Wednesday, September 10, 2008

OPEN DISCUSSION -


Do you feel a blog like GWoP is an effective way to fight for child advocacy? Have they been successful in fulfilling this statement?

" The purpose of this blog is not to spew hate; the purpose of this blog is to make sure people know the full story behind the Gosselin family. How they are deceiving the public and robbing their children of a childhood."

114 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think it could be, but as it is now- no. There are too many moderators, all with different ideas about what is an acceptable post and what is not. Too many posts that nitpick about silly, unimportant things get through, while others that stick to more substantial ideas do not. The hysterics and hand-wringing need to stop. It serves no purpose but to make the blog seem more a joke than something credible. I blame the moderators for this. They have control over the direction of the blog.

MCB said...

They lost me at "The purpose of this blog is not to spew hate."

Seriously? Huh, because you're sure doing a decent imitation of hate spewing. Unless name calling and making fun of the family (and the fans who don't share your opinion) is suddenly not considered hateful.

Daisy said...

I think their definition os "spewing hate" and ours is different.

To me, calling Kate fat and the kids "oafish" and "Fatty Arbuckle" serves no purpose in advocating for them. Neither does getting mad about the songs the G's have on their website.

NoraCharles said...

Calling a very young child a future serial killer isn't spewing hate? Good to know.

MommyZinger said...

I agree with anonymous. It could be. There are some people that seem to be taking action but not most. I have stopped visitng the site because I found that I didn't have the time to read through all the posts just to find one that was relevant to their cause. It has at least made me ponder the potential effects of children in reality TV.

Mom said...

Anon 602 -

I agree with you about the mods losing a bit of control over there. I wrote to the mods of the other site about their intentions. Nina posted the letter here (about 2 weeks ago), but here is a blurb:

"...I do have to admit, as a mother, I find it very disturbing when people write such nasty comments about people they don't even know. I realize everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am just stating mine. Ultimately, it is the networks making money off of the families they air and the viewers who continue watching the show.

Although we may not agree to all of J & K's parenting techniques (or lack of), we are just seeing a tiny glimpse of their home life. We should continue to remind ourselves that it is TV.

No matter how much a parent makes mistakes, we are still mommy and daddy to our children. No child should ever have to read what is posted on the internet about what others don't like about their parents. And, in the end,when these children mature, they will decide for themselves who they will and will not share their lives with. The written word never goes away.Please be mindful of this when you decide what should and should not be posted here."

Paul Peterson's commentary is proof that you can constructively be critical without blasting the parents.

If exploitation is the issue, then take Paul's lead and do something about it!

As far as some of the other "truth" sites. I believe that these individuals are aware of some "insider" info, but what good is to to continue to fuel the fire. Are they truly worried about the children? Or, do they just want to disguise their "advocacy" for spewing hate.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see the other site really step it up and become child advocates? I think so.

5monkeys said...

I used to post at GWoP, but stopped, because I got tired of alot of things.

I don't consider myself a "fan" of J&K, but I don't necessarily hate them, either.

That said, some people who post at GWoP try to twist every little thing that happens on the show into something it's not. For example, when Jon hosed the kids down after the chocolate playtime in NC, some felt that it was blatant child abuse and they should be turned in to the authorities. I don't agree with how Jon cleaned the kids off, but I would not call the police over it.

The kids get made fun of there, too, (which is so wrong, IMO - the people who do that must not have children of their own. And if they do - shame on them, I say!). I really don't see the need to personally insult the kids, who have no control over what they look like, their speech, their life, etc. I think the kids are adorable, and fine the way they are.

It's just a lot of little things that have turned me off to that site. When I first started going there, it was informative and generally "nice". But it has degenerated into a free-for-all Gosselin bashfest that I do not want to participate in. I can understand the need to question the motives of J&K, and to question why they do what they do (i.e.; Jodi), but to portray them as the devil's spawn, as some of them do, got tiring. I got tired of reading all the hate.

As someone else mentioned ~ it has become very difficult to wade through all the nonsense to find something posted that is somewhat meaningful.

5monkeys said...

I forgot to add to my previous post that I think the mods have become so overwhelmed with the traffic GWoP generates, and stopped paying attention to details.

I have seen a lot of hateful things posted, including by some of the mods, and it just seems to be against the original purpose of the blog.

If they want to be advocates for the children, they can do it without the hate-filled posts.

IMO, it makes them seem less credible.

Anonymous said...

"Gosselins Do Not Need Our Pity" used to be the first thing that came up in a google search for that name, but now I can't seem to find it at all. Any idea why?

Anonymous said...

I think the mods know exactly what they're doing. How many pro-Gosselin posts do you see? I know I have personally have written a few - while always remaining nice and objective. They don't get posted because they want to maintain the nasty.

I personally think they come off as a bunch of stalkers. Trying to find the mall that they bought camping equipment, writing to the hotel in Hawaii (how crazy do you think that must have sounded? "Uh, I never stayed there, and probably never will - but I'm mad that you allowed a TV family to stay there!!"), knowing the workplace of Kate's mother - looking up the website and commenting on it. ETC.!

It's hard to take it seriously when there are so many people clearly off the wall and obsessed.

Nina Bell said...

Anon 9:07

This site has never came up first in a google search. What exactly are you asking?

anya said...

Nina Bell:

I think Anon might have bringing up the fact that at one time when you googled "Gosselin" their site was the first to show up. I think they even bragged about it at their site.

Isn't this driven by the number of hits a particular site gets? Somebody with more internet knowledge cannot perhaps weigh in.

Mom said...

Hey all,
My post answering all the questions that PMommy listed on her blog is posted. It's my first post over there. Can't wait to see the reaction or non-reaction.

Nina Bell said...

Anya,

No I am pretty sure she is talking about our site. If you type Gosselins Do Not Need Our Pity into google search, this site does not show up in the search. I am not sure why but I will look into it.

Guinevere said...

" The purpose of this blog is not to spew hate; the purpose of this blog is to make sure people know the full story behind the Gosselin family. How they are deceiving the public and robbing their children of a childhood."

I think even this statement goes too far and shows their bias. The assumption that there is a "full story" that people do not know; the "fact" that they are deceiving the public and robbing their children of a childhood.

I think all of these points are eminently debatable. Unfortunately, you pretty much can't debate them over there, so the starting point for discussion is already at "the Gosselins are liars and child abusers", which isn't conducive to advocacy, IMO.

I've said it before - I think only a very few of the regulars over there give a tinker's damn about the Gosselin children. I think the hate *is* the point of the blog, and the advocacy is how they justify their viciousness. I'm sure there are a few people with sincere concerns, but I don't understand why they would continue to swim in that cesspool of negativity and ugliness. Maybe people just get sucked in. I don't know.

amy said...

wow, i always GOOGLE "Gosselins Do Not Need Our Pity" to get to this site (i don't have it saved to my favorites at work)...well, TODAY is the first time it didn't directly pop up!

"Gosselins With Out Pity" comes up instead and "GDNNOP" isn't there!

there's some sort of conspiracy ;)

anya said...

Mom, I went over to the Penn Mommy site and found your post (it's really hard to navigate and find posts over there by the way).

