Thread:Fedora Kid/@comment-26278817-20151126025739/@comment-1734566-20151201020137

How would splitting the vote cause HIM to be blindsided? They had a 9-3 surplus. It easily could've been a 5-4-3 split, with NO room for error. How was he in danger of a blindside? And couldn't that argument be used for ANY elimination? Why EVER split the vote, if that's the case?

Are you serious? Again, did Jeremy create the Wiglesworth blindside? And how many votes was it for Wiglesworth? 6? Against...3 votes for Ciera, and...2 for Kelley? Which, mathematically, means that the plan totally COULD have happened without Jeremy? So no; he wasn't the "swing vote." They could've easily gone along with just Spencer and Stephen, and wha-bam; bye-bye Wigles.

Again, him being part of a strong tribe doesn't mean much. As you acknowledge, he's just one factor. But with that logic in mind, you subsequently have to give just as much credit to the other people who did well, like Keith and Joe and Spencer. Again, IDK how you can single that factor out as a pro-Jeremy argument. As I've said before, it seems that most of your pro-Jeremy points are built on giving him sole credit for things he was only partially involved in as if HE was the one behind it, and in the case of the Savage blindside...just a lot of spinning, I guess. :P