GingerSnaps Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I don't know that she has any real personality disorder. Its practically impossible to tell in a situation like this where everything is intensified. Brendon is making her far more difficult to read. The whole point that is being missed is that they are the targets of the house. All their work to not be has back fired. Maybe if they were more in people's face about it, it would improve because what they have tried up to this point, simply hasn't worked. If Rachel had been nicer, would they be any less of a target? No. People were gunning for them no matter what. His speech was pointless. I'm sure Rachel has reached the point where she thinks its pointless to pretend that they are anything less than a target so why bother. His pestering her into doing what he wants is the wrong way to go. The man has no skill in the art of subtle manipulation. Subtle manipulation is the only way to play in this house. His bull dozing is part of why they are perceived as a threat.I'm really feeling bad for her. I believe she's feeling the weight of Brendon's words more than anything. Those kind of things weigh you down. His speech may have been "smart" but his approach was wrong. As a communication professor, Ragan can tell you that 50% of communication isn't what is being said, but how it is received. So its not even how you present something, but how your "audience" takes what is said. She's definitely approaching her breaking point at his bull dozing approach.She's the only one that thinks they're targets. Logically, they are still there after how many weeks of evictions now so I can't understand why they keep calling themselves the targets. It's all in their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerrita Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 She's the only one that thinks they're targets. Logically, they are still there after how many weeks of evictions now so I can't understand why they keep calling themselves the targets. It's all in their heads. Yes. Rachel is dumb bitch who is only looking for herself and her boy toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikiki Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 She's the only one that thinks they're targets. Logically, they are still there after how many weeks of evictions now so I can't understand why they keep calling themselves the targets. It's all in their heads.No, its not. How mad was the brigade at Matt for not getting one of them out? They have been targets. The only people who may not put them up is Ragan and Kathy, but really, those two would probably go with the house. Matt definitely holds Ragan in sway. They are most definitely targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmen Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I think the only way Rachel doesn't go on the block next week is if Brenden wins HOH. Otherwise, she stands a real goodchance of leaving the house soon. In fact, the only way I think she survives is if she and Brenden keep winning HOH's back and forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSnaps Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 No, its not. How mad was the brigade at Matt for not getting one of them out? They have been targets. The only people who may not put them up is Ragan and Kathy, but really, those two would probably go with the house. Matt definitely holds Ragan in sway. They are most definitely targets.And they all could have voted against his wishes but they didn't. I guess it's easier to blame one person at the end of the game for keeping them then blaming yourself. They could have told him that if he didn't nominate Rach and Bren he was going to be a target the next week. By keeping Andrew they would have shown him and sent a message to HOH who actually controls the votes. This goes back to week one when Rachel was on the block, they could've easily voted her out but Hayden talked them out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipp Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 No, its not. How mad was the brigade at Matt for not getting one of them out? They have been targets. The only people who may not put them up is Ragan and Kathy, but really, those two would probably go with the house. Matt definitely holds Ragan in sway. They are most definitely targets.They are all targets. It's just those 2 bean brains keep endlessly harping on it. Over and over and over till ya just want to puke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBinSavannah Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 They were not targets until recently. We were all here wondering why everybody in the house weren't targeting them as a couple which makes them a team and 2 votes. They were only nominated once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipp Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I feel like doing a little "target" practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerrita Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 They were not targets until recently. We were all here wondering why everybody in the house weren't targeting them as a couple which makes them a team and 2 votes. They were only nominated once. This is troo. Think. They wood have gottin out Rachel befor if she and Brenden wer the targets befor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikes_luv Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Yes, Rachel is a selfish, self-centered brat but I'm sooooo sick