Thanks for providing rational, constructive and diplomatic answers to all her "questions" (some of them were more rant than question!). I know there are many others such as myself who echo much of what you have to say.

Here's hoping that these few words of sanity make some impression.

Mom said...

Thanks Anya. What suprised me the most is how "not hateful" she thinks the other site is. And how she thinks we change our names all the time over here to have multiple posts.

I need to check over there and see if anyone had anything to say.

Anonymous said...

I'm in the middle about Jon and Kate, but I find that blog to be self-righteous BS. These are not child advocates, they are gossip-mongers. Comment after comment after comment is about how these children are being horribly exploited...and yet these people continue to watch the show. Hypocrisy, thy name is GWoP.

iliveinthegray said...

Admittedly I am relatively new to the debate, but I think in its inception the other blog could have been a great way to mobilize people to advocate for the children, but as it is now, it is not. I tried to post a comment after the last episode, discussing some of the positive aspects I saw and it wasn't posted even though it made no negative reference to anything or anyone. It was just an opinion.

I will say this though. Maybe having a discussion about them just makes them more popular. I think that talking about them here makes them feel more powerful and important when in actually they are not. So I'm all for advocating and dialoguing here.

I'm not a fan of J&K. I just don't find them appealing as people to watch in a tv show. That said, I love the kids, they are adorable and I wish nothing but the best for all 8 of them.

Mom said...

Well, I got blasted for not knowing enough about Collin being constipated??? Geez Louise. Then, that same person went off that my blog name was "mom" and any "mom" would know that episode was not okay. I stated pretty clearly that I wasn't sure about that episode. Go figure.

amy said...

mom...

i appreciated your reply to penn mommy as well!

and, yes, there are quite a few responses. the lovely "lonnyswife" has a few comments for you ;)

i posted last week on there, only to go back and forth with another poster. penn mommy did respond to me, but not truly answering my question.

i just didn't understand the need for this site. yes, it is her right...but, how will this make anything better? it won't!

talking about how kate isn't organized or nice is what she rants about, but yet her mission is to keep others from digging in their pockets and giving to the G's! once again, another site to just drag the G's through the mud...nothing more, nothing less!

Mom said...

Thanks Amy! It's much more sane around here. :-)

Kuromi said...

Anon 9:07, Nina Bell, and Amy:
A lot of making something appear on a Google Search and/or garnering lots of hits has to do with something called Search Engine Optimization, or SEO.

There are some rules and formulas you can use, such as keyword ratio (how many times a keyword appears in, say, 100 words of copy)and tag lines, to get Google to list you up high in a search.

I was actually thinking of letting you mods (Nina in particular) about this the other day, when I found that a search for "Gosselins" shows GWOP first (before the Gosselins' official site!) and GDNNOP didn't appear on the first page.

Nina, if you want I can email you some SEO tips that you guys can use to make this site more "competitive" in the search and hits game...

Nina Bell said...

Kuromi,

That would be great! Thank you.

DuckingFromThrownObjects said...

Hello Everyone,

Please feel free to ignore me if you are so inclined, but I lurk (and post a teeny bit) on GWoP. I don't like Jon or Kate, but I still believe that I am in the minority there, however. Some of the things that they attack seem so silly to me, and it's kind of hard to form your own opinion! I am going to list a few reasons for being anti-J&K. I think that these are pretty honest and rational. I am also putting the child advocacy issue aside here, because I am by no means an expert on that subject, nor do I claim to be. Please feel free to comment on any of these reasons, and know that this is only my opinion.

1 - J&K say, "You have no right to judge us.." - Jon and Kate are reality television characters. Technically, they are no different than the Kardashians, the Lohans, Paris Hilton or the Real World ppl. I doubt a single person on this blog would tell me to "walk in Paris' shoes" before I said something negative about her. J&K are not exempt from the court of public opinion simply because they do a family show on TLC. Viewers will judge people who are on television. That's just how it is.

2 - Favoritism towards certain children - That really really bugs me. I think the moment that I "broke up" with Kate was when they were at the cupcake place. She was upset with Jon for "taking her kids". She said this at least twice.. once at the actual store and once in the interview chair. She often seems to favor the little girls over the boys. What do ya'll think about that?

3 - The "I Plead Eight" excuse - We all know that Kate is no walk in the park. Even the biggest Kate fan will tell you as much. That's fine if that's who she is. What's not fine is the way she and other people defend her behavior, as if she is excused from basic politeness and manners simply because of her kids. She makes the show hard to watch, IMO. I suppose she's a "love her or hate her" individual, because my best friend adores Kate. We agree to disagree. :)

Finally - In closing, I want to say that I perfectly understand that we don't see every bit of their life, but what we don't see is not the issue here. The J&K that we see on TV is who the producers choose to show us, and we as viewers have no choice but to accept what we see and draw opinions from that. To debate about what does or does not go on behind the scenes is counterproductive as we will never really know. Jon and Kate have admitted many times that what we see is the truth, so we know that we are indeed seeing reality.

Thanks for letting me post my thoughts! Sorry this is so long..

Guinevere said...

Because I am apparently a glutton for punishment, I posted a (very long) response to Penn Mommy's questions. I restrained myself from commenting that for all her rules about what sort of rhetorical traps the responses should avoid, most of her questions were of the leading, so-when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife? variety, or were outright insulting to her opponents. Plus, at the end of her post, she says she's not angry, which...does not come through in her writing, to say the least.

anya said...

Do you feel a blog like GWoP is an effective way to fight for child advocacy? Have they been successful in fulfilling this statement?

I guess I will start by saying I think it's *possible* that a blog such as GWoP could exist that would help to mobilize individuals to act on behalf of the children. There have been some efforts in this regard. Writing sponsors, etc. Some of their activities have been distasteful to me, but I will give a poster credit for writing to TLC about something that bothers them about the show as opposed to someone who just posts about the "freebies", or the various components of Kate's physical appearance that bother them (make-up, weight, hair, oily legs, hairdo, etc., etc.) That said, I don't think their efforts will have much effect because they are a relatively small portion of the viewing audience, but all "causes" have to start somewhere - right?

Beyond the fact that they are smaller in number than they think, they also shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly by straying off "message". If I was Paul Peterson and was thinking of aligning myself with this group in any way, I would take one look at an hour's worth of posts and run in the other direction.

I agree with others who have said that pretending to be "advocates" has been a great excuse for their venomous attacks on the Gosselin parents. They are speaking for the voiceless kids, right?!? It also allows them to continue to watch the show when others tell them to turn it off because it bothers them so much.

I really find the whole enterprise pretty sick and unhealthy.

iliveinthegray said...

A crazy thought... In advocating against exploitation, aren't they themselves guilty of it? They are "using" the children to "carry" the site and supposedly generate a discussion that 95% of the time just seems like middle school gossip.

Guinevere said...

duckingfromthrownobjects, thanks for posting! I think cogent debate is welcomed by everyone here. There's only so many times you can post, "I know you are, but what am I?" without feeling a bit silly.

Plus, you don't know "long" until you've seen me post!

