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 4 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 albean99 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:55 am

Avg-Joe wrote:
chasingpavements wrote:
[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:

I agree. Again, MY personal viewpoint is that I'm okay with Nick choosing keep, but I'm NOT okay with Nick's treatment after (both immediately after and after filming) of Rachel. However, I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind. It's fine to have a discussion, but to get emotional and angry because someone has a different opinion is just CRAZY.

As an emotionally stupid guy, there is one thing I am wise beyond my years on: do not engage my wife in a conversation when she is emotionally charged! It never makes matters better. If either one of us is not in a calm state of mind, nothing rational, productive or understanding will come from it. Ever. As a matter of fact, it only causes more hurt on each other.

This is exactly my point. Why is it that we who don't like what Nick did (or acted) are supposed to be "emotionally charged" and not thinking rationally? I don't accept that not do I accept that your (as in those of you supporting Nick) opinion is any more valid. hmmm


"Love is the Only Reality" -Ed Lambton

albean99
Moderator
Moderator

Female Posts : 11556
Join date : 2011-06-01
Location : Plano, Tx

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by revo74 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:13 am

Avg-Joe wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I think Nick is a donkey!!!! :yes:

He played a fair game and it isn't easy to use the word "fair" when it is a game of lies, deceit, manipulation. Rachel is a stronger and wiser woman. She will likely start thinking for herself more often, be less inclined to let others do that for her, and be less prematurely vulnerable to her emotions when it comes to relationships with men like Michael. She will likely also be more aware of the power of her words. It is unlikely that her words will ever cost her $125,000 again, which wasn't apparently as important to her as it would be to us.

She is now set up to be the next bachelorette. She has beauty, she is likable, and she has a victim back-story like all those before her. With that, comes a ring that is valued to what she could have won on the show, plus a filled purse that will be more than what the average person makes in two years of working. Doesn't seem to be a bad place at all.

I think The Bachelor Pad is the last stop. I don't see how they would ever choose someone from BP to be the next Bachelor/ette. Because of the nature of the game, many contestants worse qualities come out and are on fully display. Collectively they look like a bunch of immature fools. I may be wrong, time will tell.

revo74

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by revo74 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:44 am

Avg-Joe wrote:I married a pretty smart woman; maybe even brilliant; certainly wiser than me. Over a pot of coffee we were discussing the sides in the debate as to whether Nick should have shared the money. Here's what she said (paraphrased):

There are two sides.
1) Those who feel Nick earned the money and was just in his reasoning to keep it.
2) Those who feel he should have shared the money because Rachel deserved a portion.

What does this remind you of? Yes, politics.

I will qualify what I am about to say. I am not labeling one side or the other. I am not claiming one party better than another. I am merely drawing a parallel in what you are about to read.

We have three distinct parties: Liberals, Conservatives, and Independents. All three have clear POVs when it comes to money. a) fair taxation and the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor b) equality of the masses; share and share alike; customized taxation and c) neutral; sometimes non-committed; "it depends on circumstances"; sometimes 'yes' and sometimes 'no'; sometimes liberal and sometimes not. (This is a very simplified view of republicans, independents and liberals when it comes to money.) Within each of these very simplified descriptions are scales 1 - 10. And every person can be represented on the scale as to how emphatic they are on any given topic.

Once again TAKE NOTE. I am not judging people, labeling people, or prioritizing who is right or wrong - politically, socially, or other. I am merely sharing her point and attempting to validate the camps. The discussion (and I carefully choose the word discussion because no one is arguing; but there is a distinct disagreement, which will not be resolved) has three distinct sides, just as it is between democrats, independents, and republicans. Money is ONE issue that will lack an agreement between the camps forever.

While I would find it interesting to take a poll as to what everyone believes about Nick and Rachel and identify what political party they typically relate to, I'm not dumb enough to open that can of worms pit of poison. Some of my wife's intelligence has been absorbed into my thick head through the years. I will, however, answer Revo's questions (look for my answers in BLUE):

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

I would love to here you respond to this. I asked this exact question to others on the ABC board for BP3 and none of the pro-Rachel/anti-Nick crowd could give me a straight answer. They would just talk about how Rachel was heartbroken due to Michael and how Nick acted badly toward her after he won.

