Originally Posted by TheMatrix:
“I think James has played the game to the Max. His nom on Austin played out like an open book, he knew Austin would blow and this may cost him his place in the house. Little by little putting on the pressure by not giving Austin and Jenna an answer that made sense.
The vote on Friday gave James and idea who his rivals were. If he plays this right Natasha and Steve & Chloe are next. Last night he sat back and let Natasha do the shouting.”
Actually James gets my sympathy there. It isn't often in the house when someone makes a decision as required by the game they get interrogated. Normally HMs take it on the chin or stew away in the background. They are not normally followed around for several days by two people demanding to know why he 'didn't save them' or chose to nominate them'
Had they not hounded him about his choice of saving Janice (odd thought it may have been) he may not have found it so easy to nominate them this time. He doesn't owe them an explanation. In fact in the case of Jenna, he owes her absolutely nothing. Yes they have had friendly moments, chats even a bit of mild flirting but he owes her no more debt of friendship on the basis of that, than he does others in the house with whom he has also had very cordial relationships. He hasn't fallen out with anyone else that I can recall.
And Jenna did nominate James and she did it gleefully and he saw her doing it. I don't think he did it to even a score, but it does seem that she was the one that set the ground rules that you can nominate even those you profess to like. To make matters worse not only does she and her current ally follow him around seemingly to demand he acknowledge a special relationship with her, she then fails to listen when he attempted to "break his decisions down" . He had got just two lines into his explanation and had done no more than recap the facts and she was straight in there interjecting her view on what he had done.
He was quite right neither of them will ever understand the reasons (good bad or indifferent) because neither listen and both are too busy telling him why they think he did what he did. In those circumstances there is no point trying to offer an explanation that the other party can't or won't hear.
What is the big deal anyway. He nominated them - so what? Its not like he stole their ATM cards and emptied their accounts or drowned their puppy or violated their sisters. He nominated two contestants in a game show.
”
