BlueBarracuda ALSO CURRENT TENGAGED GENERATION: BEING NOMMED BACK 2 BACK, ESPECIALLY IN THE SINGLE DIGITS STAGE, IS NOT BEING A "FLAVOR". THE TERM FLAVOR AROSE WHEN PEOPLE WERE GETTING 4-5+ NOMS OR MORE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THUMPER'S ARE SPACED ENOUGH WHERE SHE IS NOT A FLAVOR, JUST A BAD PLAYER
No offense buddy, but Thumper91 was nommed for 10th, 8th, and 7th. By your logic, if she survives this poll and gets nommed again for 6th and 5th, that would, by your definition, make her a FLAVOR!
Also, she was nominated in 3 rounds in a span of 4 rounds. That is NOT spaced out enough for her that she couldn't be a flavor. Just saying.
What? A popular player nommed 3 times mid-week> Still not a flavor not matter how much Thumper91 wants to play the underdog card. I saved her 2/3 times and if she gets nommed next day change, then she might be considered a flavor. With 10 people left, there is a 5/6 person majority, who obviously aren't going to turn on themselves, leaving 4/5 options,so Thumper going up 3 out of 4 rounds is inevitable in such a situation. If this happened earlier in the week, we wouldn't be having this argument. But by the original definition of what a flavor was, Thumper is not quite there yet and can't play that card.
Not sure what your point of this blog is, because your "no offense" paragraph is exactly the point. She hasn't been nommed 4 times or 5 times. She could go unnommed the rest of the game. But she is not a flavor yet, she is just a popular player on the bottom whose so far gone up 3 times.
However, putting her up against obviously beatable candidates like Halloween and Peeps was stupid on the majority's part, because you don't want to risk propelling Lauren into an actual flavor, which she will become if they keep making terrible pairs.
(Wasn't trying to attack her, but my Stars pet peeves include people calling the majority alliance sheeps and people using terms incorrectly).
BlueBarracuda The "point" of this blog was to point out that you can't discount that Thumper can't be a flavor when you use your own logic. When you said that her nominations were spaced enough that she were to get thrown into the "bad player" category, then regardless of when she got nommed, you have to look at when she was nommed, which were, as I said, 10th, 8th, and 7th. To be fair, I highly doubt anyone who actually is a bad player could even survive as many as she did without going up and instead have been nommed sometime between 16th-11th because I have heard the noms in Stars change like the wind blows. A bad player going unnommed for 6 rounds is just not something that happens, or if it does happen, very rarely.
You are right in that it might not make her a flavor now if we use your point, and you are right in that, hypothetically, she could go the rest of the game without going back on the block (this I highly doubt because there's so few left in the house). But were she to survive this poll and go up either for 6th or 5th, she would then be a flavor no matter when in the week these nominations occurred. Plain and simple.
All I'm saying is that no matter how you word your point, you have to be careful how it comes across because flaws and loopholes can always come out.