Some of the things that they attack seem so silly to me, and it's kind of hard to form your own opinion!

I think it can be easy to fall into the groupthink, and not realize how over the top it gets. I also know that when you really, really dislike someone, you find fault with everything they do. My issue is more with really, really disliking someone they don't even know (well, my main issue is the stalking; I think people can *say* whatever they want online, though it may make them look like asses).

1 - J&K say, "You have no right to judge us.." - Jon and Kate are reality television characters. Technically, they are no different than the Kardashians, the Lohans, Paris Hilton or the Real World ppl. I doubt a single person on this blog would tell me to "walk in Paris' shoes" before I said something negative about her. J&K are not exempt from the court of public opinion simply because they do a family show on TLC. Viewers will judge people who are on television. That's just how it is.

I absolutely agree. I think people have the right to judge. Or, rather, it's not like anyone can stop you, right? You think what you think.

Whether people have the *moral* right is a different question. I think you make an interesting point about Paris Hilton, et al. - I think some of us are more inclined to judge someone like her than somewhat like Kate Gosselin, and that probably isn't fair, or at least it's not consistent. But "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", and all that. (I mean, I'm not defending the different standards, just saying I kind of understand them.)

I think what sometimes gets lost is that if we have the right to judge J&K, and we put our judgments out there, other people are going to judge us on what we say and how we say it. It's not like there's some law that because you're on TV, people have the right to judge you. There are just a lot more people who may be seeing your behavior. Other than that, I don't think the rules are different, and I think everyone is responsible for their own choices. I don't like it when people say in response to, say, the article about people trespassing on the Gosselins' property, "They brought it on themselves." No, while we all may realize that something like that may happen if one becomes famous, the person who invaded the Gosselins' privacy is still responsible for their own behavior.

2 - Favoritism towards certain children - That really really bugs me. I think the moment that I "broke up" with Kate was when they were at the cupcake place. She was upset with Jon for "taking her kids". She said this at least twice.. once at the actual store and once in the interview chair. She often seems to favor the little girls over the boys. What do ya'll think about that?

I know people say that...I'm not sure what to think. I certainly don't think that Kate necessarily loves her daughters more than her sons. I think she has some pretty rigid ideas about gender roles and "boy behavior", and a kind of childish "boys are yucky" attitude. But I don't take it hugely seriously or see it as a sign of favoritism or something that will have a negative effect on her boys.

I don't know that I would judge anything by the cupcake episode; Kate was in such a bad mood that day that I just saw that as sniping at Jon. There may have been a little of both of them preferring the one table (which I believe was Aaden, Hannah and Leah) over the other (Joel, Collin and Alexis), but there may have been other reasons for that.

I am really against parents favoring one kid over another, but I haven't seen enough evidence to really say that there is favoritism on Kate or Jon's part.

3 - The "I Plead Eight" excuse - We all know that Kate is no walk in the park. Even the biggest Kate fan will tell you as much. That's fine if that's who she is. What's not fine is the way she and other people defend her behavior, as if she is excused from basic politeness and manners simply because of her kids. She makes the show hard to watch, IMO. I suppose she's a "love her or hate her" individual, because my best friend adores Kate. We agree to disagree. :)

I think you can like her, acknowledge her faults, but not be bothered by her behavior. I think even in real life, when you like someone, you're willing to cut them a bit more slack. Kate can be challenging and she is anything but stoic, that's for sure.

Finally - In closing, I want to say that I perfectly understand that we don't see every bit of their life, but what we don't see is not the issue here. The J&K that we see on TV is who the producers choose to show us, and we as viewers have no choice but to accept what we see and draw opinions from that.

Or you could just make stuff up, like the GWoPpers do.

Wait, did I just say that? :-)

I agree, and I wouldn't plead editing except to say that the editing can emphasize the positive or the negative. I almost feel like since some of this online buzz has gotten going, the producers have edited the show at times to make J&K look bad, in order to fuel the controversy. But of course I have no evidence of that, and I may just be being paranoid. Lord knows, I don't see the "controversy" as the world-wide groundswell of outrage that the GWoPpers do; it's very possible the producers are only even vaguely aware that any of these "issues" exist.

Thanks, duckingfromthrownobjects, for your thoughtful words.

Anonymous said...

iliveinthegray makes an interesting point. Also, thelevel of viciousness that's apparent on blogs like GWoP takes away from its credibility.

On a related note, I found something interesting - I was surfing the net recently, and found a video clip of Jon & Kate's April 2007 appearance on Dr. Phil (minus the kids). They were asking for Dr. Phil's advice on controlling the chaos with so many kids.

At that time DR. PHIL (Sorry, it's not letting me bold for some reason, I'm trying to emphasize, rather than shout) set them up with Nannies4Hire (which, I believe is where they found Jenny).

I don't remember when the "Finding a Nanny" episode aired (i.e. whether it was before or after the Jodi thing), but the Dr. Phil appearance was certainly way before all the controversy!

bigsis88 said...

I don't think a blog is the most effective way to advocate for anything, since it's relatively anonymous. Also, although I personally don't think anyone should be excluded from a conversation, I will take the word of someone with credentials (that I've seen, outside the blogosphere) over Joe Schmo, and those things are impossible to prove online.

Mom said...

Guin -
Excellent post over at PM's house! I'm getting blasted for saying "I don't know."

BigSis -
I agree. This blog is for people to share their opinions and debate them (fairly, of course). It is the Paul Peterson's of the world, not the Nat'l Enquirers, I will stop and really listen to.

Duckingfromthrownobjects - No need to duck here :-)

Fanny said...

Guinevere said...

"I agree, and I wouldn't plead editing except to say that the editing can emphasize the positive or the negative. I almost feel like since some of this online buzz has gotten going, the producers have edited the show at times to make J&K look bad, in order to fuel the controversy. But of course I have no evidence of that, and I may just be being paranoid. Lord knows, I don't see the "controversy" as the world-wide groundswell of outrage that the GWoPpers do; it's very possible the producers are only even vaguely aware that any of these "issues" exist."



If you're being paranoid, so am I. I've been thinking the producers were kinda fueling the fire, or at least not trying to put it out. There are times when I'm watching and I see something that has been mentioned on other blogs and I can't believe they didn't cut it. Like the sign on Mady's door. It was about 3 seconds of film that had nothing to do with the storyline.

I really think that they are giving gwoppers exactly what they want to keep the "controversy" going and keep ratings up.

Mom said...

I've been thinking about it too. These are some of the things specifically I have noticed:

-The door sign
-Ronald McDonald check
-Mentioning of "grandmom"
-Replaying over and over again the episodes that everyone has huge issues with - potties, Jodi, etc.
-Kate mellowing a bit more "Jon, they were just being boys." (recent episode that started with the magnets on the fridge.)
-The prayer on July 4th vacation

Did these things exist in older episodes and I wasn't aware of them? Did they always exist and TLC never showed them until now?

TLC is making a fortune from this show - advertising is big big big bucks. I'm sure they have to be aware of all that's out there in the blogosphere.

