It should perhaps be acknowledged that the deep bogosity
of The Weakest Link
does not stem uniquely from its infuriating host
and her brainless catchphrase
If a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, why do the contestants get stronger
when the 'weakest link' is removed? All of a sudden, the average available money per head has gone up, and there's one less moron to compete with.
' before answering your question to harvest the exponential
ly accreting money belongs in Mao
, not a TV quiz show. It makes it unnecessarily difficult to obtain any cash.
, what is a hornbeam
?' Answer: The same as it is in a park, or anywhere else - a tree
. Many questions are needlessly or even misleadingly prefixed by the phrase 'In $field_of_knowledge'. They range from the killingly obscure to the insultingly easy, and the contestants' ability to answer them correctly seems to bear no correlation whatsoever to the commonality of the information concerned.
We're told after every round that so-and-so was the weakest link 'statistically'. Then the group go and vote for someone different. Why waste our time with all this tedious fake suspense?
If I want to be insulted I'll come to E2
:-) - or better still, I'll take the show's questions seriously. Anne Robinson's pathetic
quips are principally demeaning to the networks stupid enough to screen this junk.
The contestants are consistently referred to as a team, even though they're there principally to back-stab one another competing for about three months' pay. Teamwork in 'survivor'-mode game-shows just doesn't happen.
The winning strategy for 'The Weakest Link':
The best strategy is this: Always say 'bank' before answering any question, and always vote for the person who answered the most
questions correctly (other than yourself). If everyone follows this strategy, the second most stupid person wins, and that person is the only
person with a guaranteed winning strategy in 'The Weakest Link'.