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 5 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 Guest on Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:11 pm

@LoveDovez wrote:

BUT he forgot the main important thing....... He couldn't have got there and won without Rachel. I think what he did was about as low as a man can go. I'm really glad he isn't a part of my family. I would be so embarrassed and ashamed of him.

Just my honest opinion.

ETA: This opinion has nothing to do with him taking the money altho I thought that was tacky, but I understand it IS a game. It strictly has to do with his actions after taking the money...Wanted to make that plain.

I don't understand how you see it that way. He sue would have gotten there without Rachel. Had she walked off the show for any reason, then they would have brought back the last woman to have left (Erica); or someone that perhaps those remaining would vote back; or someone that Nick would be allowed to bring back. He would be given a partner to finish the game. You could be sure that anyone coming back would have a complete commitment to winning and wanting the money. So, presuming that the Rock Concert would have turned out the same way, he'd have still gotten into the finals. All he would have had to do was perform better than Ed/Jacly and that wouldn't have been hard at all.

The show would have given him a partner in some way so that he could finish the game. And I believe Chris H said in an interview that the person to automatically come back would have been Erica.

Perhaps being a man I'm narrow-sighted. I don't see anything wrong with how he won the money or defended himself afterward. I might not have gotten up off my bench and presented my case more calmly, but I can only say that because I don't have $250K in my hand. I don't know how my feelings would be if I did. If someone would like to give me that much money, I'll test our my reaction.

Either way, he would be damned one way or another in his reaction. It would have been a fine line that anyone would have had to walk. Throughout the seasons, winners have shared the money because they partnered up from the beginning and went hand-in-hand into every competition and had each other's back. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would share the money because they helped each other and remained loyal. This was the 1st season, that did not happen. There was no hand-in-hand; had she tabled her emotions for Michael and told Nick that she was now going to focus fully on the money and helping them over the finish line, sharing the money would have happened. Instead, she was disrespectful to him; he was stuck with her as she was with him. The difference is that he didn't dismiss her and was willing to work with her to the finish.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by ironcat on Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:00 pm

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.

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.

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.

And just to add, I'm a liberal who sides with Nick here, even though pre-show, I was more of a fan of Rachel than of Nick (although honestly, I really don't care much about ANY of them). For me, it's all about gameplay.

ironcat

Posts : 4910
Join date : 2011-03-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by dw_a_mom on Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:55 pm

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?

dw_a_mom

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by LoveDovez on Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:13 am

Avg-Joe wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:IMO, this is show is like a high school social experiment. The kiddies come into the house and a leader(s) determines who are the "cool kids" and who are the "nerdy outsiders." Often there is no compassion or logic to this...perceptions are based on previous friendships and rumors.

Nick was always considered an outsider/nerd by the cool kids. No one gave a damn about him. I don't think he realized just how much until he watched the final episodes. If this was a real high school we would probably be commending the outsider for being victorious in the end.

Is it nice that Nick was cocky and bitter towards Rachel at decision time? Of course not...but I get how anger must have built up in him after watching the show back. Quite frankly if Nick had to make a decision a few months ago he probably would have shared.

At the end of the day, I can't fault Nick for making the decision he did.

I saw no 'cocky' or 'bitterness'. It stands to reason that a person would be happy to win a game. Winning under these circumstances is a fine line to walk. If he looked too happy, he would have been chewed up in the media. Not staying back stage to talk with her was a stroke of wisdom for a guy. She would have never heard anything he said and she was not in the frame of mind to rationally discuss why he made his choice. Sometimes reactions take on a life of their own; we can never predict how much emotion might be within any given moment - especially unplanned moments.

No matter his response, it would be critiqued just because it was an unexpected ending.

You may find his interview on the Murtz Jaffee show to be interesting. He explained everything very well.

The facts speak for themselves. He did not cheat to win. He got into the finals because everyone in the house chose to vote everyone else out! Rachel did disregard him as a partner right up to the finale. And since then, he hasn't said one thing negative about anyone.

What might be helpful to consider, is just how much influence producers had on setting the stage for this outcome.




BUT he forgot the main important thing....... He couldn't have got there and won without Rachel. I think what he did was about as low as a man can go. I'm really glad he isn't a part of my family. I would be so embarrassed and ashamed of him.

Just my honest opinion.

ETA: This opinion has nothing to do with him taking the money altho I thought that was tacky, but I understand it IS a game. It strictly has to do with his actions after taking the money...Wanted to make that plain.

LoveDovez

Female Posts : 2854
Join date : 2012-01-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:49 am

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):

@revo74 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:

@revo74 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.




[/quote]

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by revo74 on Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:27 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Isn't the winning taught to congratulate the losing team on a game well played?

