account.

It really doesn't matter who he nominates, as the sole vote is determined by who holds Veto power. (Even if Steve wins it, he can use it to change his nominations at the Veto ceremony.) I keep hoping that one year they do away with Final Four nominations entirely, but that's never going to happen. Instead of thinking who to nominate, Steve might do better to figure which one houseguest he would like to keep off the block, and give a false sense of security to, or cater to them in order to butter them up for their vote, if they get evicted and he is in the Final Two. - - - - - Vanessa did good, evicting Austin with no apparent problem. But when she started trying to get some tears flowing for Liz's benegit after Austin left, I thought that was a little over the top.

Yes, Steve was shown near the beginning, when they got their tie-dye supplies.

When feeds come back on Tuesday night, there will still be 4 housegusts in there. It will most probably be after the PoV competition has taken place, though. The live eviction Wednesday night will get us to Final Three. And hopefully they will start part 1 of the final HoH competition at the end of Wednesday's show.

From Morty's BB page: "Live Feeds will shut down Monday morning (9/14) at 9AM BBT and stay down until Tuesday night, 9PM in order to tape the eviction and keep the results secret until Tuesday, special eviction episode." (In fact, live feeds were indeed switched off not long ago, at 9AM BBT.)

(not much action in here this week, eh?)

Yeah, neither do I. I only like the intensive or reflexive uses. The informal usage (used in place of I or me, especially in compound subjects, objects, and complements), as well as when used in place of I or me after as, than, or but really don't agree with my ears. But they have established precedents. And Austin, as someone who has a background in medieval periods, may be familiar with those usages from his studies of these matters. But yeah, we don't have to like it.

I hate to hijack a topic thread like this, but it's kind of a slow week around here! LOL The word "myself" can be strange. I, myself, use it only one way, to refer to myself. (Ha!) But there are a few other legal uses for the word, most of which sound wrong or funny to me, but which are accepted uses. And yes, it is absolutely possible to use it wrong. (I can't attest to whether or not Austin has been using it inappropriately, as I've just never noticed.) Personally, as a pet peeve, what bothers me more is when people blindly say "<insert name here> and I", assuming that it's the correct form, when sometimes "<insert name here> and me" is actually called for. Ex. Shirley and I went to the store. (Correct!) Ex. Me and Shirley went to the store. (Incorrect!) Ex. The teacher yelled at Margaret and I. (Incorrect!) Ex. The teacher yelled at Margaret and me. (Correct!) (The simplest way to know when it's proper is to remove the other person from the sentence, then see if "me" or "I" sounds right.) Anyone interested in reading more about usages of the word "myself" should head over to: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myself?s=t It's actually a pretty good read!

I think she was referring to the jury.