# Survivor Finale **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 16, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686 "2010-05-16T22:42:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/61 "2010-05-17T12:49:11Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > The jury is stupid. What on earth did Sandra do to deserve the win? Simple answer: She got the most votes at the final Tribal Council. The rules of\* Survivor \*say that’s how you win, which is what Russell refused to accept. Saying that somebody didn’t “deserve” to win because they didn’t win immunity challenges or didn’t have a strong alliance or whatever is like saying the Yankees deserved to win because they got more hits, even if the Red Sox scored more runs. Hits are helpful, but scoring runs is the ultimate goal. Fireman Tom was right on with his comment. Every winner deserved it simply because of the fact that they _did_ win. It’s self-defined. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/62 "2010-05-17T13:12:47Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > I agree totally. I think JT’s was the least dumb of the candidates. All the other moves looked dumb no matter what you knew; all of JT’s tribe thought there was a woman’s alliance and none of them knew Russell. Right. People just voted what they remember the most. Erik and James had far stupider moves. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/63 "2010-05-17T13:16:55Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > I think this finale should quiet the people who argued that Russell should have won last season. No, he shouldn’t have. He’s like a person who enters a triathalon and only focuses on biking and running. The fact that he nearly drowns because he hasn’t bothered to train in swimming doesn’t detract from his delusion that he SHOULD have won the race because he kicked ass in the other two parts. Triathalons don’t work that way and neither does Survivor. The SOCIAL part – knowing that your ousted teammates are eventually going to vote for the winner – is an integral part of the game. And those who don’t come to grips with that will lose. Agreed. I really hope this puts an end to the “Russell is one of the greatest Survivors ever” rallying cry too. As his shutout shows, he was an also-ran that the true power players (namely Parvati and Sandra [although not for lack of trying]) didn’t take out because they want to be sitting next to him at the end. Russell’s only hope would have been to play against Rupert and Colby at the end. Then he can give Danielle and Parvati some smoke about how he eliminated them because they’re threats. The same might work on JT and Courtney. But Russell’s too dumb to recognize why the jury would think that way. Also, does anyone else just love that Courtney calls Probst “Jeffrey”? I don’t know why, but that just amuses me. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/64 "2010-05-17T13:22:41Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Parvati should have won. > > Russel had no social game. Sandra had no strategic or physical game. > > Parvati was strong on strategy, social, physical. > > The jury is stupid. What on earth did Sandra do to deserve the win? I think the problem that people have with their perception of Sandra is very similar to the problem that Russell has with the game in general: they define “strategy” very narrowly as “switching allegiances back and forth like a crazed ferret, and making sure that you determine, at least partly, which people who are eliminated on a day to day basis.” But that’s not really strategy. Take away his bravado and dickishness, and Russell is the same player as Rob Cesternino, from all those many seasons ago: too enamored of his own cleverness to think enough about how that cleverness is being applied, and too convinced that his way is the best way to ever realize that it’s a problem. The first guy who ever won this game is regarded as one of the better strategists to have ever played, and he has a reputation as devious and untrustworthy. But Richard Hatch was no Russell, lying and switching allegiances at every turn. Richard made a single, four-person alliance basically at the outset of the game, and then stuck to that alliance for 39 days. He made a second, two-person alliance, as well - and stuck to _that_, as well, right to the end (and threw an immunity challenge in order to be sure he wouldn’t have to betray his very honor-oriented ally and thus lose the ally’s vote). Good strategy is about getting to and setting yourself up for the endgame - nothing else. Winning challenges is absolutely irrelevant when you’re in no danger; what difference did it make if Sandra never won individual immunity? She never _needed_ it! Here’s what she did do, in this season. She began the season by never really committing whole-hog to any single alliance. This is actually a great early-game approach. Being part of a recognized alliance is a great idea… if your alliance happens to gain the upper hand. On the other hand, if you join an alliance early game, and that alliance finds itself in trouble, you are _screwed_. Ask Tom Westman. As a free agent - unless you’re absolutely loathsome or weird or annoying, which Sandra is not - you are simply never a target until one recognized alliance eliminates all the others. Your vote is viewed as a tool, and if you’re willing to use it as such, they’ll keep you around. But following the merge, Sandra executed a long-term strategy that is being ignored. She gave you the clue herself - asked what she did to win, she emphasized her strategy: _she tried to get rid of Russell._ And Russell stayed, right? So Sandra’s big long-term strategy failed. Right? Except look closer: Sandra never said that her strategy was _to get rid of Russell_; her strategy was to _try to get rid of Russell._ The success of this approach had nothing to do with whether or not Russell