More emphasis is actually placed on the losing team to not be sore losers and to congratulate with winning team, but it does go both ways. Calling someone a ******** schmuck isn't exactly good sportsmanship. The problem here though is that this is a very unique game. It's not a "fair" game. Players, teams don't lose fair and square like in sports and other games. Lying and deceptions is part of the game and when that is the case you're going to have hurt feelings. So I'll give Rachel a break. On the other hand, Nick didn't just win a game or sport for fun. He won 250k. It's hard not to laugh and be happy. So you have to give him a break too. Perhaps not completely, but you know what I am saying.

revo74

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by revo74 on Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:20 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:What I think he did was a punk move, and now tries to blame Rachel for his choice. He is a grown man, and he needs to take responsibility for his decision, instead of blaming it on everyone else. He is getting some heat about it, so now he is trying to make Rachel out to be this big meany. Rachel said it best that neither one of them wanted to be partners with eachother and they BOTH made that evidently clear. Nick didn't care for Rachel anymore than Rachel cared for him, but they were partners at the end and they had to trust eachother. Rachel has said that Nick told her he was going to share with her until the very end, even after he saw what was said on tv. I think he looks like even a bigger shmuck for not being honest with her after the show aired, and said after seeing some of the things you said, I haven't decided what I am going to do, but instead gained her trust and promised her he would share until the very end. I dont care that he won the money, money doesn't make you happy. It is the way he threw it in her face and was laughing at her. I mean what kind of guy does that kind of a thing to a woman who already was deeply hurting. Even Chris Harrison said the way he acted afterwards wasn't cool. He looked like a horse's behind. Rachel can walk away with the respect of most people, because she followed through with her word, unlike the shmuck Nick. I think actions speak louder than words, and for him to keep retweeting even now everytime somebody said you did the right thing, is proof all I need that he knows he did a schmuck thing. If he truly believes he did the right thing, he would not need anybody else's validation.

Whether you agree, disagree or are indifferent to the way Nick handled himself after he won is irrelevant to whether his choice of "keep" was justified, because it was after the fact. The fact that Rachel was heartbroken do to the hands of Michael is not Nick's fault either and is not a reason for Nick to just hand over 125k. If Rachel had her way, she would have left Nick for dead. If Michael told Rachel, forget the money leave the show now and come join me, we will be happy together, she would have left Nick is a second. And I love the way the pro-Rachel crowd sweeps under the rug what she did to her best friend Jaclyn and fiend Ed. Nick choosing "keep" was her karma.



No, i disagree with you, because Rachel didn't leave Nick for dead, because she choose to share the money, unlike the shmuck Nick. Yes, I do feel how one treats others no matter if it is after the fact of winning or not, very relevant. It shows one's character, and it made him look like a horse's behind. Of course this is all my opinion, and that is ok if you think he is the MAN. It has nothing to do whos fault it was that Rachel was feeling bad, the fact that a man would continue to laugh in her face and not realize that the girl is hurting and to continue to stab her in the back shows his true character, and I feel sorry for his future GF. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise, I have a mind of my own. I think he is a shmuck and I think he is a greedy greedy man, and I will never believe his I was going to share the money until bs. He is not innocent, and he is tryng to throw Rachel under the bus making it out like it is all her fault and that she is a big meany. Give me a break, he needs to take responsibility for what he did and own up to it, and stop pointing fingers. He needs to go take his 250,000 dollars and go to ettiquette classes on how to treat women. Period, exclamation mark, and I am done!!!!


ETA: I am not pro Rachel I really didn't care who won. However, I grew up with six brothers and my mom always taught them to treat women with respect. I dont care that he won all the money, it is what he did afterwards that I find to be a shmuck move and very disrespectful. He could have handled himself in a more gentlemanly way, and nothing anybody says will convince me otherwise. I would not want my sister or best friend to ever date a man like that. As for Ed and Jaclyn, I dont really think much about them so that us up to all of them to figure out. At least she didn't jump up and laugh in their face like Nick did to her. She was at least sympathetic and you could truly tell she felt awful, unlike the shmuck Nick.

We all know that Rachel didn't leave Nick, but she attempted to 3 times! She even tried to convince the other couple to vote them off. She insulted Nick numerous times and made it crystal clear that she didn't give a damn about him or his chances of winning. The only reason why she stay — as Nick pointed at during the finale — was because Michael, Jaclyn and Ed had to beg her to stay. She was even said she didn't care about the money! If Michael would have told her to leave the show and join him, that they would be happy together and the money wasn't important, she would have left him in a second and that's a fact. Her attitude and actions toward Nick were terrible, even though she ultimately stuck it out. Nick was placed in a real tough position because if he lashed out at her she would of just walked. He had to taken all of her nonsense and hope she would continue on. I believe this had to do with how Nick acted on the finale, which by the way has been pointed out by numerous people. The guy had all these felling bottled up, not to mention he just won the game and 250k. It all came out.

You miscomprehended what I wrote. I never claimed that Nicks actions after he won are irrelevant. What I was suggesting is that his actions after he opted to keep the money were irrelevant to his decision process that lead him to choose "keep" and whether he was justified to do so, since it was after the fact. When you take this into consideration — which you must — you are left with only one argument. That Nick was greedy and heartless/cruel toward Rachel.

Let me ask you this, what is the more greedy, heartless/cruel action:

Rachel betraying her *best friend* Jaclyn and friend Ed for what's best for herself or;
Nick betraying a *stranger* who attempted to betray him *first* numerous times for what's best for himself

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?
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.?
Who betrayed their best friend and friend?
Who treated their partner like 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?

