Anthony- I honestly couldn't care less how big of an underdog you were. What I want to learn from you is the reason behind doing the things you did. I can't make a case that Michael played a better game than you, but I could easily make a case for John. My million dollar question for you is:
You seem to be riding the fact that you overcame a "great adversity" to get to the point you were in the game, and in some regards, I don't deny that fact. But if you look at things from a flipped perspective, people didn't take you out because you weren't that big of a threat. Look at the jury; big group game players scatter the ranks of the fallen. While playing under the radar may instantly earn you some people's votes, it doesn't necessarily warrant you mine. I want you to explain why your under the radar gameplay showed more mastery of the game of Survivor than did John's overtly aggressive yet successful, alpha-male type game.
Honestly, it's not my fault that people didn't think of me as a threat. Obviously I was, since I'm the one sitting here and having played a great game. Should I be penalized for people not noticing this? And you say I played an under the radar game, which I never even expressed. I never tried to lay low or purposely be quiet. I was active in a majority of the challenges and tribal councils, and I was never afraid to speak my mind. I wanted to be a part of everything so I knew what was going on, which is actually not under the radar gameplay. I was just a sneaky little bastard. Yes my gameplay was different than John's, but it's a gameplay nonetheless. Does it mean I didn't work as hard? No, I think it actually shows that I worked harder. And it got me to this point in the game. It's ok if you don't respect the kind of game I played, but then there really isn't anything else I can say to sway you. But I do hope that you understand that I did play hard.