Who was part of an alliance that schemed, lied and deceived all game long? Everyone to one degree or another, except Nick. In comparison to everyone else, he was neutral. Everyone who was a part of any alliance were voted off. Those who feel Rachel is a deserving partner will argue that he lied and deceived her at the end of the game after telling her he would share the money. Of the two, he did explain why he changed his mind (which is not unlike real life when you say you will do something and then something happens and you can't or don't. We often promise things that we can't always deliver. It is an act of good intentions gone wrong, not a platant effort to deceive with malice.

Who was part of an alliance who felt they were better than others and bullied off people just because they were "fans", something that each of them were before they first participated on The Bachelor/ette.? Of the two in the finals, Rachel. Nick was not shown to have any feelings of superiority over the super fans or anyone in the house. Bullied is a strong word for an alliance. And alliance is formed for strength - strength in numbers. Within that strength is the challenge to break a part the alliance in order to weaken it. Super fans were targetted; and someone did dismiss them as insignificant people, as if to have an attitude that they "deserved" to be there and that they "are stars, famous people, or more important human beings than they are. I don't remember the exact comment; but there was a distinct class difference. Rachel was directly and indirectly associated to that mentality; there is no evidence that suggests that Nick was or wasn't.

Who betrayed their best friend and friend? Rachel to Jacqln - not out of malice but because of the game! Michael Stag also betrayed Erica. Ed betweened Chris. It is a game of lies, and betrayal is just another reflection of a lie. What is important to note, NO ONE had to break up an alliance. The alliance was internally imploding. They were voting against themselves and lessening their strength and ability to survive in tact.

Who treated their partner like garbage? Chris mistreated Blakely. Rachel mistreated Nick. Michael mistreated Rachel. Rachel mistreated Nick. I would use the word, "disrespected" over "garbage."

Who was the terrible game player that never lead, had a strategy or plan of their own, but only rode the coattails of others (Michael to the final 10) and then listened to others to stay when they didn't want to and ultimately betrayed some of these same people for their own personal gains?

This is a misleading question. I will answer it with a qualification to my answer. Rachel can't be considered a terrible player without strategy or plan. The mere fact that she agreed to partner into an alliance is a form of strategy. Her plan was to take Michael with her into the finale then to an altar in a church. Part of being in an alliance is listening to the majority - voting for the sake of the whole and not yourself. At some point, the alliance was going to have to compete against each other. When she voted off Jacqln and Ed, she did so because they were at the point of the game where someone had to go. While she logically wanted to keep her friends and get rid of Chris and Sarah, Nick did convince her that their only strategy to win was to take Chris into the finals since he burned so many bridges. His ability to present his POV was stronger than her ability was to defend hers. They were at the point that a decision had to be made. Nick was the stronger partner in terms of final strategy.

Let me add two simple questions:

1. Did Nick or Rachel violate any rules of the game?

2. Were Nick and Rachel both allowed to choose keep or share? And was there a legal obligation that they had to agree?

Your point has merit with some qualification:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Nick was completely justified in his decision to keep the money, especially when considering that deception is a component of the game and most of the contestants were engaged in such behavior. It was a GAME. It was not his responsibility to give Rachel 125k simply because her heart was broken by someone else. It's Michael who people should really be pissed at not Nick.

Here is the qualification: Based on the rules of the game, Nick was not obligated to share the money. His reasonings as to why he changed his mind came in the final 24 hours before the finale. I project, that he didn't make up his mind fully, until sitting on the couch beside Rachel and being disregarded as a partner up until the time they voted. He greeted her very warmly when they were introduced, leading me to believe that while he may have been pissed that she disregarded him so much in the final two episodes, he could have yet decided to share the money. But in the end, with her continued disregard for him, with Rachel's best friend dissing him and his right to be in the finals, and with Rachel still not showing any sort of buyer's remorse for not keeping her head in the game for Nick's sake (her partner), the decision to keep the money was made.

