Welcome!!

Become a Member of our site to be able to post and join in on the conversations!

A site for fans of The Bachelor & Bachelorette who enjoy

sleuthing and discussing Spoilers and Non Spoilers!

Join our site for updates on past contestants as well.

Discuss a variety of other shows, as well as International Bachelor and Bachelorette!


Enjoy!

Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Page 3 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by dw_a_mom on Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:00 am

Different people have different values, different priorities, and different ways of looking at the exact same thing. It is what keeps life interesting, right?

dw_a_mom

Female Posts : 3270
Join date : 2011-08-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by nikikass on Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:13 pm

I had to look at the thread title for a second and yep sure enough it said Nick!

So I am assuming this is a Nick thread???


If he shared, kept it all, gave it to charity, changed it all in for dimes... whatever..congrats to him. He owes nobody anything.. Did he take his wifes half, childrens half, parents half, girlfriends half.... Nope~


People who don't like it will get over it... If he shared it with Rachael that would have been "nice"... But we all know most of these people on here aren't "nice"... if they were we woudn't be watching this mess.

I'm glad he kept it... it will open the door to a more interesting show...if it come back..

nikikass

Posts : 564
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by albean99 on Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:41 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them? no idea

I can only speak for myself but have no problem with someone arguing their side of it however do draw the line when I'm being told that I'm just being emotional and not rational. I find that to be condescending and I tend to shut down & stop reading those posts once those words come into play. It's great that people have such strong feelings but perhaps can disagree without disparaging someone else's opinions. hmmm

It's obvious that it is I who you are referring to so let me respond. Reread what I wrote because I didn't say you are *just* being emotional and *not* rational. You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process. When I look at your posts in this thread and the Episode 3 BP3 Discussion thread I don't see any logical arguments made by you that show why Nick was wrong to select *keep*. Instead I see statements like these:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:"He's such a tool. I'm glad he can justify it for himself but I'm not buying it."

"I think Nick came across as a total jerk tonight. He's a bitter, whiny baby who didn't care that he wouldn't have made it to the end without Rachel."

"He lied to his partner and he was horrible to her after he kept the money."

"I guess I can't blame the others for not being friends with him given that he's a creep underneath the faux nice guy exterior."

"It's fine for him to not make friends on the show but why be so bitter about it afterward?"

Your only argument -- which you mentioned at least four times -- is that Nick lied to Rachel, that's it. If I am mistaken then please correct me. The problem with this argument is that Nick didn't lie. Lying is when a person makes a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive. According to Nick, when he told her he was going to choose *share* he fully intended to do so, therefore, he wasn't telling her a lie. Only after he viewed the final two episodes and saw more of her ill behavior did he ultimately decide to change his mind. You would be right to argue that he *broke his promise* to Rachel, but that doesn't mean he lied to her.

You used terms like bitter, whinny baby, horrible, jerk and creep to describe Nick and his behavior, meanwhile he was arguable the most reserved and admirable contestant on the show. How many times could he have flipped out on Rachel for all her nonsense, but instead remained calm and levelheaded? You don't think all the things that Rachel did and said hurt Nick? He took all of her shit and let it build up inside, which he released after he won. And what exactly did he do after he won -- which has no relevance on whether he was justified to select *keep* -- that was so "horrible" and made him out to be a "creep"? When was he "whinny"? He thanked Rachel and the other contestants and he explained in detail his reasons why he made his final decision.

The only thing he did that looked objectionable was when he was looking at Rachel while smiling with his hand raised in a first. According to Nick he was just looking that direction at people in the crowd and he was not flaunting Rachel. The guy just won the game and 250k and he couldn't help but feel happy. Is he not entitled to celebrate? The pro-Rachel crowd never considers Nicks feelings and perspective. It's all about Rachel and what's in her best interest. I'm sorry, but I can't help think that you and others were emotionally invested in Rachel's well being, particularly because of what Michael did to her. These emotions would also explain how none of you in the pro-Rachel camp hold Rachel to the same standard as you do Nick and are quick to sweep her wrong doings under the rug. The girl betrayed her *best friend* Jaclyn and not one person has anything to say about it.

If you feel I am wrong with my assessment than please elaborate and if I have offended you I apologize.