Speaking of which, I noticed that there is ANOTHER blog - dare I give them a free plug? It's similar to GWoP. I sent it to Nina. This blogger uses the G's namesake (as in G's web address.blogspot.com) for her blog. I can just about believe anything now. Quite nervy, the name, I think.

Linda said...

Mom & Guinevere --

Read both of your Q & A at PennMommy's blog, you have both just experienced the blogosphere equivalent of banging your head against a wall.

(Shaking my head back and forth here)

lonneyswife reminds me of another infamous TwoP poster whose name was something like presley?

=====================

GwoP is a joke.

I think that it exploit the children for the sake of blog traffic and an artificial sense of importance.

They criticize K for verbal abuse and yet the engage in the very same verbal abuse.

They criticize J&K demeaning the kids but they engage in demeaning and derogatory behavior towards those kids.

They insist on complete truth from the Gs but fully acknowledge that the posts and comments on the blog may not be accurate.

They demand the Gs "take responsibility" for their behavior and yet their blog admits that they will take no responsibility for the consequences that result from the blog posts or comments.

GwoP also encourages stalking behavior.

The only thing that I see as valid is the idea that we should consider Coogan's laws regarding children working in Reality TV.

Linda said...

BTW, Serena is listed again as a moderator in the post entitled "Guest Contributors Welcome."

MommyZinger said...

mom and guinevere,
Great job over there at PM's! Standing ovation!

Anonymous said...

first of all, i don't see any reason why gwop would make a child advocacy site about the gosselins. the parents don't abuse their kids, etc.

i also think gwop is now losing the main topic about their blog. it's becoming more unfair. they stalk them then post all the family's flaws leaving out the family's pros. like the comments on their new camping episode. "where was kate at during half of the camp, at the spa?". it's just pathetic. one of the gwoppers also wrote "there's really nothing to say about this episode". it's like saying they can't find anything bad to write about the episode.

Anonymous said...

I find the harping on stalking a tad laughable. No admin from GWoP is following the Gosselins around, going up to them, mailing them things, going to their door, going into their yard, or doing anything that meets the legal definition of stalking. Yet their fans send them letters, packages, and talk about how they'd love to have one of the children. That's much more stalkerish behavior.

And as far as Serena, amazing to find GWoP telling the truth? Vacations happen - even from blogging.

Anonymous said...

I find GWoP more than a tad laughable. In fact I find it freakin hilarious. Wasn't that Serena on the Topix site trying to dig info up. But that is not stalking.

Serena on vacation? Someone a couple of posts below had a tizzy fit when a remark was made about where Serena was and stated she had a life threatening illness?

Anonymous said...

JMO -

While some of you thought that the tee shirt Kate was wearing "if you can't say anything nice.." was some passive-agressive message directed toward her detractors, I found it hypocritical. My first thought was that she should follow her own advice and mind the things she says about her husband and her children.

nomoredrama said...

Interesting, I think I saw your post about that at GWoP. I agree that both she and Jon need to watch what they say about each other and their children.

I'm not sure why you single Kate out in this. I actually think the majority of the "mean" things said about the kids are said by Jon.

Either way, I agree that they need to work on that. With that being said, I think what is said about the kids AS A WHOLE is relatively minor. When they start blogging about how their kids are brats and oafish and start calling their kid's fatty arbuckle, then I'll call that shirt hypocritical. Or if they start blogging on a site that treats Jodi and her family in this way, then, again I will agree about hypocrisy.

Until that happens, the hypocrisy argument is weak, IMO

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why you single Kate out in this.

She was the one wearing the shirt.

Anonymous said...

I have never seen the Gosselin children referred to as "Fatty Arbuckle". I have tried to find it.

I know a poster said that she "saw" that somewhere.

If you want concrete evidence of anything, this is not it.

Mom said...

Thanks Linda and Mommyzinger -

My reply was not nearly as eloquent as Guin's (Guin, are you a writer? If not, you should be!)

Yes, banging your head - great! The best is I looked this morning to see if PM addressed either Guin or I and, what do you think? Nah. Just someone who went off on her.

Did 3farmers every acknowledge the other posts? Nah. LOL!

So has anyone gone to that GWop-like site I mentioned earlier? Honestly, I don't want to plug anymore ridiculous, jump on the bandwagon sites, but this one takes the cake as far as the actual url address.

5monkeys said...

Mom, I visited that other blog you mentioned - I am still shaking my head.

It appears to be a wanna-be of another site.

nomoredrama said...

Of course they didn't, Mom. Penn mommy seems to revel in the extremists. She loves to copy and paste what they say and then go off.

Someone was asked about posting a Kate encounter that was completely contradictory from one site to the next. They ignored it, basically. I think Julie gave it a "what's your point." Hmmm, maybe that someone is being less than truthful. But then again, why would I really expect the "truth" bloggers to care about truth when it comes to J &K. As long as every story told has them as the villain, you can say whatever you want without being questioned.

nomoredrama said...

Wait a minute, I just thought of something. Isn't taking an extremist position and trying to pass it off as the group position then arguing against said position called...a straw-man argument!

Neutral said...

I still can't get over the thumb tack thing. Seriously? Most likely a professional web designer built that website, not Jon. The header is made up of Flash and I seriously doubt Jon has enough time to learn the program to be able to produce what is on the website. And said designer would have no idea, and probably not care, who the "favorites" are. They just put the tacks there to be cute. There's also a good possibility that they removed the tacks after a couple of days because someone didn't like them. Removing them also wouldn't take but two seconds to remove them, because of the way the program is set up. They're most likely on their own "layer" on the program and all you have to do is hit a button, republish, and upload the new file. They didn't spend hours removing those tacks instead of working on the individual kids' pages like many claim. It's just ridiculous! Another example of people not knowing that they're talking about, spewing garbage out of their mouths and onto the internet.

Linda said...

I just found the other blog that you mentioned.

My first impression upon reading it is the amount of negativity that is present in the posts. The comment section is not as biting as GwoP, but the posts ... wow.

AgainAnonymous said...

Good job, Mom and Guinevere, in answering the epic list of questions PM listed.

Personally, I don't know why she asked them in the first place if she's just there to tell her experiences and "vent." (and somehow she's convinced herself the venting is going to somehow qualify as advocating for the children)

I thought both your answers were very clear and extremely calm in tone, and noticed they were jumped on as attacks immediately by the anti-Kate contingent.

I don't get it. They keep saying they want someone with a differing opinion to state said opinions intelligently and without attacking, they get that, but it's not enough. (This is not new, of course.)

If PM(S) thinks she's expressing herself without sounding defensive and bitter, she better reevaluate her writing skills. She's decended into insults and spiteful retorts herself in just about every response/question.

There's been little over there (PM) but questions in response to questions, and then more questions of her own. It looks like she's enjoying the attention and/or conflict more than getting the "truth" out. At this point it's (PM's site) a reitteration of the never-ending list of "What's wrong with the Gosselins," the material for which is abundant on her "sister" site.

Kudos to you for taking the time, but I'm afraid any attempt at reason on those blogs has long since "left the building."

jax said...

Mom and Guinevere, good job over at Penn's site!

GWoP has zero credibility for me. The stalking mentality is frightening!