There were no indicators to him, up until the time that he walked into the voting room, that would have given him any confidences that she would not have listened to her best friend who was telling her to keep the money. His decision was likely down to one thing: "all or none". With how she spoke about him, and the huge sadness she had in betraying her best friend, and the liklihood that she would listen to Jacqln in the final decision and screw Nick over, Nick chose keep. The tables could have been turned very easily.

We learn that on the Bachelor Pad, if you go into the finals with any doubt in your ablity to trust someone, you must choose KEEP.

Rachel gave Nick a lot of reason to doubt her. He did not give her reason to doubt him. That is why the man walked out with the money.





You and I for the most part agree with each other. Let me just comment one thing where we differ a little.

I wrote: "Who was the terrible game player that never lead, had a strategy or plan of their own, but only rode the coattails of others (Michael to the final 10) and then listened to others to stay when they didn't want to and ultimately betrayed some of these same people for their own personal gains?"

You then replied:
Avg-Joe wrote:"This is a misleading question. I will answer it with a qualification to my answer. Rachel can't be considered a terrible player without strategy or plan. The mere fact that she agreed to partner into an alliance is a form of strategy. Her plan was to take Michael with her into the finale then to an altar in a church. Part of being in an alliance is listening to the majority - voting for the sake of the whole and not yourself. At some point, the alliance was going to have to compete against each other. When she voted off Jacqln and Ed, she did so because they were at the point of the game where someone had to go. While she logically wanted to keep her friends and get rid of Chris and Sarah, Nick did convince her that their only strategy to win was to take Chris into the finals since he burned so many bridges. His ability to present his POV was stronger than her ability was to defend hers. They were at the point that a decision had to be made. Nick was the stronger partner in terms of final strategy"

I believe she liked Michael right from the start, hooked up with him, and then followed his lead completely. I don't think you can give her credit for being a good strategist for this and she certainly was not a leader, at this time or any other during the show. She was all into Michael and developing their relationship, which was far more important to her than winning. She was smart enough to recognize that Michael was a leading this alliance that also included her closest of friends and just went along with what they said without providing any input whatsoever. If you want to give her some strategy points, it's got to be low where it's practically insignificant.

As for her decision to eliminate Jaclyn and Ed. Once again you could give her a little credit for recognizing the obvious, which was that eliminating Jaclyn and Ed and opting to take Chris and Sarah to the finals was the best play. It wasn't her idea though. It was Nick's reasoning and persuasivpowers that led to this decision. Once again she was a follower. She followed Michael to the final 10, then followed the wishes of Michael, Jaclyn and Ed to stay even though she didn't want to. Finally, she followed Nick and betrayed her best friend Jaclyn and friend Ed. She definitely never lead or had a plan of her own. At best you can give her a couple of strategy points for recognizing the obvious. All in all she was a very weak player, who simply was lucky for having many friends and for hooking up with the ring-leader of the alliance Michael.

There has been talk that Michael used Rachel because she was well liked in the house, had many friends, and that it was completely strategic and their relationship was completely bogus (from his perspective).

Obviously Nick didn't violate any rules by selecting "keep" -- and there certainly wasn't a legal obligation that they must agree either. I do believe that there is an unwritten rule where partners should both select "share" if they were true to each other during the entire game. Some of the things Nick said gave me the impression that he may have had some inclination to break this unwritten rule simply because he could since it was permitted. However, I think his better angels would have lead him to share the winnings if Rachel was in-fact completely committed to their partnership.

My argument has always been that Rachel's actions and attitude toward Nick gave him justification for breaking this unwritten rule and keep the winnings, especially when considering the fact that they were with each other for long either and he got far into the game completely on his own without her aid.

revo74

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:12 am

@prettyinpink wrote:I think Nick is a donkey!!!! :yes:

He played a fair game and it isn't easy to use the word "fair" when it is a game of lies, deceit, manipulation. Rachel is a stronger and wiser woman. She will likely start thinking for herself more often, be less inclined to let others do that for her, and be less prematurely vulnerable to her emotions when it comes to relationships with men like Michael. She will likely also be more aware of the power of her words. It is unlikely that her words will ever cost her $125,000 again, which wasn't apparently as important to her as it would be to us.