I'm sorry but I don't read posts that begin with "You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process.". You can disagree with what I had to say but don't talk about my motives for saying it. It's insulting and really not necessary. You can talk up Nick all you want. We have the right to dislike or criticize the contestants on the show with or without emotions coming into play. Watching a tv show and interpreting what we watch is subjective and therefore not black and white. This whole thing has me fuming and honestly I don't care a whit about the show by this point. I'm out of here now. Somehow the thread turned into a Nick thread and it's the last place I want to be.

Btw it wasn't just your post that I was talking about.


"Love is the Only Reality" -Ed Lambton

albean99
Moderator
Moderator

Female Posts : 11557
Join date : 2011-06-01
Location : Plano, Tx

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by revo74 on Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:46 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them? no idea

I can only speak for myself but have no problem with someone arguing their side of it however do draw the line when I'm being told that I'm just being emotional and not rational. I find that to be condescending and I tend to shut down & stop reading those posts once those words come into play. It's great that people have such strong feelings but perhaps can disagree without disparaging someone else's opinions. hmmm

It's obvious that it is I who you are referring to so let me respond. Reread what I wrote because I didn't say you are *just* being emotional and *not* rational. You have given me reasons to believe that your emotions have dictated your decision making process. When I look at your posts in this thread and the Episode 3 BP3 Discussion thread I don't see any logical arguments made by you that show why Nick was wrong to select *keep*. Instead I see statements like these:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:"He's such a tool. I'm glad he can justify it for himself but I'm not buying it."

"I think Nick came across as a total jerk tonight. He's a bitter, whiny baby who didn't care that he wouldn't have made it to the end without Rachel."

"He lied to his partner and he was horrible to her after he kept the money."

"I guess I can't blame the others for not being friends with him given that he's a creep underneath the faux nice guy exterior."

"It's fine for him to not make friends on the show but why be so bitter about it afterward?"

Your only argument -- which you mentioned at least four times -- is that Nick lied to Rachel, that's it. If I am mistaken then please correct me. The problem with this argument is that Nick didn't lie. Lying is when a person makes a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive. According to Nick, when he told her he was going to choose *share* he fully intended to do so, therefore, he wasn't telling her a lie. Only after he viewed the final two episodes and saw more of her ill behavior did he ultimately decide to change his mind. You would be right to argue that he *broke his promise* to Rachel, but that doesn't mean he lied to her.

You used terms like bitter, whinny baby, horrible, jerk and creep to describe Nick and his behavior, meanwhile he was arguable the most reserved and admirable contestant on the show. How many times could he have flipped out on Rachel for all her nonsense, but instead remained calm and levelheaded? You don't think all the things that Rachel did and said hurt Nick? He took all of her shit and let it build up inside, which he released after he won. And what exactly did he do after he won -- which has no relevance on whether he was justified to select *keep* -- that was so "horrible" and made him out to be a "creep"? When was he "whinny"? He thanked Rachel and the other contestants and he explained in detail his reasons why he made his final decision.

The only thing he did that looked objectionable was when he was looking at Rachel while smiling with his hand raised in a first. According to Nick he was just looking that direction at people in the crowd and he was not flaunting Rachel. The guy just won the game and 250k and he couldn't help but feel happy. Is he not entitled to celebrate? The pro-Rachel crowd never considers Nicks feelings and perspective. It's all about Rachel and what's in her best interest. I'm sorry, but I can't help think that you and others were emotionally invested in Rachel's well being, particularly because of what Michael did to her. These emotions would also explain how none of you in the pro-Rachel camp hold Rachel to the same standard as you do Nick and are quick to sweep her wrong doings under the rug. The girl betrayed her *best friend* Jaclyn and not one person has anything to say about it.