actually went anywhere. Russell was no threat to Sandra. He believed her to be weak and incapable of winning, and told her so directly. He wanted to keep her around. Getting rid of her would have meant taking a dangerous risk with someone like Colby - vote Sandra out at F5, for example, and you take the not-so-crazy risk that Colby wins F4 immunity (and Colby, if he’d made F3, would have won the game). So Russell sticking around meant nothing to Sandra, in a game sense. But she relentlessly pursued his ouster. Why? Because by doing that, she set herself up as the anti-Russell. Each Hero that trudged down the path toward the jury box knew, as they went, that _Sandra_ was a straight-shooter, that _Sandra_ had been right all along, that, hell, _Sandra_ was basically an honorary Hero. Five Heroes went to that jury - as Sandra knew they eventually would - and every one went thinking of Sandra as “on their side.” Take a look at the final vote. Five Heroes on the jury - every one voted for Sandra. You think that was a mistake, or an accident of the game? I don’t. It was a direct result of Sandra ensuring that she was the clear anti-Russell candidate (in comparison to Parvati, who was viewed as connected to Russell, and Russell, who was viewed as Russell). Rupert knew Sandra was opposed to Russell. JT knew. They ALL knew - and if they didn’t, Sandra made sure to remind them of it over and over and over at final Tribal Council. _This_ was strategy - brilliant strategy, on a level way above the aimless, meandering wandering from allegiance to allegiance that characterized Russell’s game. Great season, great deserving winner. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/65 "2010-05-17T13:27:31Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > I agree totally. I think JT’s was the least dumb of the candidates. All the other moves looked dumb no matter what you knew; all of JT’s tribe thought there was a woman’s alliance and none of them knew Russell. I think JT got the award because his was the most recent. The one folks most easily remembered, and it was played up by the producers. I kept asking, who is that third person up there with Parvati and Russell. Sandra had a completely different look. I loved watching Russell’s face as the votes rolled in. Then he says he lost the game because it was flawed. The game is flawed!! ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/66 "2010-05-17T13:32:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I loved watching Russell’s face as the votes rolled in. Then he says he lost the game because it was flawed. The game is flawed!! Too stubborn and blinded to see that it was HIS game that was flawed. I was one of the “Russell shoulda won” people last season, but not this season. He was played bigtime by Parvati and Sandra both. I’m even kind of disappointed he got the consolation prize…I think they should’ve sent him home with nothing but a new hat, if that. ---
**Author:** ![Minnie\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Minnie\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Minnie_Luna)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/67 "2010-05-17T13:52:24Z")
While Russell makes for good entertainment, I truly loathe him. I was happy with Sandra winning, I would have been happy with Parvati winning as well. The difference to me at this tribal council versus the final TC in season 19, is that Russell was **clearly** out of his element with Parvati and Sandra. Parvati and Sandra know how to talk to a jury and swayed all votes away from Russell, if there were any to begin with. When Russell went up against Mick and Natalie, Russell could have (if he was truly a great player) talked his way into the million. Instead, he swayed the jury against himself by telling everyone how inept they were because he was able to beat them. Parvati and Sandra made great arguments to the jury, Parvati calling Russell out on the having Jerri’s vote was key, IMHO. I loved that Coach didn’t ask any questions, just pontificated on his greatness. ---
**Author:** ![Rebo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rebo/32/13005_2.png) [@Rebo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rebo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/68 "2010-05-17T13:54:34Z")
I’m glad Sandra won, even though I was rooting for Parvati. **storyteller** - that was some great insight there. I wish Russell would have had the balls to shave his head! Wouldn’t that have been hilarious? But he has no humility, and no sense of humor. I loved it as the votes got read, and his face just got scowlier and scowlier… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/69 "2010-05-17T14:07:52Z")
> [@BMada](#): > > But you have to admit, Russell is good for TV. His strategic plays and his lack of social skills coming back to bite him in the ass. I would love to see more Russell type players and less Rupert type players. I must respectfully differ. Russell the sexist sociopath with the awful accent and bloated ego is not my idea of good TV. If he had any brains or self awareness he would get psychological help for his obvious narcissism and complete lack of empathy. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I think the problem that people have with their perception of Sandra is very similar to the problem that Russell has with the game in general: they define “strategy” very narrowly as “switching allegiances back and forth like a crazed ferret, and making sure that you determine, at least partly, which people who are eliminated on a day to day basis.” > > But that’s not really strategy. Take away his bravado and dickishness, and Russell is the same player as Rob Cesternino, from all those many seasons ago: too enamored of his own cleverness to think enough about how that cleverness is being applied, and too convinced that his way is the best way to ever realize that it’s a problem. > > The first guy who ever won this game is regarded as one of the better strategists to have ever played, and he has a reputation as devious and untrustworthy. But Richard Hatch was no Russell, lying and switching allegiances at every turn. Richard made a single, four-person alliance basically at the outset of the game, and then stuck to that alliance for 39 days. He made a second, two-person alliance, as well - and stuck to _that_, as well, right to the end (and threw an immunity challenge in order to be sure he wouldn’t have to betray his very honor-oriented ally and thus lose the ally’s vote). Good strategy is about getting to and setting yourself up for the endgame - nothing else. Winning challenges is absolutely irrelevant when you’re in no danger; what difference did it make if Sandra never won individual immunity? She never _needed_ it! > > Here’s what she did do, in this season. She began the season by never really committing whole-hog to any single alliance. This is actually a great early-game approach. Being part of a recognized alliance is a great idea… if your alliance happens to gain the upper hand. On the other hand, if you join an alliance early game, and that alliance finds itself in trouble, you are _screwed_. Ask Tom Westman. As a free agent - unless you’re absolutely loathsome or weird or annoying, which Sandra is not - you are simply never a target until one recognized alliance eliminates all the others. Your vote is viewed as a tool, and if you’re willing to use it as such, they’ll keep you around. > > But following the merge, Sandra executed a long-term strategy that is being ignored. She gave you the clue herself - asked what she did to win, she emphasized her strategy: _she tried to get rid of Russell._ And Russell stayed, right? So Sandra’s big long-term strategy failed. Right? Except look closer: Sandra never said that her strategy was _to get rid of Russell_; her strategy was to _try to get rid of Russell._ The success of this approach had nothing to do with whether or not Russell actually went anywhere. Russell was no threat to Sandra. He believed her to be weak and incapable of winning, and told her so directly. He wanted to keep her around. Getting rid of her would have meant taking a dangerous risk with someone like Colby - vote Sandra out at F5, for example, and you take the not-so-crazy risk that Colby wins F4 immunity (and Colby, if he’d made F3, would have won the game). > > So Russell sticking around meant nothing to Sandra, in a game sense. But she relentlessly pursued his ouster. Why? Because by doing that, she set herself up as the anti-Russell. Each Hero that trudged down the path toward the jury box knew, as they went, that _Sandra_ was a straight-shooter, that _Sandra_ had been right all along, that, hell, _Sandra_ was basically an honorary Hero. Five Heroes went to that jury - as Sandra knew they eventually would - and every one went thinking of Sandra as “on their side.” > > Take a look at the final vote. Five Heroes on the jury - every one voted for Sandra. You think that was a mistake, or an accident of the game? I don’t. It was a direct result of Sandra ensuring that she was the clear anti-Russell candidate (in comparison to Parvati, who was viewed as connected to Russell, and Russell, who was viewed as Russell). Rupert knew Sandra was opposed to Russell. JT knew. They ALL knew - and if they didn’t, Sandra made sure to remind them of it over and over and over at final Tribal Council. > > _This_ was strategy - brilliant strategy, on a level way above the aimless, meandering wandering from allegiance to allegiance that characterized Russell’s game. > > Great season, great deserving winner. Excellent summary! Well said. ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/70 "2010-05-17T14:53:27Z")
line of the night was Parvati calling Russel her “little pet”… ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/71 "2010-05-17T15:13:01Z")
> [@phungi](#): > > line of the night was Parvati calling Russel her “little pet”… It was a great line, but that line of thinking is ultimately why Sandra beat her. Nobody wants to vote for the mean snarling pitbull, but nobody wants to vote for their owner either. Parvati probably had no other choice, especially pre-merge, but in hindsight she probably had a better chance with Jerri and Sandra in the final (especially if she could have portrayed herself as the Russell-slayer). Sadly, Russell winning that final immunity made it impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/72 "2010-05-17T15:16:29Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > _This_ was strategy - brilliant strategy, on a level way above the aimless, meandering wandering from allegiance to allegiance that characterized Russell’s game. That’s exactly right, I think. There is a difference between tactics and strategy. Russell has great tactics - he’s very good at engineering specific votes to go the way he wants. His downfall is that he feels like every vote must be a result of his machinations. This is simply unnecessary. And he doesn’t seem to ever seem to acknowledge that people will not vote for you just because you outlasted or outplayed them - you have to give them more than that (which Sandra did brilliantly). Russell also got very, very lucky this season (as did Parvati). If Tyson doesn’t make a horrifyingly stupid move Russell is gone, and Parvati soon behind. ---