She is now set up to be the next bachelorette. She has beauty, she is likable, and she has a victim back-story like all those before her. With that, comes a ring that is valued to what she could have won on the show, plus a filled purse that will be more than what the average person makes in two years of working. Doesn't seem to be a bad place at all.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:56 am

chasingpavements wrote:
@albean99 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:

I agree. Again, MY personal viewpoint is that I'm okay with Nick choosing keep, but I'm NOT okay with Nick's treatment after (both immediately after and after filming) of Rachel. However, I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind. It's fine to have a discussion, but to get emotional and angry because someone has a different opinion is just CRAZY.

As an emotionally stupid guy, there is one thing I am wise beyond my years on: do not engage my wife in a conversation when she is emotionally charged! It never makes matters better. If either one of us is not in a calm state of mind, nothing rational, productive or understanding will come from it. Ever. As a matter of fact, it only causes more hurt on each other.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:49 am

@lolalou39 wrote:I had no problem whatsoever with Nick keeping all the money. Bachelor Pad is supposed to be about winning $250,000 and that's just what he did. The entire show is built on a foundation of booze, lies and hooking up. There is zero honor in this show so why on earth would anyone expect Nick to do the honorable thing.

When Rachel started to fall for Michael, she seemed to stop thinking for herself. IMO she came across as a lost, clueless girl who let Michael and then her blonde friend (Ed's partner) think for her. She readily admited that Michael made all the decisions for them. The only reason she lasted as long as she did is because she was in with the "right" crowd.

Somebody had to win and Nick won. Lucky him. He owed her nothing. And just like everyone else on the show lied, so did he. Now he gets called for it? That makes no sense. Fair is fair and Nick won fair and square.

As you can tell from my posts, I do agree that the game was won fairly. Being a guy in the gene pool that is traditionally considered insensitive, I don't see where he was malicious to Rachel at all.

And, I don't see where Nick lied. A lie is defined by a will-ful intent to deceive. He did tell her that he would share the money with her. And, at the time he said it (which was apparenty) after the final seasons were filmed in a conversation or two that they shared. He probably had every intention to do so. But when he learned the truth in watching the episodes he started to think differently. Then, when the talk continued on stage that he was undeserving and Rachel continued to dismiss him as a partner on stage, his decision was made. The partner he was initially going to share the win with proved to be someone completely different. She was not just a woman who was love struck over another guy and marginally willing to play the game, she was a woman who agreed with Jacqln, that he was undeserving to be there.

We also have to take into consideration that according to someone in the audience, there was a 15-20 minute discussion against Nick, that was led primarily by Rachel's best friend Jacqln who was desperate to convince everyone that he was undeserving. How could he have possibly felt anything other than 'alone'. Chris H said it was the case throughout the season and here he was facing it again. Everything suggested that she would choose 'keep'. He had no reason to trust her - bottom line.

Final note, the audience was surprised but largely approving. There was no rage shown. They may have all felt sorry for the guy having watched him get roasted. Even if he was wallpaper on the show, he still hasn't shown himself to be a mean spirited person. Subsequently, Nick said that everyone in the show were congratulatory and happy for him. All, except Jacqln, Ed and Michael, which makaes sense. Why would that be? Rachel had no enemies that we knew of. I'm sure they were sad for her; but, would they have been happy for Nick if they felt that what he did was unfair?

Fast forward to the future:

1. Franchise needed this ending. If every season ended the same, there would be no interest in it to viewers.

2. The stigma of a predictable ending is now set into play. You can be sure to expect more handling of contestants by production to stage dramatic and controversial endings.

3. A couple may have a partnership, but are they a 'team'. Clearly, both have to exist if the money will be "shared".

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:54 am

@albean99 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:

I agree. Again, MY personal viewpoint is that I'm okay with Nick choosing keep, but I'm NOT okay with Nick's treatment after (both immediately after and after filming) of Rachel. However, I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind. It's fine to have a discussion, but to get emotional and angry because someone has a different opinion is just CRAZY.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by lolalou39 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:44 am

I had no problem whatsoever with Nick keeping all the money. Bachelor Pad is supposed to be about winning $250,000 and that's just what he did. The entire show is built on a foundation of booze, lies and hooking up. There is zero honor in this show so why on earth would anyone expect Nick to do the honorable thing.