If you feel I am wrong with my assessment than please elaborate and if I have offended you I apologize.



revo74

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by albean99 on Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:48 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them? no idea

I can only speak for myself but have no problem with someone arguing their side of it however do draw the line when I'm being told that I'm just being emotional and not rational. I find that to be condescending and I tend to shut down & stop reading those posts once those words come into play. It's great that people have such strong feelings but perhaps can disagree without disparaging someone else's opinions. hmmm


"Love is the Only Reality" -Ed Lambton

albean99
Moderator
Moderator

Female Posts : 11557
Join date : 2011-06-01
Location : Plano, Tx

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:53 am

@revo74 wrote:
@glazedover wrote:There are, however, people who feel that Nick was not justified in his decision to keep the money, and they are entitled to their opinion also. It is not a fact that he made a justifiable decision...it is an opinion. Only the act of making the decision is a fact.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Let's try to put this behind us because no one is disputing this.

Whether Nick was justified or not to select "keep" is open to debate; I completely agree. There is no way we are all going arrive at a consensus because we each have our own subjective interpretation of the facts. It's important to realize that none of us know exactly how Nick felt since we can't get into his skin, but we must try our best to see things from his perspective while putting aside our own emotions.

Here is my argument:

We all realize that the rules of the game permit a contestant to choose *share* or *keep*, so there is nothing illegal (as far as the game is concerned) with choosing either.

The reason why there is disagreement over whether Nick was justified to select *keep* has to do with an *unwritten rule* that all of us recognize. That rule is: one should select *share* if their partner was *good* to them. Well, now we must define what it is to be a *good partner*.

Within the context of this game I define a good partner as someone who is honest, loyal, respectful and committed to the success of their partnership.

Here are my reasons why I believe Rachel wasn't a *good partner*, rendering Nick's decision to keep the winnings justified.

1. Nick was not partnered with Rachel for a long time. Nick as well as Rachel got more than halfway through the game without the assistance of the other, which reduces the importance of their partnership. Having a partner to share the burden of the struggle to advance in the game is part of what being a good partner is. Remember when Nick said he felt he didn't "owe" Rachel anything. Well he was not only referring to her attitude and actions, but also that he advanced himself pretty far alone without her assistance.

2. Rachel's actions and attitude toward him violates the tenet's of good partnership, which are:

a. She attempted to leave the show 3 times, knowing that it would screw him
b. She tried to have other couples vote them off, knowing that it would screw him
c. She said that it was Jaclyn's words not his that kept her there
d. Right before they took stage to compete in the final competition she told him if Michael was there they would win without doubt
e. She was on record saying that he didn't deserve to be here
f. She was spending a significant (perhaps most) not with Nick, but with Jaclyn, Ed and on the phone with Michael

Ultimately if it wasn't for her friends begging her to stay she would have left Nick for dead. She demonstrated crystal clearly that she had no interest in Nick or his chance of winning the game

I just don't see how anyone can honest say she was a *good partner* because she wasn't. Could she have been worse? Yes. Did she ultimate stick it out? Yes. However, this does not *excuse* her actions and attitude toward Nick as those of you in the pro-Rachel/anti-Nick camp believe.

One final point. One of the primary reasons (other than his behavior after he won, which was irrelevant as demonstrated) why pro-Rachel/anti-Nick supporters take their position is because they sympathize with Rachel for the way Michael broke her heart. I am sorry, but this is not Nick's problem and thus not a reason why he should have selected "share" instead of "keep". Her relationship/partnership with him is all that matters.


Revo - an excellent post. You have taken facts to support your reasoning; thank you for taking the time to do this. I also think that you highlighted a good point about people feeling sorry for Rachel and in compassion its easy to want her to have also had the money. That's honorable.

Allow me to speculate an alternate ending. What if Rachel did leave? Then Erica would have likely been brought back to become Nick's partner. She would not have had the attitude to throw the game. She had nothing (that we know of) against Nick. Assuming that all Rock performances went unchanged, and Nick and Erica did well enough to proceed to the finals, they would have still picked Chris and Sarah for one fact alone - Chris burned a lot of bridges and the best chance of them winning was to take him to the finals. Assuming that Erica was a whole-hearted partner to win the game with Nick - he would have shared the money. We know this, because Nick said in post interviews that this was his intent with Rachel (even though they only were partners for a few days) until he watched the final few episodes.

Had they not won the rock concert, it would have likely gone to Chris and Sarah - and again, we would look at, who they would have taken into the finals. Since Ed and Jacqln seemed to keep friendships with most people, then they would have likely still taken Nick into the finals with them and hoped that the attitude that "he didn't deserve to be there" would merit him the votes he needed to wiin.

