Bachelor 24 - Peter Weber - Mar 2nd (WTA) - Discussion - *Sleuthing Spoilers*

HavaDrPepper wrote:@leavers

Merissa's conversation with Peter was edited down to barely anything.  They talked for 7 to 10 minutes and we saw nowhere near that on the show.  She has stated that she said "marriages and relationships" when talking to Peter and evidently gave him details as well.  IMO there is a reason her face was blurred since they didn't have the camera angles they normally do when filming this stuff.  They couldn't hide what she was actually saying unless they blurred her face.  The only mic was Peter's.  She did not have a mic on at all.  

I see a lot of issues with VF outside of the breaking up of marriages/relationships.  Not someone I would want to be around.

IMO

@gurlbrit

I have heard that as well about "elite" military.

leavers wrote:

HavaDrPepper wrote:@leavers

Merissa's conversation with Peter was edited down to barely anything.  They talked for 7 to 10 minutes and we saw nowhere near that on the show.  She has stated that she said "marriages and relationships" when talking to Peter and evidently gave him details as well.  IMO there is a reason her face was blurred since they didn't have the camera angles they normally do when filming this stuff.  They couldn't hide what she was actually saying unless they blurred her face.  The only mic was Peter's.  She did not have a mic on at all.  

I see a lot of issues with VF outside of the breaking up of marriages/relationships.  Not someone I would want to be around.

IMO

I agree.. of course they set her up and they set Peter up too , there's no doubt that her returning to his hotel room was producer driven and that whole scene was set up that he take her back. They knew Madison was his F1 , they wanted her for the drama and she's delivering. No one can convince me any different. jmo

@gurlbrit

I have heard that as well about "elite" military.

Yes, but the point I was replying to was that ABC shouldn't have made a platform for VF to be stoned on. On the show, all Merissa said was that relationships broke up because of her which is pretty vague and imo not particularly harmful or damaging to VF. What she told Peter is irrelevant imo, because ABC clearly aren't dumb enough to make those more targeted revelations public on their watch.

(eta I agree with you, my post was directed to the idea that ABC set VF up for a public stoning so to speak)

HavaDrPepper wrote:VF set VF up for the public stoning.

She knew her own history (even though she denies it), she knew they would use it if they found out especially after the Chase Rice date.  It is all on her as to how she handled it.  Crying and stomping like a child having a tantrum was not the way to do it.

I actually think ABC was very kind to her and the WTA will be more of the same. They will not get into depth on any of this. And, she will be on BIP.

leavers wrote:

HavaDrPepper wrote:@leavers

Merissa's conversation with Peter was edited down to barely anything.  They talked for 7 to 10 minutes and we saw nowhere near that on the show.  She has stated that she said "marriages and relationships" when talking to Peter and evidently gave him details as well.  IMO there is a reason her face was blurred since they didn't have the camera angles they normally do when filming this stuff.  They couldn't hide what she was actually saying unless they blurred her face.  The only mic was Peter's.  She did not have a mic on at all.  

I see a lot of issues with VF outside of the breaking up of marriages/relationships.  Not someone I would want to be around.

IMO



@gurlbrit

I have heard that as well about "elite" military.

Yes, but the point I was replying to was that ABC shouldn't have made a platform for VF to be stoned on. On the show, all Merissa said was that relationships broke up because of her which is pretty vague and imo not particularly harmful or damaging to VF. What she told Peter is irrelevant imo, because ABC clearly aren't dumb enough to make those more targeted revelations public on their watch.

(eta I agree with you, my post was directed to the idea that ABC set VF up for a public stoning so to speak)

Chgohighlife wrote:

leavers wrote:

HavaDrPepper wrote:@leavers

Merissa's conversation with Peter was edited down to barely anything.  They talked for 7 to 10 minutes and we saw nowhere near that on the show.  She has stated that she said "marriages and relationships" when talking to Peter and evidently gave him details as well.  IMO there is a reason her face was blurred since they didn't have the camera angles they normally do when filming this stuff.  They couldn't hide what she was actually saying unless they blurred her face.  The only mic was Peter's.  She did not have a mic on at all.  

I see a lot of issues with VF outside of the breaking up of marriages/relationships.  Not someone I would want to be around.

IMO



@gurlbrit

I have heard that as well about "elite" military.