When Rachel started to fall for Michael, she seemed to stop thinking for herself. IMO she came across as a lost, clueless girl who let Michael and then her blonde friend (Ed's partner) think for her. She readily admited that Michael made all the decisions for them. The only reason she lasted as long as she did is because she was in with the "right" crowd.

Somebody had to win and Nick won. Lucky him. He owed her nothing. And just like everyone else on the show lied, so did he. Now he gets called for it? That makes no sense. Fair is fair and Nick won fair and square.

lolalou39

Female Posts : 130
Join date : 2012-06-20
Location : southwest

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by albean99 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:36 pm

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:


"Love is the Only Reality" -Ed Lambton

albean99
Moderator
Moderator

Female Posts : 11556
Join date : 2011-06-01
Location : Plano, Tx

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by prettyinpink on Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:35 pm

I think Nick is a donkey!!!! :yes:

prettyinpink

Posts : 1613
Join date : 2012-01-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:29 pm

@ironcat wrote:I wonder if those who are still so angry about what Nick did, and think he's an awful human being, would feel the same way about Rachel if the situation was reversed, and like her friend Jaclyn advised, she had chosen Keep and Nick had chosen Share.


This is a really good point to ponder. How would it have been received if Rachel kept the money:

What if Nick was ugly and disrespectful to her and voiced disinterest in winning the game, would she be criticized like he has been? My answer: NO. People would say that he deserved to not have any money because he was disrespectful to her. People would say that he deserved what he got, nothing.

And as to the sentiment that Nick should have been honest with Rachel and told her he was undecided about whether he would share with her, that goes against the whole point of the "prisoner's dilemma", which the producers put in there for a reason. And all it would have accomplished is probably made Rachel as well vote to Keep, in which case, neither would have won the money. Would that have been "fairer"? Just curious.

We have to keep in mind, they keep the couples a part. They watch the ending separately and alone. They don't see each other until they come out on stage and do not have the time to discuss what they saw and how they felt about it. Producers hold those final episodes like you would a trump card. Will it make your partner change their mind?

I honestly think that Rachel was oblivious as to how obsessive she was over Michael and how disrespectful she was to Nick as an individual and even uncommitted as a partner. If she was to really sit down and listen to her comments through the last two episodes and on the finale and compare them to anything else she would have said to Nick to confirm to him that she had his back, she would likely be surprised that she was that negative.

Was Nick acting within his rights to win all the money? Absolutely. Was Nick ungracious in winning? Absolutely, but taking the whole situation into account, the 3 months that had gone on prior to the finale taping, and the emotions/resentments that must have been building up inside him all that time, I'm not going to completely condemn his character based on this one bit of bad behavior. I need more evidence before I brand someone a lowlife.

Me too. How would I be if I was in that situation and just emerged from six weeks of people dismissing me? How upset would I be if I looked back on my time and saw where I wasn't mean to anyone and they were all talking like I was insignificant? I might be pissed by then. We all have had occasions to over-react. It doesn't make us bad people, just human.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:14 pm

@dw_a_mom wrote:Interesting comments, Average Joe.

I am bleeding heart (with a lot of pragmatism blended in, if that makes sesne) so I jumped right to Nick being wrong not to share. Listening to him has softened that a lot, largely because it is evident that one of your last sentences is true: Rachel gave Nick a lot of reason to doubt her. He did not give her reason to doubt him. That is why the man walked out with the money.

Of course, in real life success looks a lot more like the Richard Gere character in Arbitrage than it looks like Nick.

Or are they not as different as I would assume?

While I doubt that I have heard or read all of his post-show interviews, what I have seen has been fully respectful to Rachel. He hasn't had a tone of vindictiveness or gloating at all. His reasonings have been sound; and he has good wishes and compliments for Rachel. He merely won a game. Nothing more.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Sponsored content Today at 4:49 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 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