of Brendon. He just talks to hear himself talk. I get what he's trying to do but those two are already targets. Rachel needs a Howie to egg her on. It would make the house much much more fun. I only wish she would have put up Matt and Hayden. I'd love to see a member of the boys brigade go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikiki Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 They were not targets until recently. We were all here wondering why everybody in the house weren't targeting them as a couple which makes them a team and 2 votes. They were only nominated once.I think that is only because of Matt's mistake of not putting them up directly, but one of them would have been back doored if someone else had won the veto. If you go through who has been HOH and what happened each week, then you can see why they may feel like they've always been targets.Week 1- Hayden HOH- Both Nominated, Brendon gets Veto, Annie goes up, annoys, and goes home.Week 2- Rachel HOH- Of course, she's not going to nominate them, but she hears a lot of talk of people wanting them out, because that talk was there.Week 3- Matt HOH- He's playing the game too hard. Puts up Kathy & Andrew. Royally upsets the brigade so he admits to wanting to back door B or R. Brendon wins veto and they are safe. B & R knew they'd be back doored if any one else won veto.Wek 4- Rachel HOH- Nominates Hayden and KristenAt this point, of course they are big targets. There has always been a ton of talk in the house of them being big targets. Matt's the only HOH that could have put them up and didn't. He took a lot of flack for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikes_luv Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I agree, Hikki. No idea why someone would ever say Rachel and Brendon aren't targets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
word_girl Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Listen to the pitch of her voice drop when she uses a person's name - "Brendon" or "Hayden". So completely condescending. Instead of "Brendon" she should call him "Belittle". She's abusive and awful!And, according to Brendon, petty and stooping, ha!Brendon just totally nailed it - that she always has to be right - she had no response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikiki Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 And they all could have voted against his wishes but they didn't. I guess it's easier to blame one person at the end of the game for keeping them then blaming yourself. They could have told him that if he didn't nominate Rach and Bren he was going to be a target the next week. By keeping Andrew they would have shown him and sent a message to HOH who actually controls the votes. This goes back to week one when Rachel was on the block, they could've easily voted her out but Hayden talked them out of it.This doesn't make sense to me. Matt wanted Kathy gone. He didn't want her to stay. Brendon dug Andrew's grave with all his bad advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerrita Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Listen to the pitch of her voice when she uses a person's name - "Brendon" or "Hayden". So completely condescending. Instead of "Brendon" she should call him "Belittle". She's abusive and awful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikiki Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Listen to the pitch of her voice when she uses a person's name - "Brendon" or "Hayden". So completely condescending. Instead of "Brendon" she should call him "Belittle". She's abusive and awful!Funny. I personally find her more strung out. Like the person on the receiving end of abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImIn Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 yes...she is totally exasperated with his "be nice" lecture...dump him Rachel...dump him!!!!! haha...that eye roll, sigh and shake of her head after he left said it all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSnaps Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 This doesn't make sense to me. Matt wanted Kathy gone. He didn't want her to stay. Brendon dug Andrew's grave with all his bad advice.So if Matt wanted Kathy gone then once again Rachel and Brendon weren't targets.My point is that they were all shocked that Brendon and Rachel weren't nominated but not once did anyone ever come out straight and say it to him that he should nom them. So, I guess by them not pushing the fact that they wanted them gone once again they really weren't the targets.I stand by my original comment, if they were really targets they would have been gone or at least have a really close call on being evicting but it hasn't happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikiki Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 My point is that they were all shocked that Brendon and Rachel weren't nominated but not once did anyone ever come out straight and say it to him that he should nom them.Yes. They did. When they were all alone in the HOH room, there was "this is perfect, Rachel and Brendon go up, etc. etc." Matt let them go on and on about Rachel and Brendon going up. They may not have said, you better put them up or we are done, because they kind of assumed he was putting Rachel and Brendon up. Andrew is too quite. Had he talked more about Matt using him as a pawn when Matt told him in advance, you can bet the brigade would have been in there throwing a fit that he better put up Rachel and