Yes, but the point I was replying to was that ABC shouldn't have made a platform for VF to be stoned on. On the show, all Merissa said was that relationships broke up because of her which is pretty vague and imo not particularly harmful or damaging to VF. What she told Peter is irrelevant imo, because ABC clearly aren't dumb enough to make those more targeted revelations public on their watch.

(eta I agree with you, my post was directed to the idea that ABC set VF up for a public stoning so to speak)

The public stoning comment was not about anything ABC has done or, revealed. It was my response to a poster who suggested perhaps tptb could give the wives the opportunity to address VF. I was simply stating my opinion. The wives need to place most of the blame on their husbands. Women don’t steal husbands. They play for a few days with men who either don’t care or, think they can get away with it. Elite military, my foot. They’re just disloyal, unfaithful trash. I don’t even want to see those women make fools of themselves if they’re trying to say otherwise. Just keep blaming VF till the next woman “steals” their husband. Absurd, IMO.

leavers wrote:

Chgohighlife wrote:

leavers wrote:

HavaDrPepper wrote:@leavers

Merissa's conversation with Peter was edited down to barely anything.  They talked for 7 to 10 minutes and we saw nowhere near that on the show.  She has stated that she said "marriages and relationships" when talking to Peter and evidently gave him details as well.  IMO there is a reason her face was blurred since they didn't have the camera angles they normally do when filming this stuff.  They couldn't hide what she was actually saying unless they blurred her face.  The only mic was Peter's.  She did not have a mic on at all.  

I see a lot of issues with VF outside of the breaking up of marriages/relationships.  Not someone I would want to be around.

IMO



@gurlbrit

I have heard that as well about "elite" military.

Yes, but the point I was replying to was that ABC shouldn't have made a platform for VF to be stoned on. On the show, all Merissa said was that relationships broke up because of her which is pretty vague and imo not particularly harmful or damaging to VF. What she told Peter is irrelevant imo, because ABC clearly aren't dumb enough to make those more targeted revelations public on their watch.

(eta I agree with you, my post was directed to the idea that ABC set VF up for a public stoning so to speak)

The public stoning comment was not about anything ABC has done or, revealed. It was my response to a poster who suggested perhaps tptb could give the wives the opportunity to address VF. I was simply stating my opinion. The wives need to place most of the blame on their husbands. Women don’t steal husbands. They play for a few days with men who either don’t care or, think they can get away with it. Elite military, my foot. They’re just disloyal, unfaithful trash. I don’t even want to see those women make fools of themselves if they’re trying to say otherwise. Just keep blaming VF till the next woman “steals” their husband. Absurd, IMO.

Removing gender from the equation because it's totally irrelevant imo:

If Person A is friends with Person B and they're fully aware Person B is married and who they're married to, then it is wrong for Person A to sleep with Person B's spouse. It is a betrayal of friendship. That is the case with VF, and that is what makes her actions wrong. The women were her friends! Are the husbands also wrong - of course! And I've never seen anyone deny that. But they didn't put themselves on a TV show, and even if they did, they're not on the one we're discussing here.

The military thing is relevant only in as far as it's a reason why the identities of the involved parties are never going to come to light.

Anyway agreed with @atem, unless VF goes on BiP then she'll be forgotten after WTA. And if she does go to paradise, the story will most likely move on and be about whatever she gets up to on the island.

leavers wrote:snipped

Removing gender from the equation because it's totally irrelevant imo:

If Person A is friends with Person B and they're fully aware Person B is married and who they're married to, then it is wrong for Person A to sleep with Person B's spouse. It is a betrayal of friendship. That is the case with VF, and that is what makes her actions wrong. The women were her friends! Are the husbands also wrong - of course! And I've never seen anyone deny that. But they didn't put themselves on a TV show, and even if they did, they're not on the one we're discussing here.

The military thing is relevant only in as far as it's a reason why the identities of the involved parties are never going to come to light.

Anyway agreed with @atem, unless VF goes on BiP then she'll be forgotten after WTA. And if she does go to paradise, the story will most likely move on and be about whatever she gets up to on the island.

Uh oh... lots of speculation out there.

— Natasha Parker (@itsnatashajp) February 24, 2020

Please don’t put us in the same boat...I was invited, I just unfortunately couldn’t make it.

— Natasha Parker (@itsnatashajp) February 24, 2020