Mom, I did go to the site you mentioned. Did you read the post from someone that had contacted the hotel in Hawaii where the G's had stayed? Apparently, this poster wanted to know the financial details of what the G's actually paid for. How crazy is it that the hotel offered this person a cell phone number if they had any additional questions!!!! WTF??? Great PR for this hotel, huh! Word of mouth is a powerful tool and I can tell you, we will NEVER stay there! Unbelievable they would give out ANY info. (assuming this is all true)

Sorry for the rant.

dotsicle said...

I think the GWoP blog has done a good job in drawing the attention of people who wish to advocate for the children. The problem is that if they allow comments that are not on that topic, then they will be accused of "spewing hate". If they DON'T allow comments, then they will be accused of rejecting posts. I think that due to the volume of posts they are likely getting, they may scale down in some way in the future. I don't post much there because, although I wish the Gosselin kids the best, I'm not a child advocate and have very little to add. To me, the best thing is to get the cameras out of the kids' everyday lives. It doesn't matter to me what Kate's hair looks like or whether she buys organic food. I love to snark, but I don't think GWoP is the place to do it.
As for Vacations/illnesses among the mods, I do know that one of their mods DOES have a serious illness.

Mom said...

This post probably doesn't go here - so Nina, feel free to move it if need be......

Since we are on the topic of possible editorial steering one way or the other, what aren't we seeing?

I can't name one episode where Kate didn't hug, kiss or love one several of her children. Does 22 or 23 minutes really show what is going on? (My answer is 'of course not, it's reality tv'.)

I think the extremists - pro- or anti- sometimes only think in black and white. It's all or nothing. "I think they are fantastic!" or "They are victims and the show must be cancelled."

Where is the middle ground? I for one, am somewhere in the middle. I think I'm a realist.

This show is making alot of people and corporations alot of moolah - and, I'm not even talking about the G's themselves.

Will there be an end to the show? Probably, but no time soon is my guess.

This is where I have a hard time with rationalizing with an extremist. So........

If the show is going to continue, what changes could be made to make it better?

My guess is the extremists will say "nothing should change" or "nothing will make it better!"

I think more could be done if some common ground could be found. This is one reason why I continue to hang out with the folks here versus there.

I highly doubt that these children will be living on skid row by the time they are 18. Is it really our business whether they even attend college or not? If there are funds or not? I realize the anti- extremists will say "but they say there are no funds and that is a lie because the state set them up with accounts.....blah blah blah."

The pro- extremists, for the most part, just don't want to see bad or indifference in anyone. In a way, I think it would be nice to wear some rosy glasses now and then.

So, can we find some middle ground?

Mom said...

Jax -

I saw that too. I honestly cannot believe the nerve some folks have thinking "it's a free world" and contact all of the places J&K have visited, etc. That hotel should be ashamed IF that was true.

With that said, I think BabyMama had an excellent post on her blog about how anyone can make up anything about J&K, and depending on the circumstance - K was nice or K was mean - could be believed by anyone!

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Mom said...

I must be a glutton for punishment. Someone please tell me to quit going over to PM's house! ;-)

Anonymous said...

Serena on vacation? Someone a couple of posts below had a tizzy fit when a remark was made about where Serena was and stated she had a life threatening illness?

Whoever said Serena had a life threatening illness was misinformed apparently. I haven't seen that. I did see that some admins were on vacation and one or more were ill. Perhaps people made assumptions that Serena was the one who was ill?

Anonymous said...

Don't go, don't go. I haven't been to PM's house and I am just fine without it. I didn't try to find the other site mentioned either. Perhaps a nice afternoon nap or reading a good book would be better for the blood pressure.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure, but she's mysteriously back on the list of admins.

Guinevere said...

I must be a glutton for punishment. Someone please tell me to quit going over to PM's house! ;-)

I am right there with you. It's kind of like a trainwreck. There are a couple of nasty posters in that thread ("Lonnyswife" comes to mind); I guess the exhortations against personal attacks don't apply to Gosselin haters.

Bigsis88 said...

Can I join the conspiracy table? If anyone is "laughing all the way to the bank", it's TLC/F8F for sure. (Which is despicable, in my opinion, since kids are involved.) Why couldn't they just choose one of the many aspiring famewhores if they wanted to put on a modern day minstrel show?

anya said...

Mom said...
I must be a glutton for punishment. Someone please tell me to quit going over to PM's house! ;-)


From one mom to another, you are NOT allowed to go to PM's house anymore!

You too Guinevere!

And no cupcakes for dessert either!

SoccerMomof3 said...

Mom...
I completely agree with your answers on PennMommy site. I am very surprised at how heated some people are with your answers and how you answered the question about Collin.
I saw this episode and while I feel for Collin because my own child went through it, no one should jump down your throat for your answer.

On another note, Thank you mods for your site. I had been over on GWoP but I just couldn't believe how negative and down right mean they were...not only to J&K but to the children. Whether your a fan or not people on those sites could at least be courteous.

lulubae said...

Ok, this whole "impacted colon" business is really grating on my last nerve. I don't mean to be insensitive or mean but really, there is a clear distinction between being constipated and having an impacted colon. My little brother suffered from that quite a bit as a child. He also had constipation. And being 6 years older, I CLEARLY remember the difference between the two. Let me just put it this way. If Collin had had an impacted colon he would have been at the hospital cause there was no way the poop was coming out. When he was constipated, poop would come out but my mother had to help it along cause it was hard (sorry for graphic-ness!).

A lot of people are jumping to the conclusion all of a sudden that the poor child was dying and the such. The child was clearly uncomfortable, but to me, he looked just like my brother when constipated. Had he had an impacted bowel or colon it would have been a different story!

Phew, just had to get that out of my system!

SoccerMomof3 said...

Thanks Lulubae!!!

My sentiments exactly. My second child was constipated like Collin, and although she was in a lot of pain it came out (with my help).

I don't understand why people are jumping on the wagon of the kid being impacted.

Again thank you...I thought I was the only one who was thinking it.

bigsis88 said...

Well Guinevere if you don't go back to PM, I guess I should post what I wrote there over here:

In response to some of your earlier comments Guinevere, I think the crucial difference between children on reality television and regular tv child actors is that other child stars play characters. Although, J&K+8 has made the Gosselin children into "characters" (Mady's dramatic, Cara's calm, etc.), they are real people with virtues and flaws like you said. I also agree with your comment about how both forms of child acting have costs and benefits, though I see reality tv as worse just because it has become synonymous in my head with "exploitation." That's my reasoning for why they shouldn't be on tv as much as they are, but, that said, I am not a "child advocate" or anything of that nature. (I have enough homework as it is!) ;-)

Am I the only one who thinks this way? I noticed that people seemed to be avoiding that particular issue, though I don't know why, because I don't think it was leading.

lulubae said...