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. By the way check out this link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] It's a talk show discussing the finale. Two of the people on the show were in the audience and said they left before it was concluded and they were there for 9 hours! One of them was a former contestant on The Bachelor. They said that there was many apologies made that were edited out. I only saw the first 15 minutes, I'll check out the rest when I have free time.

In conclusion, I find it sad how people are so willing to sweep all of Rachel's wrong doings under the rug. Getting her heartbroken doesn't give her a free pass. She obviously pissed him off/hurt Nick's feeling enough for him to choose "keep". What happened after he chose "keep" is a completely different issue — and even if you came to hate the guy for how he acted then, you must acknowledge it was irrelevant to whether he had justification (which I believe he did) to keep all the money himself.


revo74

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:52 pm

@dw_a_mom wrote: Isn't the winning taught to congratulate the losing team on a game well played?

Had he done that, the criticism against him would have been even worse. People would have accused him of rubbing her face in it. The best thing he could do was to leave and wait until all the emotion fades so he can have a reasonable discussion with Rachel if she is still confused by what happened and why.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:49 pm

@philphan wrote:IMO, this is show is like a high school social experiment. The kiddies come into the house and a leader(s) determines who are the "cool kids" and who are the "nerdy outsiders." Often there is no compassion or logic to this...perceptions are based on previous friendships and rumors.

Nick was always considered an outsider/nerd by the cool kids. No one gave a damn about him. I don't think he realized just how much until he watched the final episodes. If this was a real high school we would probably be commending the outsider for being victorious in the end.

Is it nice that Nick was cocky and bitter towards Rachel at decision time? Of course not...but I get how anger must have built up in him after watching the show back. Quite frankly if Nick had to make a decision a few months ago he probably would have shared.

At the end of the day, I can't fault Nick for making the decision he did.

I saw no 'cocky' or 'bitterness'. It stands to reason that a person would be happy to win a game. Winning under these circumstances is a fine line to walk. If he looked too happy, he would have been chewed up in the media. Not staying back stage to talk with her was a stroke of wisdom for a guy. She would have never heard anything he said and she was not in the frame of mind to rationally discuss why he made his choice. Sometimes reactions take on a life of their own; we can never predict how much emotion might be within any given moment - especially unplanned moments.

No matter his response, it would be critiqued just because it was an unexpected ending.

You may find his interview on the Murtz Jaffee show to be interesting. He explained everything very well.

The facts speak for themselves. He did not cheat to win. He got into the finals because everyone in the house chose to vote everyone else out! Rachel did disregard him as a partner right up to the finale. And since then, he hasn't said one thing negative about anyone.

What might be helpful to consider, is just how much influence producers had on setting the stage for this outcome.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by prettyinpink on Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:59 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:I find laughing in one's face after he chose keep disrespectful! Of course that is just me. There was no justification in my eyes for him laughing in her face and prancing around the stage like a crazy man afterwards. He can try to justify it all he wants, and play the game that Rachel, who wouldn't hurt a fly is a big meany and made him do it. I am not buying his Mr. innocent act. If i was his gf, I would not trust him as far as I could throw him.

He says he was happy because he had just won the money, won the "game." Who isn't in that moment? But, yes, he should have collected himself and made a gesture towards her, and he couldn't come up with how to do that. Isn't the winning taught to congratulate the losing team on a game well played?


You can be excited and happy and still at the same time respect your hurting partner!! It really isn't that hard to do.

prettyinpink

Posts : 1613
Join date : 2012-01-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by philphan on Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:33 pm

IMO, this is show is like a high school social experiment. The kiddies come into the house and a leader(s) determines who are the "cool kids" and who are the "nerdy outsiders." Often there is no compassion or logic to this...perceptions are based on previous friendships and rumors.

Nick was always considered an outsider/nerd by the cool kids. No one gave a damn about him. I don't think he realized just how much until he watched the final episodes. If this was a real high school we would probably be commending the outsider for being victorious in the end.

Is it nice that Nick was cocky and bitter towards Rachel at decision time? Of course not...but I get how anger must have built up in him after watching the show back. Quite frankly if Nick had to make a decision a few months ago he probably would have shared.

At the end of the day, I can't fault Nick for making the decision he did.

philphan

Posts : 419
Join date : 2011-05-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by dw_a_mom on Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:52 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I find laughing in one's face after he chose keep disrespectful! Of course that is just me. There was no justification in my eyes for him laughing in her face and prancing around the stage like a crazy man afterwards. He can try to justify it all he wants, and play the game that Rachel, who wouldn't hurt a fly is a big meany and made him do it. I am not buying his Mr. innocent act. If i was his gf, I would not trust him as far as I could throw him.

He says he was happy because he had just won the money, won the "game." Who isn't in that moment? But, yes, he should have collected himself and made a gesture towards her, and he couldn't come up with how to do that. Isn't the winning taught to congratulate the losing team on a game well played?

dw_a_mom

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Nick Peterson - Bachelorette 7 - Discussion

Post by Sponsored content Today at 11:36 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 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