Likely - Nick would have been in the finals either way. The one variable in play as to the "keep" and "share" action within any final couple comes down to attitude. What we see in three episodes is that couples who go in to the finals having been trustworthy and committed to the game and each other as partners - SHARE the money. Couples who go into the finals with shattered trust and commitment concerns between them, don't.

For Bach Pad 4, it will add a new dimension to viewing. Not only will you look for a couple to rise to the top, but you will now watch their dynamics with each other to imagine how they will vote.

The next possible outcome will be both voting "keep" - - you can imagine that producers will be looking at a way that they can force couples together who are likely to grate on each other, in order to increase the liklihood that this will happen. YOU CAN BE SURE that if Chris was forced to stay with Blakeley all season and she with him, they would have hated each other so much that choosing "keep" would have been highly probable.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 am

@ironcat wrote:It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them? no idea

Cat, another wise post that should not go unnoticed. I think the premise of an open board discussion is good in theory but when mankind is programmed with an unsatiable need to be validated discussions on any plane, including, debates go haywire. From the time we were babie we are validated though rewards; as children our tests are scored with grades and we earn medals and tropheys; as teenagers its all about being accepted; and as adults come jobs, promotions, and paychecks. When someone disagrees with your opinions - it becomes personal, just because that is how we have been programmed.

I personally think that open discussions like many people want here have to take a few things into consideration. 1) (and most importantly) facts. What we are shown is NOT reality. It is designed to be deceptive and misleading. Everything is subject to be taken out of context. So great care needs to be taken to protect your emotional conclusions. 2) (just that) Too often the threads implode because discussions become emotional and that soils any open-minded discussion.

Unfortunately, another factor is in play here. Throughout time, conformity has been embraced. History, fashion, lifestyles have all been defined by whatever flavor the accepted norm takes on. Threads are not and should never be a location of conformity. If it were, then it would be a FAN board and not a SLEUTHING board. Unfortunately, it has been the demise of many good boards and if you go back to them, you will see they are very anemic and boring. What do you discuss if everyone thinks as you do? Yet it happens time an time again when non-conforming thinkers - posters who see things differently - try to put their stake in the ground. When it's not embraced, rules threats and thread closings occur; boards become weakened; and great minds leave.

There is a purpose to every single edit: to make sure there are opposing points of view. They need to keep people talking, keep them interested, and keep them wondering how it is going to turn out. If not for debate, if not for the outcome teetering back and forth, if not for characters to draw viewers in, there would be no show. Their success in creating opposition and dividing opinions put a pulse to discussion boards. If it didn't have a pulse, why bother?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by ironcat on Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:14 pm

It is the nature of debate on these boards that if two posters have opposing opinions, one will argue (and try to prove, to the best of their ability) their points as to why they disagree with the other. I mean, isn't that the whole point of debate, and isn't debate allowed on this forum? People are allowed to think Nick was not justified to select Keep, and give their reasons for thinking so, likewise, people are allowed to do the opposite. People are also allowed to believe that this behavior completely defines Nick's overall character as a human being, and likewise, others are allowed to believe otherwise, and state their reasoning why.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment occasionally expressed, that anybody is trying to "force" their opinion on anybody else. Perhaps when somebody starts feeling that way, it just indicates that they aren't comfortable with the whole premise of debate, and don't want anyone to respond to their comments except to agree with them? no idea

ironcat

Posts : 4908
Join date : 2011-03-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by revo74 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:52 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:There are, however, people who feel that Nick was not justified in his decision to keep the money, and they are entitled to their opinion also. It is not a fact that he made a justifiable decision...it is an opinion. Only the act of making the decision is a fact.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Let's try to put this behind us because no one is disputing this.

Whether Nick was justified or not to select "keep" is open to debate; I completely agree. There is no way we are all going arrive at a consensus because we each have our own subjective interpretation of the facts. It's important to realize that none of us know exactly how Nick felt since we can't get into his skin, but we must try our best to see things from his perspective while putting aside our own emotions.

Here is my argument:

We all realize that the rules of the game permit a contestant to choose *share* or *keep*, so there is nothing illegal (as far as the game is concerned) with choosing either.