Soccermom, I'm glad I'm not alone too. I wante to post it over there, but why bother anymore. It's not a forum for discussion, just back and forth that gets no one anywhere!

big sis, as I've said before, I'm not fond of the parents but I am of the children. I'm not against the show being off the air. A yearly special wouldn't be bad. I agree that children's participation in reality shows should be regulated. What I'm against is people's obssession with taking complete strangers down at whatever cost to their family and children, and the perverse satisfaction of harping on physical qualities, etc. That I'm not at all for. I agree with a poster who said earlier, that those who claim to fight to not have the children exploited, in the end exploit the whole family.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this is insensitive in regards to Collin's "problem" the day they went bed shopping, but with 8 kids, it would be difficult to plan family activities without someone being sick. That doesn't take away from his pain and discomfort, or make it OK for them to do that, but honestly - if they had to stay home for everything, they'd never go anywhere. And with a sister who had similar issues, I can assure you - Collin's problem could have been going on for days.

Anonymous said...

I think that the people at GWoP truly think they ARE helping, because they are so far in the forest they can't see the trees. As has been said a million times, if they truly saw the needs of other children, they wouldn't even be wasting their breath on kids such as the Gosselins. I don't agree with many things Jon and Kate do, but I really feel like those people are constantly looking to pick a fight with anyone. A recent comment I saw there (I think, or maybe PM's blog) was bashing Jon and Kate for not having time to check their children's homework. I am a teacher, and 97% of the kids work is never checked. In fact, a huge number of my students never even see their parents enough to have them sign basic forms. It's very sad, but it's a result of a society that requires at least two incomes to financially be stable. That was a gross generalization, not everyone needs two incomes to be comfortable, but it is a reality for many, many people.

I also stand again behind what I've said before - for better or worse, I think that Jon and Kate feel that all this crap is worth it because they feel they are doing what is best for their family, and being able to be home more with their children. It would be a very tempting offer, and one I would consider. Consider being the operative part of that sentence (don't yell at me!! Ha!).

Guinevere said...

bigsis88, I do see your point. I think where I part ways is that I'm just not as certain that being on TV is harmful to the kids. It's different. It's not "normal" in that it's not the average American childhood experience. But (and I apologize for repeating something I've said many times before), for me it just doesn't fall into the category of so obviously a bad or harmful thing that I think parents should be prohibited from letting their kids do it.

I shouldn't go back to Penn Mommy's blog. The comment earlier about beating one's head against a wall was spot on.

lurkeyhere said...

I think people who are really concerned about advocating for children on reality shows are not spending all their time blogging about poop and potties.

These kind of shows are just going to become more common, so some regulations should be in place.
But it probably won't happen in time to affect the Gosselins and that seems to be what most of these people care about. You barely see any mention of any of the nanny shows, most of which feature children behaving much worse than the G kids.

As much as the kids were the initial reason for the show, and people say they just like watching the kids, I don't think it would have lasted this long if not for the antics of J& K. They're the ones generating all these blogs, which I'm sure Figure 8 and TLC are thrilled about. If the Gs were all sweetness and light people would get bored.

By the time the Gosseling kids grow up there will probably have been even more outrageous families
documented and people will have forgotten about poor Collin's heiney troubles.

nomoredrama said...

BigSis,
I understand the distinction between playing yourself and playing a character. I just don't necessarily agree that this is "worse" than playing a character. Sometimes a character is a terrible type cast (like the fat kid on the goonies). Sure, he was playing a character but not socially acceptable one.

As far as being synonymous with exploitation, I also disagree with this. I don't think having a reality show based on your family life =exploitation. It has the potential to be exploitative but does not fall into that category by virtue of mere existence.

If something like making money off of your family situation is to be considered exploitative for the Gosselins, it has to be considered that for a variety of different things. Where do you draw the line? What would you say about people who write books about the death of their children (Think Columbine "I said yes"), what about parents of kids with other talents (like music, art, etc.) How about child athletes, gymnasts?

I know I'm answering questions with questions but I guess my concern is that if you label this exploitation you are setting a president that may have larger implications than seem apparent at the moment.

nomoredrama said...

OMG...my spellcheck changed precedent to president and I didn't even notice it! LOL!!!

AgainAnonymous said...

Well, I've had about as much beating my head against a wall as I can take.

I was happy to find this site, and I'm glad to see there are some people still capable of using reason out there. But the responses given today on PM's site to questions SHE asked are just another example that some posters just want someone...ANYONE to step forward and engage.

I don't know if it's to gloat because of an imagined victory in a cyber battle of wills, but I feel as though to join in the fray only feeds the beast. Those are not the sites to try and make reasonable points heard.

They goad some Gosselin fan ("Where are all the people who know Kate who will stand up for her?") into claiming to be a fan of Kate's, or make it up themselves, in order to say, "See? Kate fans are so desperate for Kate to be seen as worthy of friends they'll do anything."

For the record, I don't think a "friend" of Kate's in blogville has any more credence than any other anonymous "insider."

I've never felt the need to defend the Gosselins, only the desire to, shall we say, play fair in the discussion. Anti-Kate detractors have only one goal, to be "right" and lay to waste anyone who dares to cross their paths. These wackos have pinned on their "advocate" badges and somehow think that legitimizes the ranting.

Stay strong, ladies!

Mom said...

Guin - we may have to pinky swear on not going over there tomorrow, as I posted something about finding common ground tonight. (What am I doing??? Hell if I know!**doink**)

What's up with the Kate's friend imposter? Did she post here too? Is that wrong to automatically not believe her? In the words of Kate herself, "LOOOOOORRRRDYYYYY BEEEEEEE"

I think I have seen and read it all today my sistahs!

'nite all!
;-)

Mom said...

P.S.

SoccerMom - I forgot to say "thanks!"

Guinevere said...

mom, we may need a 12-step group, or something.

Anonymous said...

I like the primary mission of GWOP but detest the snarkiness of some of the posters (really, who cares what Kate's hair or makeup looks like).

I also hate the "comment of the week". It just takes the credibility away from the whole blog, IMO because it is highlighting the snarkiness of the whole previous week, and makes people sound unremittingly idiotic.

LIKE OMG COMMENT OF TEH WEEK, GUYS!!!111!!! LOL!!

Linda said...

A comment of the week by againanonymous:

************************
These wackos have pinned on their "advocate" badges and somehow think that legitimizes the ranting.

**********************

Linda said...

(Hi - anonymous. My timing could not have been worse on the 4:33 a.m. post. sorry.)

Mom said...

Guin,

Put a fork in me.

I'm done.

:-P

bigsis88 said...

Guin,
I agree; I don't think having one's children on tv is so bad or harmful that people should be forbidden from doing it. There are worse situations to be concerned about.

NMD, I wasn't saying that having a reality show based on your family life is exploitation, I think a goal of reality tv is to be exploitative. I blame that on production companies, not on the people they show-I think the idea of the "exploitation of the G children" comes out of the editing, not their "raw" behavior.

anya said...

Guinevere said...
mom, we may need a 12-step group, or something.


I think the first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right? Today was that day for me!

I have spend too much time over there today with with a nasty little group of 3 or 4 women who I wouldn't want to share an elevator ride with (sans Amy, of course).

I'm done! Quitting cold turkey!

Nina Bell said...

Anya,

I was looking at that a few minutes ago to see what was going on. I am totally staying away. It is somewhat depressing. I am not pointing fingers. I am just saying it is depressing.

anya said...

