Re: Wanna bet? -- SOUTH CAROLINA MAO - PLEASE NO BANNERS - NO BANNERS

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: Wanna bet?

Author:
Stop complaining we have a wonderful smart and beautiful young lady representing us !
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Thursday, July 18, 11:49:04pm
In reply to: SC pageant fan 's message, "Wanna bet?" on Wednesday, July 17, 08:27:56pm

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Wanna bet? No one denies your response of her beauty and intellect BUT some how you forgot TALENT which was 50% during preliminary. Even if she gained high scoring in every other area, there's no way should have scored mid range in talent. Out of 50 plus girls, Morgan Nichols in my scoring, scored at the bottom 10 talent. So what happened, I am uncertain, but I am certain that the pageant this year was clearly a mishap. And to imply that we should just move on and get behind the "most qualified winner", is an insult to those that observed prelims and the finals. It's like asking majority of the people to take a poof-be-gone pill, as if they didn't spend their money to see the events.

Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: Friday, July 19, 09:33:38am

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: perfect response.

Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: Friday, July 19, 10:49:36am

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: perfect response.

Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: Wednesday, July 31, 10:28:15am

>Not a perfect resonse at all. The pageant is won in
>interview, not talent.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Wanna bet? No one denies your response of her beauty and intellect BUT some how you forgot TALENT which was 50% during preliminary. Even if she gained high scoring in every other area, there's no way should have scored mid range in talent. Out of 50 plus girls, Morgan Nichols in my scoring, scored at the bottom 10 talent. So what happened, I am uncertain, but I am certain that the pageant this year was clearly a mishap. And to imply that we should just move on and get behind the "most qualified winner", is an insult to those that observed prelims and the finals. It's like asking majority of the people to take a poof-be-gone pill, as if they didn't spend their money to see the events.

Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: Friday, July 19, 11:31:16am

Not a perfect resonse at all. The pageant is won in interview, not talent.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Not a perfect response at all. The pageant is won in interview, not talent. - Then they should of held a pageant for beautiful and academically intelligence only or just opened the job of Miss South Carolina to interview these type of candidates! Then the end may some how justify the means. And give the other talented, beautiful, and intellectual girls option to compete in another type of pageant. Bottom line is talent is still 50% during preliminaries and there's no way the winner beat out other girls to make it to top 16!

Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: Friday, July 19, 02:27:58pm

>Not a perfect resonse at all. The pageant is won in
>interview, not talent.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: are you a moron? The PUBLISHED judging criteria says that Talent is 50%, not interview. And while I agree that she was the girl to beat, that opinion was formed before she opened her mouth to sing. When that happened, she legit fell out of the Top 10. Either stick to the judging criteria or change it. I'm not saying she didn't blow everyone else away in the other areas, especially CMN and ad sales, but that girl couldn't have been in even the top half of Talent.

Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: Saturday, July 20, 12:08:07pm

>>Not a perfect resonse at all. The pageant is won in
>>interview, not talent.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: are you a moron? The PUBLISHED judging criteria says that Talent is 50%, not interview. And while I agree that she was the girl to beat, that opinion was formed before she opened her mouth to sing. When that happened, she legit fell out of the Top 10. Either stick to the judging criteria or change it. I'm not saying she didn't blow everyone else away in the other areas, especiRe- Exactly, so why would any respectable JUDGES, set Miss SC up to compete at MA knowingly that talent is 50%. I still believe scores was either manipulated by low balling certain girls in certain areas and over exaggerated others in the areas. Or NO girl stood a chance before the pageant began! These are the only answers to this pageant fiasco!

Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: Saturday, July 20, 03:54:24pm

>>>Not a perfect resonse at all. The pageant is won in
>>>interview, not talent.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]