Brendon. However, Andrew keeps confidences and didn't take measures to keep himself off the block and have Brendon and Rachel put on the block, because the guy is just too loyal.Edited to add: They weren't targets for Matt, because Matt is a coward. He wants them out, but he didn't want the other B or R gunning for him, but he would have bowed to pressure and gotten one out. They definitely were targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSnaps Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Yes. They did. When they were all alone in the HOH room, there was "this is perfect, Rachel and Brendon go up, etc. etc." Matt let them go on and on about Rachel and Brendon going up. They may not have said, you better put them up or we are done, because they kind of assumed he was putting Rachel and Brendon up. Andrew is too quite. Had he talked more about Matt using him as a pawn when Matt told him in advance, you can bet the brigade would have been in there throwing a fit that he better put up Rachel and Brendon. However, Andrew keeps confidences and didn't take measures to keep himself off the block and have Brendon and Rachel put on the block, because the guy is just too loyal.Edited to add: They weren't targets for Matt, because Matt is a coward. He wants them out, but he didn't want the other B or R gunning for him, but he would have bowed to pressure and gotten one out. They definitely were targets.The thing is they say it over and over how they are targets yet they were nominated only 1 time. That makes everyone else nominated one time a target too. Three evictions and they are still there so they need to stop saying it because they are no more a target than anyone else in the house. If you ask me, Annie and Monet were bigger targets then they ever were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBinSavannah Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 The thing is they say it over and over how they are targets yet they were nominated only 1 time. That makes everyone else nominated one time a target too. Three evictions and they are still there so they need to stop saying it because they are no more a target than anyone else in the house. If you ask me, Annie and Monet were bigger targets then they ever were.True, Gingersnaps. And Kristen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvmanatees Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 So if Matt wanted Kathy gone then once again Rachel and Brendon weren't targets.My point is that they were all shocked that Brendon and Rachel weren't nominated but not once did anyone ever come out straight and say it to him that he should nom them. So, I guess by them not pushing the fact that they wanted them gone once again they really weren't the targets.I stand by my original comment, if they were really targets they would have been gone or at least have a really close call on being evicting but it hasn't happened.Enzo and Lane when Matt was HOH said to Matt the decision is easy B/R. Matt's deal with Ragen was not to put up B/R at first. Ragen wanted not at all, Matt refused that part of the deal. Go back to the night Matt won HOH and when the 4 finally have time to talk without everyone else, this is when they all agreed Matt should put them up. Matt did say if one comes down Brendon would go up b/c that would make Rachel hopefully DOR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikiki Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 The thing is they say it over and over how they are targets yet they were nominated only 1 time. That makes everyone else nominated one time a target too. Three evictions and they are still there so they need to stop saying it because they are no more a target than anyone else in the house. If you ask me, Annie and Monet were bigger targets then they ever were.Since Andrew was voted out, was he a big target too? No. Monet wasn't a target for anyone but Rachel. The Brigade used Britney and Monet's hatred of Rachel to get R to get one of those two girls out instead of risking any of the brigade's necks. Annie may have been a target but you have to consider that week 1 is about getting your feet wet in the game. Obviously, R & B were also targets that week because they were the original noms. The house didn't like them being coupled up so fast. Big target, right away. However, had Annie not driven the house crazy, Rachel would have gone home. Just like had Andrew not taken Brendon's bad advice Kathy would have been gone. Kathy who really wasn't any one's target other than the current HoH's. I am done arguing this because I feel I've made my point. You are free to see things otherwise, even if I don't think I could ever understand thinking that Brendon and Rachel were only targets recently.Edited to add: Do you think simply because Rachel has been hoh 50% of the time and won't nominate herself or Brendon that she is less of a target and not more of one? I just don't understand the reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevea11 Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Nice healthy, lively and friendly debate. I like that.Very good points, both of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikiki Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Nice healthy, lively and friendly debate. I like that.Very good points, both of you.Thanks. I'm just sad that I edited to add more, when I said I was done, lol, because I forgot to add that point in originally. Oh, well. Good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.