Nina:

And that is why you are a wise woman!

It IS depressing, but I got sucked in. Oh well, guess that means I'll be staying late tonight to catch up on work.

I think it's going so fast and furious and 'everything goes', I can't see it lasting, but I have thought that about some other sites! :-)

Jenn said...

Guinevere said...
I am right there with you. It's kind of like a trainwreck. There are a couple of nasty posters in that thread ("Lonnyswife" comes to mind); I guess the exhortations against personal attacks don't apply to Gosselin haters.


I'm sure "Lonny" is so happy to be married to her.

I know, out of line, but she comes off as so self-rightous and mean. And I had to get that off my chest.

Nina Bell said...

Jenn,

Your blog entry on your site (http://jennysue77.blogspot.com/) was interesting. What a horrible experience. By the way, I love the name of your blog. Keep posting and we will keep reading.

Jenn said...

It was horrible! I was so mad yesterday that I sent in a copy of what happened to cnn.com, foxnews.com and to our local television station. Probably silly but man, I was mad! So far, I've gotten 3 emails from Microsoft regarding the situation. 1 said I need more info. 2nd one said thanks for your info and we've forwarded your message. 3rd one (from a supervisor) said he had escalated the situation to someone else. I'm going to put those emails on my blog tonight. I'm still mad. lol

Jenn said...

Oh, the name is something that my Grandpa used to always say to me.. took a lot of years to figure it out but it's so true!

Anonymous said...

Oh boo hoo. Julie doesn't like us, and thinks this website is full of hate. It is really ironic what people are willing to see when they want to see it. That last post over there made me never want to go see that blog again.

I personally think this blog is pretty far from hate. So thanks.

Jenn said...

This is the saddest thing I've read all day:

We raised 5 and although we love them to death my husband are very happy that they have all moved out and on with their own lives. They have all become great people in their own right.
They don't depend on us nor we on them. We talk on the phone on occasion and I don't think we've all be together for holidays in at least 10 years, and 4 of them were still at home then.
We are all spread all over the country.
My husband and I adore each others compnay and like our time together, alot like what the original poster says about her relationship with her partner.
We don't define who we are by our children and our children don't define themselves by who we are.
We had them, we raised them, we taught them to do right and be good people, and when they left, we said , bye, love ya, keep in touch.

ductapeovermouth said...

I personally think this blog is pretty far from hate.

"It is really ironic what people are willing to see when they want to see it."

Anonymous said...

I knew that quote would be thrown back at me. Thanks, ductapeovermouth. Great example of the kind spirit here.

Mom said...

Oh my. I went over to PM's house - it's a trainwreck.

Not one question I asked was answered by anyone. Why should that surprise me?

Nina, how about a topic request thread? A quick title with a quick description. Maybe you'll get some good ones. Just a thought.

I like the off topic one. It was nice to see what people had to say - let's us see their 'normal' side - LOL!

I have a few suggestions, but I'll email them to you or see if you do a suggestions thread.

g'nite all.

MommyZinger said...

When Julie said she "had never seen a more hateful site" I honestly thought she was getting this site mixed up with GWoP. What is she talking about? Because some people said they didn't agree with her choice to do her blog? Whatever.
I was wondering why I never see any of the Gosselin critics here. I think (and if any of them are reading, this is not a challenge, just my personal opinion) its because they know NoMoreDrama, NinaBell and Guinevere are strong debaters.
I agree that PM's site has gotten out of control. I will read PM's future posts but not the comments. That would waste too much of my time.

ductapeovermouth said...

I knew that quote would be thrown back at me. Thanks, ductapeovermouth. Great example of the kind spirit here.

It was just my addition to the balanced discussion.

Anonymous said...

Just be glad that you made the comment here and not "over there," ductapeovermouth, because "over there" it probably wouldn't have been allowed because of the misspelling of your name! It's in the rules! ;)

I'm glad to see opposing views, so if you have more to say, say it.

MommyZinger said...

I just read an article in Maxim magazine (my husband's) called "Scientology vs. Anonymous" about a group of people who found each other on a website, got organized and formed a protest against the Church of Scientology. And from the article it sounds like this site had its fair share of hateful comments. In the end, they (so far) have not succeeded in bringing down the church but raised awareness of it to the general public. So it is possible for sites like GWoP to make change. They just have to gather all the people who are willing to walk the walk and take it outside of the internet.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure where else to put this, so I'll post it here. I can't stop reading all the garbage out there, I need to get off the computer! I just wanted to say to Nomoredrama that I appreciate what you are saying on other blogs, and agree with you 100%. Thanks for being willing to question how someone (in particular) can find comments about the Gosselins acceptable?

nomoredrama said...

I'm getting about done with some of this crap.

But you are all witnesses that I tried. I tried to have a civil, open discussion. I was open-minded to Julie's perspective and I was in no way disrespectful.

I guess the fallacy in my thinking is that there really is a desire to see the other side.

I don't like it when others feel attacked or persecuted and I guess I tried to put a band-aid over that by apologizing. Believe it or not, deep down I like it when people get along. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all talk, have disagreements and go on without attacking one another.

But that isn't the real word. My desire for a Utopia blew up in my face today. Wiping egg off and moving on.

erin said...

I have to say, I thought the aim of GWOP was admirable at the beginning the execution left much to be desired. I commented back in June on Watchoverthem's post about her role as a CASA and was crucified for having a differing opinion. I think they suffer for not allowing differing view points. I think their message also suffers from all the hate spewed on the blog (and I think there is a lot of hate flowing over there). I really appreciate this blog for a more measured view of things. I like that you allow that Jon and Kate are not perfect, but are by no means monsters.

Also, on Julie's blog--I said over at GWOP (my comment was never published) that I don't question the truth of her comments, more the motive. It is a case where she is pointing the finger, but in my very humble opinion it is a case of all adults behaving badly--including Jodi and Julie. In the long run, I think the airing of dirty laundry is going to hurt those kids a lot. Up to this point I thought Jodi was pretty admirable, but I was disappointed in her complicity in the blog.

anya said...

NoMoreDrama said...
"Believe it or not, deep down I like it when people get along. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all talk, have disagreements and go on without attacking one another."


I tend toward the same personality so I know how you feel. Some of the most interesting exchanges on THIS blog have taken place between two parties with opposite views who will argue their opinion forcefully, but with respect.

For what it's worth, your words are still there and you have to remember there are always more lurkers than posters so who knows who you are reaching - not that I would call what we doing a 'cause' :-) .

I liked both Guin's and your approaches. They were different, but both of you called them on their crap.

Anyway, the site is just a free-for-all and I can't see it lasting at this rate. I don't understand why P-Mommy creates this blog and then just disappears of the scene. Have we seen anything from her in the last 36 hours? I don't think so? Anyway, I have already spent too much time trying to figure out others motives, so I'll leave it at that!

Mom said...

NMD -

Good job my friend. I began typing several times today, but decided to hold back. I think you were very respectful and stayed your course well.

I gave up yesterday after all the bashing I got for actually answering all those stinkin' questions and admitting 'I didn't know' when it came to some topics.

