Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by lander215, Jan 11, 2006.
Interesting...clearing a guilty conscience perhaps?
I got the impression that he did not feel guilty about anything, but rather, felt that the circumstances needed to be fleshed out so that others would understand why he did not feel guilty. I think he did a good job of that. And I agree that to award the title of Apprentice to the runner-up (as he indicated was Trump's intention by the question) would be to diminish the role for both contestants.
I liked that he said that people need to read the entire statement to get his gist (and not skim) but then his main points were boldfaced, enabling the skimmers.
It was good that he came out with this. While I still don't like him...
What has she said and what is she doing now?
"Dr. Randal Pinkett"?
Not that he's not a doctor, but who puts it on their Web site that way?
"Entrepeneur - Speaker - Author - Community Servant"?
That's just over the top.
He needs a cool theme song....
He's Randal! (Ya)
He's the man; the man with a doctorate! (woo)
He's Randal! (ya)
An Apprentice; he's there to help!
Thats why he's a community servant!
He wrote a book, at least thats what he says
He's Speaks and is an entrepreneur!
If your cat is in a tree
He'll make sure it's not hurt!
Randall, Beloved by all
(except for those dumb critics)
but he say's God Bless them too
and that's why he's a community servant!
(note: his theme song could also be much cooler)
At least when he's writing he knows what the plural of "apprentice" is. I still laugh when I think about his original response to Mr. Trump when he said something to the effect of "the name of the show is not 'The Apprenti'." I remember thinking, this is a guy with multiple degrees and he thinks the plural is 'apprenti?'
I don't know if it was a guilty conscience or a PR move, but if he was so confident he did the right thing he probably would have not have commented at all. Most of it was rehashing his argument that he deserved to win, so that is nothing new.
This is just false.
It was a simple question. He says it was "clear" to him Trump meant should Rebecca be a co-winner, but he has to make assumptions to get to that clarity.
Just because he has not begun his assignment does not mean he hasn't turned off Trump's people, given the likelihood that there has been significant contact.
I swear I heard Rebecca say after Randal's choice that she supported his decision. It was kinda hard to hear among the cacophony of the finale, but I'm pretty sure she was okay with it.
Does all of this mean I can now consider the Eagles Co-Super Bowl Champs for 2005, because eventhough they did not win the game they came real close. I like it, no winners or losers just co-champs for everything!
I think he felt he had to do something to try to improve his image. He obviously has been stung by all the heated criticism of his actions. That's probably all he has heard since the hiring when he expected only admiration of his win. I agree if he was so sure of his decision, he would not feel compelled to rehash and defend it on a website.
Wonder if Trump had a hand in this PR attempt?
I listened a couple times, that night, and I'm about 90% sure she said, "That's unfortunate."
It's hard to take anything Randal says seriously after reading this:
I'm sorry, someone with a website dedicated to how humble they are and who becomes a contestant on a highly-rated network reality show who makes this statement is seriously self-deluded.
He deserved to win; I liked Rebecca but Randal was the better candidate throughout. That's not the issue. It was a gut-check character question that night, and he showed a side of himself that he probably doesn't want to believe exists. Before I read this, I thought he was just a shark who had played the nice guy. Now he just seems kind of pathetic, because I think he believes his own hype and doesn't see the hypocrisy of his own distorted self-image.
That very well could be. "I support that" and "That's unfortunate" are fairly close under those noisy circumstances.
Usually anyone with a doctor degree. I know I would.
I remember the 2001 NFC Championship game where the Eagles lost to the Rams and they all whined and complained after the game that the better team didn't win and they felt they should be the champs. McNabb, after throwing a brutal interception on the final drive to kill their chances, said that he felt the Eagles should be going to the Super Bowl, not the team that actually won the game.
If you want delusion about sports, you're not alone. Especially in Philadelphia.
My wife is a lawyer, so she has her JD (doctor of jurisprudence) but she doesn't go around calling herself a doctor ... maybe lawyers just don't bother.
She said "that's unfortunate".
I still don't get what was so bad about what he did. He didn't want to share the win, which I wouldn't have wanted to either. When Trump said it, it certainly seemed to me that it meant the win would in essence be split, even if that was not his intention.
Easy. Even if you get past the fact that Trump simply said "Should I hire Rebecca too" (or something very close to that), the right thing to do would have been for Randall to be in a mode of what is best for the company since he just won the contest. He would have won over a lot of people if he had done that.
Of course, the surprise factor and no ability to think about the answer factors in. If he anticipated the question and prepared a response, he deserves the criticism.
I think Randall earned the spot to be the Apprentice because though Rebecca was impressive, she wasn't in the class that Randall was in. So I respect his thing about earning things in life, and not getting a free lunch.
Why would hiring Rebecca be in the best interests of the company anyways? It's not like she had any experience at all in real estate development, so instead of Donald splitting his time teaching about his business to two unknowledged people, he could focus it all on one person. That would be the most beneficial for the company. And it's good that whoever doesn't get the other job, someone would have been promoted from within the company to get the job. I think the people who are internally in the company deserve the chance to get the job first.
As a MA resident and devoted fan of the Patriots......I state that, no, you cannot!