Saturday, August 30, 2008

Paul Peterson Finally Speaks

Today, on his website," Paul Peterson shares his opinion on the hit TLC show Jon & Kate plus 8. Calls the show a "distortion of childhood" and says that the parents have painted bulls-eyes on their children's foreheads.

The article can be found on his website A Minor Consideration

Now that he has spoken, what do you think?

P.S. We'd like to thank GWoP for bringing this to our attention.

65 comments:

nomoredrama said...

Well, I'll start. I think it's good that a professional is looking into this and I tend to agree that the show can't go on forever. I'd like to know if he will be investigating the filming and or production schedule. I'd like to know more, honestly.

Anonymous said...

how do you actually know paul peterson wrote this? nobody signed it and there isn't a whole lot of meat in the statement. its an opinion piece. sorry, still not convinced.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm clueless. Can someone tell me who Paul Peterson is?

nomoredrama said...

Paul Peterson is an advocate for children in the film industry.

MOO (momofone) said...

Hey gang! Didn't have time to email. I'm sure someone can post it though. The Gosselin's new website it up!!!!!!!!!! I'm checking it out right now.

Anonymous said...

I thought he wrote in pretty generic terms. It was all a bunch of stuff I've heard before. I appreciate his advocacy for child actors, but I think a child psychologist would be more fit to explain the positive/negative effects the show can/will have on the children.

chick said...

He avoided personal attacks, showed that people other than bloggers of all sorts are aware of the issues a show can cause for kids, and made a strong suggestion.

I wonder what TLC/Figure 8 would say in response?

nomoredrama said...

I agree, Chick, he did respond tactfully. I think Figure 8 and TLC will have to respond in some way. Even if the show is not canceled, they will have to prove that they are taking measures to protect the children.

Linda said...

What I think is noteworthy is that Paul Petersen did not make personal jabs at the parents or the kids:

He did not make comments on:

The size of the mother's rear or breasts.
The employment history of the father.
The mother's use of service providers for laundry, cooking, etc.
The mother's preoccupation with cleanliness.
The father's supposed lack of man parts.
The mother's supposed psychiatric diagnosis(s).
The mother's relationship with her siblings and parents.
The father's relationship with his siblings and mother.

Further more, he did not call the kids:

Fat
Chubby
Fatty Arbuckle
Oafish
Future drug dealers
Future unwed mothers

What I've always had a problem with is how the people of GwoP have gone about their supposed
advocacy by taking personal aim at the parents, the kids, the family members, etc.

This is an important development in this sad story. Peterson did this with class, dignity and professionalism.

nomoredrama said...

I agree Linda, and I don't think anyone here would say that it is ok the film the children day in and day out, from wake-up to bed time. I'd be 100% in favor of some clean up. Definitely in favor of restrictions on how and when the children can be filmed.

Baby Mama said...

I too have some concerns as to whether this is actually the real Paul Peterson. Though I have no problem with his article, what concerns me is that once again, its something Serena & Co. will hold over the heads of their readers that THEY are the ones that will stop at nothing to have the show taken off the air strictly perhaps because of vengeance and not real child advocacy. Funny how the DAY it comes out, a mysterious "Pam" makes it known to GWOP. Sounds shady, as is all that goes on on that site IMO.

Baby Mama said...

Ohh I forgot to say one more thing, why am I feeling like this man has been bombarded and begged by GWOP to write something for more ammo? Can you immagine if they are begging you to write to Congress AND Good Housekeeping that they werent probably on him to write something for them too? Again, mad shady IMO.

SLBELLURDH said...

Personally I feel that this information is worthless. Let's see some research. Let me see the time spent with the family while being filmed. This appears personal to me and like someone felt like they needed to do this to get other people off their back.

FGF said...

He probably wanted to get the GWoPPERS off his back, so he threw them a bone. Let's put it this way, the same person who badgered the National Enquirer made it her personal mission to hound Peterson.

Food for thought.

anya said...

Maybe it's just me, but the whole piece kind of had an odd tone to it. The direct plea to J&K and the comment that they "have lawyers to get them out of their contract."

NoMoreDrama said she would be "Definitely in favor of restrictions on how and when the children can be filmed." I don't have a problem with that. I can't imagine J&K want the crew in their home and around them 24x7. For me, it comes down to who makes the call. A while back GDNNOP had a poll up where the majority of responders seemed to think the federal government should be involved. Huh? Are you kidding me. Another choice was to have the states govern this. My state - California - can't even get a budget passed. So, while I think the amount of filming and the boundaries should continue to be discussed, I just don't think any of us - A Minor Consideration, the government, bloggers, etc. are in the position to call the shots. I still believe it should be J&K and I wish them guidance in making the best decisions for their kids.