I'm like you, if Paul Peterson speaks up, I'll listen. The truth is......we don't know the truth.

For me the truth is, I'm somewhere in the middle. What's wrong with that? If someone that felt so strongly the other way actual spoke to me like a fellow mother, much less a fellow human, it's possible I could budge from sitting in the middle - but no one seems to want to.

I have two sisters. Both of whom I'm very protective of - and they of me. I feel for Julie as a sister. I feel terrible that this has all happened between the two women, but my heart aches for the children. It's rough being estranged from family you love and not understand why - I can speak of that first hand - and it was an uncle for me. My father's brother.

My dad died of cancer last October. My uncle and his family came to the house to see him. My dad, severly in pain, did not want my mom to call my uncle and let him know he was dying. My mom did anyway. Neither said they were sorry, but it seemed ammends were made. My uncle and family continued to visit, bring food, etc. and were even at my parent's house the day my dad was sent to the hospital for the last time. My dad needed that before he died and I think he found some peace and was finally able to let go.

The original falling out happened almost 15 years ago. They (uncle and family) came when my brother died and grandmother died to pay their respects and my dad and he would exchange a 'hello,' but that was the extent of it.

Sorry to ramble.

My point being family estrangement is hard for all involved.

I wish there was more acceptance when it came to opposing views and some common ground could be acknowledged.

The truth is I think many of us - here and there - feel the same way.

You, Guin, Nina and others here do a really good job at questioning opinions without being hurtful and I appreciate that.

Thank you.

AgainAnonymous said...

nomoredrama, guin & anya,

Well, you all did your best trying to be reasonable. I also think that having a "reasoned" discussion is not an option in many cases...they just want to be RIGHT.

I had to laugh at Julie's comment about the posters over here wanting to do nothing but tear apart GwoP posts and how she wouldn't believe you were sincere until all the "hateful" things that were written over here about her and her sister were deleted.

All I've ever seen here was posters questioning Julie and Jodi's motives for going public.

I don't think Julie's position for creating a blog is so morally right and above ethical scrutiny if she's so easily offended by people questioning her motives.

Also, we got what now must be the party line for the Truth Brigade ...
"How do you know I'm not doing something for the kids behind the scenes?" and "I'm not going to tell you what I'm doing because it's private." Whatever.

Julie certainly has nothing new to blog about. Why? Because she doesn't know anything. Jodi's been cut off, right? So the gravy train of tasty gossip tidbits has dried out.

She soooo has nothing new to say that she (Julie) actually answered another blogger's question on PM's blog about Beth being out of the picture by quoting yet ANOTHER blog that she herself had "read". She at least confirmed it was speculation on her part. But, for cripes sake, if you don't know, say so, don't join the blogging masses with the "I read somewhere that..." just to give the illusion you know more than you do.

And, Julie, when you read this, please don't flatter yourself that I'm trying to insult you. If you're insulted by people questioning your and Jodi's motives and not worshiping you both as the Gosselin childrens' savior, pick up your toys and go home.

Anonymous said...

I agree againanonymous.

Julie has no new information, therefore my hope is that GWoP can finally go back to it's original intent. Helping the chilren.

In no way do I believe Julie is behind all the hatetred, I just believe if some of the info was never revealed it wouldn't have fueled the fire so to speak.

Linda said...

Guin, Nomoredrama, Anya & all,

You gave a good effort. What really deeply troubled me is how cavalier Julie is about what was said about those kids.

If this was really "all about the kids" then you'd think that she would be offended at what was said about the twins and the tups.

Instead she says that she isn't alarmed and downplays it.

Hell, even Fiona has admitted that it has gotten out of hand at GwoP and 3Farmers calls those comments "irresponsible."

The more that I think of this situation, the more I think that Julie and Kate are a lot a like.

nomoredrama said...

All I have to say is if I'm mean and hateful for being against the sick comments made at GWoP then color me hateful.

If I'm a 'bully' because I express my opinion in a way that might challenge someone else's then call me a bully.

Isn't that what discussion is meant to do? Make you think? And it's hilarious to me that threefamers who resorted to name calling on more than one occasion is allowed to freely post there. I guess its ok to be "mean" and fight as long as you agree completely with what the majority thinks.

nomoredrama said...

And didn't both Julie and Penn Mommy ask to see the comments that were so horrible (I'm not totally positive but if I recall correctly, they did). Then when someone shows them and does a good job of it, they're called immature and told to "grow up." I think it's interesting that she's so outraged by the negative comments being brought to her site. Yet, she has no problem with them when reading them at GWoP. Confusing to say the least.

ductapeovermouth said...

Just be glad that you made the comment here and not "over there," ductapeovermouth, because "over there" it probably wouldn't have been allowed because of the misspelling of your name! It's in the rules! ;)

I'm glad to see opposing views, so if you have more to say, say it.


I do, but tend not to, because someone always chimes in on the conversation and says something really ignorant.

"Believe it or not, deep down I like it when people get along. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all talk, have disagreements and go on without attacking one another."

Having had a really nice exchange of ideas with NMD, I agree. Lasts about a day, then read answer above.

Incorrect spelling is intentional. ducttapeovermouth looked funny. My humor is not appreaciated over at GWoP.

On a thread about how Kate would react to "hellos" if she was out buying toilet paper, I responded "That would never happen. If Kate needs toilet paper all she has to do is pray and it ends up on her back porch. That's how she gets all her paper products."

I thought it was funny.

Guinevere said...

I kind of gave up being reasonable when I replied to Julie, and settled for being bitchy. It felt good! :-) Seriously, I try not to descend that far into bitchiness, because it just becomes a back and forth battle to push the other person's buttons and get in the last word. But I don't really regret it, or think I lost anything. I knew I wasn't going to convince those folks of anything, and being as reasonable and fair and nice as possible didn't seem to be getting anyone anywhere. A few of the posters over there were breathtakingly rude even when one was polite, so the impetus to behave kind of wasn't there at a certain point.

I find a lot ridiculous about the comments on that thread and Julie's comments in particular. But I was thinking particularly about her insistence that she owns "the truth". That convinces me that she really is just like any fanatic; threatened by a viewpoint different from her own. Which is more reason, IMO, to take anything she says about the Gosselins with a huge grain of salt, because she's obviously not rational on the subject.

nomoredrama said...

See above? Please point me to where I become unreasonable and unpleasant.

I think I'm going to change my s/n to the Mean, Unreasonable cyber-bully Witch.

And I agree that there is pretty much nothing either side can say to convince the other. Which is why every day I see more and more why J&K don't bother. Why would they? Anything they say would be fodder for the GWoP crowd.

A wise person once said "Never explain: Your friends don't need and your enemies will not believe you anyway"

I think he was on to something there (although I bet I'll continue to fall into the trap, LOL)

Nina Bell said...

Fanny, your comment was move to a post today and delurkerloo your comment was moved under that post.

Thanks

ductapeovermouth said...

See above? Please point me to where I become unreasonable and unpleasant

"Having had a really nice exchange of ideas with NMD, I agree. Lasts about a day, then read answer above."

(answer above was referring to)

"I do, but tend not to, because someone always chimes in on the conversation and says something really ignorant."