**Author:** ![Joanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@Joanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joanie)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/73 "2010-05-17T15:17:30Z")
> [@BMada](#): > > enlighten me to your point of view, I stated my case and rebutted your opinion. Give me all the evidence to refute the “nothings” so I can see how you can come up with your very specific point of view. Because without any of the evidence you’re just making broad general statements that have no merit. I’d love to read an essay about Sandra being a nothing, dissect it and give my own essay as to why Sandra is more than what you say she is. And I don’t just watch the regular Survivor Show, I watch the extra scenes, I read plenty of articles from Probst’s blog to [realitynewsonline.com](http://realitynewsonline.com) to get a better understanding of what’s being shown Thanks. But, no thanks. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/74 "2010-05-17T15:19:08Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Good lord, Sandra has never won an individual immunity challenge in either of her two seasons, sat out most of the villians’ challenges in the early part of this season, nobody ever wanted to vote her out because she was so pathetic, and _that_ was the person the jury felt earned the million? Ugh. In one sense, Probst and Fireman Tom are right: the winner is the winner, for whatever reason. However… Parvati was better physically, strategically and socially than Sandra. She was better than Russell socially and physically…ergo, it should’ve been Parvati. And Sandra’s presence in the Final 3 was solely the result of Russell’s whim. If he was better at reading the jury (boneheadedy thinking that Sandra would get zero votes) Sandra would’ve been on the jury instead of Jerri. So Sandra benefited from a huge dollop of luck, whereas Russell and Parvati were more or less masters of their own fate. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/75 "2010-05-17T15:27:14Z")
> [@Tangent](#): > > - Colby’s remarks were really interesting, about not being able to explore the jungle, and also something about not being able to go into the water as much. Anyone know what he’s referring to? Sounds like they were fairly restricted in what they were allowed to do. I hadn’t thought about it, but it does seem like they didn’t utilize the water as much in challenges this time. There were a few Reunion remarks that would have benefitted from follow-up, and this was one. Maybe they were in a national park or something similar, and were not allowed to disturb the wildlife. (What exactly did they eat, anyway? We saw very little food gathering. Did they live on coconuts?) The other comment was Stephenie’s – insinuating that she doesn’t hang out with the other Survivor alumni, and this put her at a disadvantage. Were there possibly pre-built alliances, just based on off-screen personal relationships? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/76 "2010-05-17T15:29:29Z")
Parvati should’ve made a bigger and better case for herself. I think she could’ve beaten Sandra, as she really did play a more well rounded game. Her double II giveaway was a brilliant tactic-- maybe one of the best I’ve seen. She undersold herself. Not that Snadra didn’t play a good game, too. Burning Russell’s hat was a great karma thing, too, and although I haven’t watched the whole reunion show yet, it seems they didn’t make much of an issue of all the mean shit Russell did to people to fuck with their heads. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/77 "2010-05-17T15:29:58Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > So Sandra benefited from a huge dollop of luck, whereas Russell and Parvati were more or less masters of their own fate. Sandra’s dollop of luck was what exactly? Being weak at challenges? That’s just who she is - it’s not like she didn’t try to be stronger. I think a key conversation (in a series of small, insightful ones from her) was when she and Russell were talking in the woods and she said something like “I’m happy with the $100k, I know I can’t win”. This is exactly what an egotist like Russell wants to hear, and from that moment it was between Jerri and Parvati for him. I still think the “luckiest” moment of the game was either JT handing over an idol (which ended up saving Jerri, IIRC) or Tyson’s moment of stupidity (which saved Russell). ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/78 "2010-05-17T15:39:22Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Sandra’s dollop of luck was what exactly? Being weak at challenges? That’s just who she is - it’s not like she didn’t try to be stronger. > > I think a key conversation (in a series of small, insightful ones from her) was when she and Russell were talking in the woods and she said something like “I’m happy with the $100k, I know I can’t win”. This is exactly what an egotist like Russell wants to hear, and from that moment it was between Jerri and Parvati for him. Sandra’s luck was getting picked by Russell to go to the Final 3. After losing the final IC, the makeup of the Final 3 was completely out of her hands, and therefore it was only luck that got her there. And maybe the conversation you quoted above. ---
**Author:** ![Salem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Salem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salem)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/79 "2010-05-17T15:41:24Z")
And a follow up to that key conversation- she said to the jury “Russell said I’d get no votes, so here I am”. So out come the rush of Hero votes just to prove Russell wrong. As someone else said upthread, Sandra set herself up perfectly as the anti-Russell. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686/80 "2010-05-17T15:42:44Z")
I really wish the finalists were allowed to respond to non-questions at the Final Council. There needs to be a bigger opportunity to make your case aside from your alloted speech. Particularly, I’d like to see how each responded to Coach’s diatribe as well as Rupert’s. I understood where each was coming from and they made good points (if enormously heavy-handed and one-sided). Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut, but certainly Parvati and Russell needed more time to make their points. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-finale/539686.md?page=5)