Linda, your GWoP list was spot on. Don't forget "Joel as the serial killer."

axiom said...

i saw this Peterson statement today.

i agree with linda's comment and nomoredrama's response

anya you did make some valid points but i think there should be some agency that steps in to regulate a filming schedule that is in the best interest of the childrens development - im not convinced that their parents have shown they are capable of setting a reasonable filming schedule thus far

Anonymous said...

I'm happy that someone is finally looking into this. Paul Petersen was a child actor (he played the son on the Donna Reed show) and has been a child advocate for decades. He may not have directly observed filming and he may not be a psychologist, but he has made it his life's work to address the how children in the entertainment industry have been exploited. His work has been instrumental in improving working conditions for children in the film industry. I don't think that he would bow to pressure (assuming that there was any) to go after the Gosselins from a bunch of bloggers. Based on the timeline of blogs on GWoP, he has apparently spent a couple of months looking into the issue.

If he is seeing warning signs, I think that people should take notice. He was originally in support of the show and the financial benefits to the family.

Fanny said...

I believe this was written by Mr. Peterson. I doubt even gwop would be stupid enough to try to pass something off as his that wasn't.

This is the one thing about that article that stood out to me:


"What started as a documentary has turned into dangerous distortion of childhood, parenting, and what passes for acceptable risk in the age of the Internet. The bulls-eyes you have painted on the foreheads of your children will only grow larger with time."


I wouldn't doubt for one second that Mr. Peterson has at least browsed gwop and other boards like it. Could he be speaking of the way those boards have "distorted" what J+K do as parents, picking apart every move and comment, making them out to be whatever "monsters" they needed to to get more hits? Diagnosing the kids with mental disorders?

The part about making the kids targets puts me in mind of all of the times I've seen comments here and other places comparing gwop to stalkers.

I don't think this had anything to do with J+K's parenting, the kids actions, or even the show in general. I think this was article may have been motivated by the comments and letters Mr. Peterson has recieved from people who are clearly over invested in these childrens lives.

And for the record, I couldn't agree with him more.

Nina Bell said...

Linda

She is not the only person on this journey of "hate mongers."

Nina Bell said...

Thats the thing here. Everyone has a little different take on things I know. But reasonable people who feel this way advocate the way Paul Peterson does. The key word here is reasonable. I am not quite understanding how putting a picture up of Kate and Jon and talking about her boobs fits in with all of this.

Linda said...

Okay, I can't resist ...

Apparently, the one who loves eyeore knows the danger signs of kids who are troubled. She writes:

I'm sure I will leave some out, but I will attempt to list a few of the neurotic behaviors of the children.

* Mady is always scowling and looks miserable. She tries to run away from the camera or put her hand in front of the lens. She has slammed a door in front of a camera. Both twins melt down and cry much more than 7-year-olds and try so hard to be heard. But Kate insists that they have to go along with the show... and buck up for the tups.

(See, this is what gets me upset about their generalizations. This is a 22 minute edited show.
My younger child who is 7 has slammed the door .
My older son was a more frequently emotional. )

* How about 2 of the tup girls vomiting when they want attention? Somehow I don't think that's within the realm of "normal behavior."

(I'm not saying that it shouldn't be dealt with but I know plenty of 4 year olds who are not on a reality tv show, but deliberately gag enough when they don't want to eat or when they are upset that they vomit.)

* Joel will glaze over when he is reprimanded -- as will Collin and Aaden. Shades of Sybil. Where do you think they go off to?

(Shades of Sybil? Oh my goodness. She is suggesting that they are developing dissociating behaviors based on a tv show?)

* It's totally unnatural for a small child to be so deathly afraid of getting dirty. We have seen the kids freak out if they happen to get dirty. They fear the wrath of Kate.

(Now, I will say that I think that Kate is obsessed with cleanliness, but there are also kids who do not like to get dirty because they don't like the texture of a wet shirt on them, or the texture of dirt on their feet. Kate is obsessed with cleanliness that's for sure, but I don't know that this is because of the reality tv show.)

* The tups are being infantilized. Four-year-olds do not need potties, sippy cups, bibs, and naps. Anyone who knows a four-year-old can see how developmentally behind they are. Preemies are slower than other kids -- but not at the age of 4. They have been kept in a bubble.

(I'm going to agree about the potties to some extent, but I do know plenty of kids who used sippy cups, bibs and took naps still at age 4. My kids took off their bibs at age 2. I would have loved them to keep them on longer, but Nooooo. But I do recall that the twins behind us used bibs at 4. My older son took naps until 4, but our younger did not. )

This is just the kind of GwoP stuff that drives me nuts.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Peterson has been watching this show for some time. In my opinion, his statement was intended to be cautiously written. It was "shot across the bow of the boat" as it were alerting people involved with the show that he is watching out for the children. That is what his organization, A Minor Consideration, does and has done successfully for a number of years. Mr. Peterson has credibility with regard to child labor laws in the entertainment industry and has spoken before congress on behalf of children. I have visited his site several times of the past ten years and continue to be impressed with his determination and knowledge about child labor law. This is a person who knows first hand the ups and downs of the entertainment industry. He sees what happens what happens to children when the cute factor is gone. I too am pleased that Mr. Peterson is looking at this show.

FGF said...

If the Gosselin parents have painted bulleyes on their children's heads, then Julie and Jodi are the ones handing out the bows and arrows to the willing attackers. They're the ones providing the ammunition to the World Wide Web that should be considered private.

Paul Peterson also says that the Gosselin children's lives are a "distortion of childhood." That would be true even if they weren't on TV. A distortion is a "a twisting out of normal shape or form." There is nothing normal about the Gosselins life. There is nothing normal about having six babies at once. There is nothing normal about raising two sets of multiples all born within three years of each other. Their lives will always be different from the kids they go to school with, TV cameras or not.

Linda said...

I hope that Mr. Peterson is watching the show and I hope that he aligns himself with only credible organizations that advocate for children.

nomoredrama said...

I think I loveeeyore needs to keep her speculations about the boys developing Dissociative Identity Disorder to herself. This is the kind of disgusting crap takes away all credibility from that site. She's a moderator!

Dissociative Identity Disorder, AKA "Multiple Personality Disorder" is so rare....I may not ever see a true case of DID in my entire career. Besides it being a controversial d/o, it generally occurs in cases of SEVERE abuse or trauma. We're talking being chained in your room, repeated sexual abuse, being beaten violently and repeatedly...Dave Pelzer types of things, not "Mommy didn't let me eat my cupcake on the day we filmed the birthday episode."

The rest of the "assertions..." anyone who has been around a child knows how ridiculous they are. Grrrr....again, this is where I get so worked up. Can't believe the ignorance of some of these comments...so horrible and hurtful. But accusing the kids of having a life altering mental illness isnt' cruel to them, right? They're off limits and it's all in the name of "advocacy!"

I'll take Paul Peterson but say "no thanks" to the GWoP crazy.

Anonymous said...

If you read the statement through, there is no way it was him throwing a bone to GWOP. In fact, he talks about the age of the internet and bullseyes being placed on the kids. Obviously he has read GWOP and sees the crazy that everyone else can see. Would Peterson think its okay for people "advocating" for the kids to stalk them and call them names and predict they will someday be a serial killer? I think the message was clear that he is concerned about the kids being on the show, but added to that, he is concerned about the lunatics in the cyberworld who are after them. Here is the direct quote that caught my eye:

What started as a documentary has turned into dangerous distortion of childhood, parenting, and what passes for acceptable risk in the age of the Internet. The bulls-eyes you have painted on the foreheads of your children will only grow larger with time.

jax said...

I agree nomoredrama that the speculations need to stop, but doubt they will. It boggles my mind that Jodi seems to be ok with what is written on GWoP.
Child advocacy, yeah right!

I pray Mr. Peterson has taken the time to lurk over there.

MCB said...

It boggles my mind that Jodi seems to be ok with what is written on GWoP. Child advocacy, yeah right!

I pray Mr. Peterson has taken the time to lurk over there.


Sometimes I wonder if Jodi actually has lurked over there. Julie obviously has, but the Gosselins aren't her family, so she has no problem with the disgusting things said there. She's too busy basking in the glow of hero worship. But if St. Jodi (tm Guinevere) is actually the person she is portrayed to be, the only reaction she should be having to GWoP's commentary about her nieces and nephews is revulsion.

Anonymous said...

MCB said...

It boggles my mind that Jodi seems to be ok with what is written on GWoP. Child advocacy, yeah right!

She's too busy basking in the glow of hero worship. But if St. Jodi (tm Guinevere) is actually the person she is portrayed to be, the only reaction she should be having to GWoP's commentary about her nieces and nephews is revulsion.
----------
I used to like to come over here to read. But it seems like the general attitude towards Aunt Jodi is the same as what you accuse GWOP having with Kate. I know some people called the kids name and all the other stuff. I've read here over and over. I've also seen the extremist who nitpick Kate's every move at GWOP. Besides the few extremists, there are a lot of legitimate posters there and new people are coming every day because they are curious about Kate's personality traits she has displayed loudly. I believe most of the people were huge fans. Kate and Jon put their family in the public and all that goes with it. That means you can become an object of satire and jabs. If it's okay for them to put their life on display, why is it so awful that Jodie was on the internet? It's all public viewing. If these children are going to be worked like this, they need protection under the law like all other child actors.

Nina Bell said...

Anon 11:26

Why pick up on MCB"s statement only. I counted at least 7 statements if not more on this entry that felt the same way you do about child actors needing protection. Why not mention those. MCB has a right to her opinion as do you. But why only MCB's thoughts?

And in your line of thinking with Kate it would seem to me that Jodie is fair game also. She put herself in the public eye.

If you only come here to read people's opinions that are only like yours, than with all due respect I think you should delete this blog from your favorties.

Anonymous said...

wow, ask a few questions and get told to not to come back. I picked this one, but I certainly remember reading numerous like this on the response to Aunt Jodi's video. I never said she wasn't fair game. I was talking about the attitude of hate for her that I've picked up on this site.

you tell me:
If you only come here to read people's opinions that are only like yours, than with all due respect I think you should delete this blog from your favorties.

well, thanks for that assumption. I came here because I like to read other people's opinion. I happen to agree with a lot of poster's opinion. So sorry for asking for clarification on some of them.

Will never post here again. You're very unfriendly and defensive.

Nina Bell said...

To me it appeared that you came over here to point fingers. Not to have a discussion or state your opinion.

Anonymous said...

"I used to like to come over here to read. But it seems like the general attitude towards Aunt Jodi is the same as what you accuse GWOP having with Kate."

Maybe someone is a little defensive because you set the tone when you come here. That is probably not a great way to start the ball rolling. To me it is always obvious when people from GWoP come over here to lecture someone. They always preface it with "I used to like this site" or something smart like that.

I would have started it out with. Hey this is how I feel about the Jodi situation. And explain.

JMO

Anonymous said...

There is nothing "mysterious" about my emailing Serena at GWoP the link to Paul Petersen's article from A Minor Consideration yesterday. The article was posted to his site on the 27th not the 30th.

I read the GWoP blog and frequent Mr. Petersen's site and have for some time. From reading at GWoP, I knew that many people from there (and elsewhere online) had been emailing Mr. Petersen with their concerns. Serena offered to credit me with sending her the link and asked me how I would like to be named, first name, full name, net handle, etc.

I'm not sure how this somehow makes me mysterious.

Oh, and before someone asks, I was reading at IMDB and your site was posted on the J&K Plus 8 message board. I was somewhat surprised to see my name mentioned.

Cheers!
Pam

nomoredrama said...

Pam, AKA ANon3:21,
It was only a little mysterious to me, specifically, because for a site that claims to be all about child advocacy, they missed that one by a few days. Secondly, we were informed about it by GWoP.

Finally, when the Jodi video came out, they were all over here within about 10 minutes of it posting. Just seemed a little less of a "victory" for them then the Jodi video.

nomoredrama said...

To anon 8:31,
We welcome questioning and discussion. If you compare us to GWoP in any way, unfortunately that is a sore point. I absolutely disagree that this site treats Jodi the way GWoP treats Kate. Do we call her a fat ass? Talk about her boobs? Call her ugly? Make fun of her haircut? Call her kids names? Try to find the names of her family members and contact them? Drive by her house? Contact her husband's employer?

I don't think Jodi is a deity, sorry. I disagree with what she has done and continues to do through her sister. There is a difference, however, between a strong disagreement with a person's actions and hating that person. I think Jodi has a good heart but has some clear character flaws. Thats my opinion.

I don't think the comment Nina Bell left was to tell you to "go away" it was more just "this is how we feel" and it probably won't change.

Anonymous said...

nomoredrama:

It would appear that the moderators/admins of GWoP just can't win:

"Funny how the DAY it comes out, a mysterious "Pam" makes it known to GWOP. Sounds shady, as is all that goes on on that site IMO."

August 30, 2008 12:37 PM"

**OR**

"It was only a little mysterious to me, specifically, because for a site that claims to be all about child advocacy, they missed that one by a few days. Secondly, we were informed about it by GWoP."

Being only a reader at GWoP I have no idea how you were informed about the article by GWoP.

I'm guessing that the mods/admins of GWoP have jobs, family and other commitments that keep them from scouring websites every waking minute, the same as the rest of us.

As far as the Jodi video goes, I'm not sure where I saw it posted for the first time but it was all over the net within a few hours.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by a "victory?" I actually care about the welfare of the Gosselin children and from what I have read at GWoP, so do most of the posters there.

Best,
Pam, AKA ANon3:21

dotsicle said...

I absolutely disagree that this site treats Jodi the way GWoP treats Kate. Do we call her a fat ass? Talk about her boobs? Call her ugly? Make fun of her haircut? Call her kids names? Try to find the names of her family members and contact them? Drive by her house? Contact her husband's employer?
Hey, I enjoy making fun of Kate's haircut! She is an attractive woman but lordy bee, that haircut adds nothing to her looks. I feel ok with poking fun at Kate's hair because I, too, have a bad haircut.
As far as contacting her family and all the rest of that stuff, I wouldn't enjoy doing that. I have my own family to annoy.

Fanny said...

Anonymous said...

"I know some people called the kids name and all the other stuff. I've read here over and over. I've also seen the extremist who nitpick Kate's every move at GWOP. Besides the few extremists, there are a lot of legitimate posters there and new people are coming every day because they are curious about Kate's personality traits she has displayed loudly."


You will always be judged by the company you keep.


Everything on that board is moderated. The mods pick and choose which comments to post including the ones that are extreme, which takes away any credibility from the few that really are concerned for the kids.

Then, when one tries to point out that the vile comments aren't helping anyone, it doesn't get posted because you are questioning another poster, which isn't allowed.


My point is, you can defend gwop all you want to, but they are ultimately the ones to blame for the lack of credibility given to that site and it's posters.

nomoredrama said...

Pam,

You said:
'm guessing that the mods/admins of GWoP have jobs, family and other commitments that keep them from scouring websites every waking minute, the same as the rest of us.
Not so much, considering that if you look around the net at other blogs you will find certain mods from GWoP all over, spreader their campaign hither and yon. And, it wouldn't exactly take "scouring" the internet, considering that advocacy is their aim...in fact, they've been in contact with Paul Peterson for quite some time about their concerns, haven't they? So why would a group SOOO invested in child welfare/advocacy take 2 days to figure out that Paul Peterson posted something on his site?

Jodi's video was 4:57 eastern time, which is 1:57 Pacific time. At 2:44pm pacific time, GWoP had something up about it and had their first comment. That's less than an hour. Within 2 hours of the video's release, there was a transcript.

If that doesn't speak to the real intent of the website, I don't know what does. So, the mods don't have time to "Scour the net" for leads in their actual intent but within minutes, they have the latest gossip?

If that doesn't make you go hmmm, I don't know what will.

nomoredrama said...

And by the way, for a site with such high traffic, there are only 56 comments about the Paul Peterson article...wanna guess how many are on the Aunt Jodi Video? 157....Almost double...

Linda said...

Hi Pam,

Glad you stopped by to say hello.

I do have an idea how the moderators of GwoP could "win" since you wrote that they "just can't win."

Many of us have asked the moderators repeatedly to not post comments that are derogatory about the kids. We've written to them repeatedly to express our concern that by persisting in posting those vile comments they not only hurt the kids but also jeopardize their own ability to effectively raise awareness about the issues surrounding children and reality tv.

If they want to be perceived with credibility, they could stop posting comments that take aim at the kids or the personal characteristics of the parents. They could go one step further by deleting the comments previously posted that deride the kids and the parents.

It really is as simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Fanny said... Everything on that board is moderated. The mods pick and choose which comments to post including the ones that are extreme, which takes away any credibility from the few that really are concerned for the kids.
----------------

It would appear that this is moderated the same way.

nomoredrama said...

yes, anon, moderating is being beefed up here. We'll have more info posted soon.

Nina Bell said...

anon 8:50 PM

You made your point. I allowed you to post again and you said "Will never post here again. You're very unfriendly and defensive." But you just wanted to keep going. I did not. I don't think you will see you are very unfriendly and defensive posted on the other site.

Fanny said...

Anonymous said...
Fanny said... Everything on that board is moderated. The mods pick and choose which comments to post including the ones that are extreme, which takes away any credibility from the few that really are concerned for the kids.
----------------

It would appear that this is moderated the same way.




This board is moderated, but NOT in the same way. You will see many threads here with comments from both sides who can agree to disagree. You will not see derogatory comments about the children, their personal info or that of their extended family, or comments about trashing speaking engagements. Most of the regulars here can see a tv show for what it is. They seem to understand that what we all see every week is a heavily edited 22 minutes of this family's life. They also seem to understand that people who choose to be on tv do not forfeit their right to any kind of privacy by making that choice. Some things are still off limits. From what I've seen on gwop, they either don't understand that or just flat out do not care.

Anonymous said...

That seems so hypocritical. How selective are you. What was wrong with the other post? You should just make it a private board. Now I know where the truth doesn't lie. I will still lurk can't help myself. But in your extreme way, you gave me the answer. Hope nobody else asks any hard questions seeking understanding.
Not everyone is an expert blogger knowing how to phrase things just the right way. I waited for days to post that and got a slap right away. What do you expect? Pick and chose? I guess this site is just the flip side of GWOP. You sure didn't give me any insight into your feelings.
Slap.. I suggest you delete... that doesn't seem like someone open to debate and questioning of opinions.

nomoredrama said...

Anon 9:43,
You didn't ask a "hard" question...you made an accusation. You said our attitude towards Jodi was like GWoP's attitude towards Kate. That's harsh and, to me, erroneous.

We've gotten a barrage of posts this week questioning our posting policy, questioning our intelligence and accusing us of being hate filled like GWoP. Why, because some of us don't agree with Jodi? If that turns you off, I'm sorry. You don't have to agree. But no one has been rude to her or her family. No one has posted anything mean. Yes, there were "St. Jodi" jokes made in response to the lovefest that ensued at GWoP? It's a joke and since you read at GWoP too (by your own admission) you know what I mean by lovefest.

We've explained our opinion, We've explained again, and we continue to explain. If you had to repeat yourself over and over, wouldn't you get annoyed? The things people post here would never get posted at GWoP...ever.

So yes, we are adding posting policies. They will be pretty loose but we are adding an FAQ so we don't have to continue to repeat ourselves.

BTW, we RARELY reject comments. Your initial comment questioning was not rejected. Your response to Nina was not rejected. You said in that post that you were leaving and would not post here again. Even then it was not removed. I think we gave you a fair opportunity to express your view.

The one post you wrote that was rejected was absolutely fine until you added this: "have fun without me, I have enough hate in my life"

Well, we have enough repetition in our lives and 1 post saying you are leaving was enough.

Guinevere said...

As I believe I'm the coiner of "St. Jodi", I'd just like to clarify that it's not a knock on Jodi, but on her starry-eyed worshippers, who believe that she is motherhood personified.

I, myself, think Jodi is a human being, with a human being's flaws and virtues. I think I've seen some of her virtues (on the show) and some of her flaws (in her online behavior and in allowing her sister to feed personal information about the Gosselins to people who despise them).

I don't hate Jodi and I don't demonize her, the way some people who hate Kate do with her. Both are human beings, women and mothers, and neither is perfect. I don't think Jodi is so much closer to perfection than Kate. I think she just has flaws that are more palatable to some people. She's soft-spoken and seems sweet on camera, but if you believe Julie's posts at GWoP, she certainly has talked quite a lot of shit about Kate behind her back. I think this is more acceptable to some women than Kate's in-your-face style.

I don't doubt that Jodi feels herself to be the injured party in her apparent estrangement with Kate, but from where I stand, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Daisy said...

Exactly Guinevere.

I really hope that Jodi is not aware of the company her sister is keeping. I give her the benefit of the doubt, but if she is aware than that's a whole different ballgame IMO.

Anonymous said...

I used to like to come over here to read. But it seems like the general attitude towards Aunt Jodi is the same as what you accuse GWOP having with Kate.

That's not accusatory, that was my perception that I wanted clarification on. I get it. You complain and complain about GWOP, but you don't want anyone to question why you feel that way. You attack and defend. You complain about moderation but don't put my post for personal reasons. You are so rude to people just seeking information. All of the good and bad I have written has been posted at GWOP. I come over here to try to get clarification and you reject my posts.


We've explained our opinion, We've explained again, and we continue to explain. If you had to repeat yourself over and over, wouldn't you get annoyed?

I would feel like I was running a blog. Noone explained it to me, I was immediately suspect. You say you post, but you rejected. Sure makes me wonder how many more posts you reject.

Yeah, I had knee jerk reaction to being slapped down and said I wouldn't post here. It was shocking to me. But you've already proven that you don't post things that are not to your liking. You guys should lighten up. You have certainly made your site just as suspect to me as you declare GWOP

Really, if you don't want to deal with questions and slap people down, reject posts that have different opinions. (I've never had a post rejected at GWOP and I've written to stop using harsh words against the children, etc.) You should quit pretending it's a public board. Also, some guidelines to help newbies ask their question just right so they don't get slapped.

nomoredrama said...

BTW, your post was removed there...was that by your request? Or did they just remove it? If they just removed it, that proves my point.

nomoredrama said...

***I'M REPOSTING THIS COMMENT WITHOUT THE PERSON'S S/N*****

We were all all well aware of the comment you left at GWoP attacking the site in the Q&A section after having ONE POST rejected last night. ONE POST, because it was repetitive.

I actually like your posts at GWoP. You are one of the more sensible people there. I can't speak for Nina Bell. I can say that we've been getting many of the same posts over and over. If you think a post like that would be accepted at GWoP, then I dare you to go ahead and change the wording to something about hating Kate and then say "this place is full of hate and I have enough hate in my life." Make sure you post anonymously and don't contact a mod beforehand to let them know what you are doing. If your post gets through, I'd be EXTREMELY surprised. You may not have had a post rejected at GWoP but you are in the vast minority.

Here, we do post things every day that are "not to our liking." If we didn't, your initial post would have never made it through in the first place. I know first hand what gets posted here and what doesn't.

I am sorry that you felt slapped down for asking a question. That was not the intent. I welcome you to keep questioning. Even after you posted on GWoP about how horrible we are, I'd still be willing to have a discussion with you.

Bottom line, I think many of us feel that Jodi was at least partly motivated by money and that what she is doing now is wrong, catty, and backstabbing. I think many of us feel that GWoP is a hate blog against the Gosselins and extremists have done some pretty scary things in the past. So, to encourage them by feeding them info(a la Julie), is wrong. Plus, some of the info is not even accurate. I believe much of the motivation for doing this is bitterness and revenge. If there had been a contract, do you think Jodi and Julie would be visiting GWoP?

Again, I welcome you back to have an adult discussion. Anytime.

Anonymous said...

how do you actually know paul peterson wrote this? nobody signed it and there isn't a whole lot of meat in the statement. its an opinion piece. sorry, still not convinced.

August 30, 2008 10:37 AM

Yea, it is an opinion piece, HELLOOO? Do you read it from HIS website? Maybe his website is a fake??? What are you thinking? Who cares if you are convinced, BAA BAA

Anonymous said...

how do you actually know paul peterson wrote this? nobody signed it and there isn't a whole lot of meat in the statement. its an opinion piece. sorry, still not convinced.

August 30, 2008 10:37 AM

Yea, it is an opinion piece, HELLOOO? Do you read it from HIS website? Maybe his website is a fake??? What are you thinking? Who cares if you are convinced, BAA BAA

nomoredrama said...

*****Please Note: this discussion was civilized and was full of differing opinions. Enter the trolls (who are threatened by the balance) to try to stir up controversy. But don't worry, they are revealing themselves for the intelligent people they are by having to "Baaa" at the end of their post. Please, don't feed the trolls.

Nina Bell said...

It's not easy being sheep!

nomoredrama said...

LOL.....If it BAA's like a sheep then it must be a sheep. Too confused to realize what it is because it blindly follows it's GWo...Uh, Leader.

Anonymous said...

Have you made NOMOREDRAMA a moderator?

Nina Bell said...

Yes,

Please check the right hand side of the blog.

Anonymous said...

While I respect some of the Work Paul and AMC have done, let's not forget the fact he's a former Actor.

I stress again ACTOR...with no background regarding REALITY SHOWS. Realtiy Television is DIFFERENT than "real" acting.

For goodness sake, on THE DONNA REED SHOW, the Stone Family where the hight of perfect late 1950's-early-mid 1960's Family!

I wonder if AMC was around in the 1950's they would have complained about OZZIE & HARRIET NELSON using their real sons (David and Ricky on TV!)on their TV Show.(and before that Radio and Film)

Anonymous said...

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Thank you for inviting me back. However, I'm very shocked at myself at my reaction to how total strangers responded to me. And I believe this will be last my post anywhere for awhile until I examine myself a little bit. I'm usually very laid back and a much more of an observer in people's behavior. I have had this reaction before when I've seen people being rude to the kids at BK or MCD's and talk down to them like their servants. So I must have a trigger in this area. All these accusations of people cyberstalking and harassing each other makes me nervous as I am clueless, and apparently it's easy to unknowingly stir up controversy. Over here, I get tired about reading about the other site and the meanness towards Aunt Jodi (she's not responsible for her sister and is in a tough spot between everyone). But it's useless to speculate on fights in families as personal history plays too big a part and we'll never know for sure. Over there, I don't feel like wading through the posts where every move is dissected. Some might be young mothers or people that have never been around real kids or the mom's who like to tear apart other mothers. I believe others might be looking for a different place to post and come here to see if this is the site they want to use. That might be where all the are questions coming from. A lot of people don't know or care about the history of the sites and are just now looking into what's going on. For myself, I'm the only one in my group and family who watch this show and there was no one else for me to discuss. Please don't treat everyone with questions who have read or posted on that site like a GWOP spy. Most of us don't care about a feud between sites.
I had a child in the arts, he worked with some very famous people and could have made it his livelihood. I never pushed fame or money (I knew a lot of stage moms) and when he graduated he opted to major in math and make the arts his hobby. I was relieved. It gave him great experiences as a child. He never would have worked as young as these children. If her children are going to work, they each need salaries and their money needs protection, They deserve privacy and restricted working hours.
I and a smaller sect of women who were raised in churches like Kate's, prob recognize a lot of her quirks from her rearing. Some of them become very controlling because there's not a lot they could control about themselves growing up. (I have a couple of minister's in my family including my older sister). Older generations who were raised much harsher probably think she's wonderful.
While Kate is not a mom I would hang with or even let my little girl around, after last night's episode, it was sad to see how their life has changed. It takes time to learn how to parent and things change all the time as they grow. I'm an older mom now and often wished I had all my children now that I'm older and wiser so they didn't suffer from any of my mistakes when I was younger, clueless and doing the best I could. IMO Jon and Kate got into something for which they were not prepared. Money and Fame and TV networks have ruined many good people and it's easy to get overwhelmed and sucked in. It will change you and networks are great at exploiting people. I wish Kate would stop her world for a while and take a deep breath and catch up. Going from two kids, the high risk pregnancy, euphoria, any postpartum she might have had and six more children in your life, to a national tv show is too much for anyone. They were young when they got married and need to just spend sometimes on themselves There's nothing normal about their lives anymore. IMO.

nomoredrama said...

Wow, Anon,
that was a really meaningful post...
very true words spoken. I don't have much else to say except "thanks for sharing" (not to make it sound like an AA meeting, LOL).

I think we all need to examine, as you are doing, what this controversy stirs within us. Thanks again.

Nina Bell said...

Anon 6:15 am

I apologize for my part of what happened. I guess I am just tired of the crazy if you know what I mean. Now that I have much appeciated assistance from nomoredrama and guinevere, it will be easier for me to bounce things off of them and discuss issues we are having.

Anonymous said...

""Realtiy Television is DIFFERENT than "real" acting.""

I think not. Regardless of how anyone feels about the ethics, I think everyone can probably agree that events in this show are now contrived to make good television. Events are very much scripted, even if lines are not. I don't appreciate people (GWOP) picking the family apart with a fine toothed comb because it makes them look like fools who cannot articulate the real issues, BUT IMO the people over at AMC know exactly what they are talking about.

I have real concern for this family, all of them. The children are at a crucial developmental age and should not have to live with a camera stuck in their faces 3-4 days a week, going on contrived outings some of which are obviously designed by the network to annoy and stress Kate. And Kate and Jon DO look stressed, very.

The kids need representation from a source that doesn't have a fiscal interest in the show, period. This representation would not necessarily mean that the show would have to stop, but would guarantee their emotional and financial wellbeing, and WHO in the world wouldn't want that for these lovely children?

AMC can help make that happen and it would be a GOOD thing.