The reason why there is disagreement over whether Nick was justified to select *keep* has to do with an *unwritten rule* that all of us recognize. That rule is: one should select *share* if their partner was *good* to them. Well, now we must define what it is to be a *good partner*.

Within the context of this game I define a good partner as someone who is honest, loyal, respectful and committed to the success of their partnership.

Here are my reasons why I believe Rachel wasn't a *good partner*, rendering Nick's decision to keep the winnings justified.

1. Nick was not partnered with Rachel for a long time. Nick as well as Rachel got more than halfway through the game without the assistance of the other, which reduces the importance of their partnership. Having a partner to share the burden of the struggle to advance in the game is part of what being a good partner is. Remember when Nick said he felt he didn't "owe" Rachel anything. Well he was not only referring to her attitude and actions, but also that he advanced himself pretty far alone without her assistance.

2. Rachel's actions and attitude toward him violates the tenet's of good partnership, which are:

a. She attempted to leave the show 3 times, knowing that it would screw him
b. She tried to have other couples vote them off, knowing that it would screw him
c. She said that it was Jaclyn's words not his that kept her there
d. Right before they took stage to compete in the final competition she told him if Michael was there they would win without doubt
e. She was on record saying that he didn't deserve to be here
f. She was spending a significant (perhaps most) not with Nick, but with Jaclyn, Ed and on the phone with Michael

Ultimately if it wasn't for her friends begging her to stay she would have left Nick for dead. She demonstrated crystal clearly that she had no interest in Nick or his chance of winning the game.

I just don't see how anyone can honest say she was a *good partner* because she wasn't. Could she have been worse? Yes. Did she ultimate stick it out? Yes. However, this does not *excuse* her actions and attitude toward Nick as those of you in the pro-Rachel/anti-Nick camp believe.

One final point. One of the primary reasons (other than his behavior after he won, which was irrelevant as demonstrated) why pro-Rachel/anti-Nick supporters take their position is because they sympathize with Rachel for the way Michael broke her heart. I am sorry, but this is not Nick's problem and thus not a reason why he should have selected "share" instead of "keep". Her relationship/partnership with him is all that matters.


revo74

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by glazedover on Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:15 pm

There are, however, people who feel that Nick was not justified in his decision to keep the money, and they are entitled to their opinion also. It is not a fact that he made a justifiable decision...it is an opinion. Only the act of making the decision is a fact.

glazedover

Female Posts : 744
Join date : 2011-06-22
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by revo74 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:24 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'm not getting into all of this but will say if Rachel had done what Nick did and acted the same, I'd have felt exactly the same. I didn't come into the show as a fan of either although thought he was nice enough on Ashley's show.

The thing I don't understand is why those who don't like what Nck did or how he acted aren't able to just have that opinion. To me it's not important that we all think alike. :greenman:

As I have stated in a prior post to you, no one here is trying to suppress your opinion. I don't understand why you feel this is the case.

Some of us see a critical error in reasoning by many in the pro-Rachel/anti-Nick crowd and we are simply trying to point it out. Many of you have an issue with the way Nick handled himself after he won, but you're failing to realize that these actions/attitude took place after the fact and had no bearing on whether he was justified in choosing to keep the money. Before he selected to keep the winnings his behavior was actually quite impressive, especially when compared to other contestants. At the house he behaved fine and at the finale he explained in detail why he felt his choice to keep the winnings was justified is a clear, concise and respectful way. He even thanked Rachel and his fellow contestants before we began his finale speech.

It's not important that we think alike, but it is important that we all recognize facts -- and it is a fact that Nick's behavior after he won the game had no bearing on whether he was justified in making the decision he did.

revo74

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by glazedover on Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:10 am

I don't see that anyone is forcing an opinion on anyone else here.

I personally think Nick is a horse's ass for taking all the money because the bad feelings from the decision will follow him around in life but also think he played fair and square and deserved to take it. I enjoy reading all the input from everyone and don't feel my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's here and don't see that anyone's viewpoint is being accepted as the final word either.

glazedover

Female Posts : 744
Join date : 2011-06-22
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Sponsored content Today at 7:33 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum