Tuesday, October 28, 2008

SOUND OFF - Julie's Blog



Julie has made a statement on her blog. Feel free to discuss that statement here.

119 comments:

Mom said...

Guess I'll be the first to comment. Sure wish I would have put this prediction in writing. As soon as the CNN thing came out I thought "boy, this is really going to draw even more attention to her blog." I have always thought that Jodi really didn't want all of that out there. I went to look today and basically everything that was personal about Jodi, gumgate, twisted, etc. is gone - poof! Even her mission statement at the top has changed from the original.

I also haven't seen any posts from Julie on GWOP since the drama with PM. Seems that GWOP is still linking her blog to theirs and you can still find the transcript of the video as well on GWOP.

So, now Julie is a child advocate? Sure she is.

What's next? Only time will tell.

A Mom-ynous said...

Oh boy--does that scream red flag or what!

I'm speechless at the moment. I'll have to ponder on this some more to give a more thought out response. But the timing is weird and it makes me wonder if a legitimate Cease and Desist was issued.

B/c legally, you may say what happened to you personally and how it impacted, but you cannot slander someone else. I.e. you cannot make stuff up and publish it as fact.

I think this is "damage control".

Saint said...

Mom, I agree with you about her not wanting this to be as big as it is. I am not surprised. I suspect that after time went by, Jodi, perhaps prompted by her husband or family, found out that it had ramifications beyond what she expected...maybe the children were forced to deal with it in their lives outside of home. I could be tough for the kids tp have peole know about this. But then that is a major part of my objection to their being on TV every week.

nomoredrama said...

Next on the Truth Breeds Hatred:

The AMAZING disappearing blog entries. Now you see 'em, now you don't.

At least Jodi finally put her foot down.

Jamie said...

A Mom-ynous you hit the nail on the head, And Kudos for using their favorite words.

PURE DAMAGE CONTROL!!!

katie said...

I pray this is not "Damage Control". I hope it more then we will ever know. Maybe Jon and Kevin are talking again, or even Kate and Jodi... and having a very hate filled blog out there for all to see is not helping. Family dynamics are hard enough without a spot light. I hope for everyone involved, this is the beginning of healing.

erin said...

I'm not entirely surprised that she has started to take her blog down. I'm not sure we will ever know why, but I wonder if there was a legal reason. I would also wonder if maybe Jodi realized this was exactly the WRONG way to get back to being able to see the kids. I think either way, I'm happy she's getting her blog off the internet.

scarymerry said...

Oh, that's a good thing. I like seeing that gone.


Alexis was cute last night being the first one up. "It's me!!!"

merryway said...

It would make it harder for the family to reconcile with everything that was on Julie's blog. After reading Scarfoot's review and the other comments by posters, I was wondering if the publishing might mend some hurts. I'm sure everyone wants to put kids needs in everyone's family first.

nomoredrama said...

I do hope that Jodi moving forward means that she's moving forward in the direction of the Gosselin children. There is no refuting she was great for them.

I hope (and I know this is naive and idealistic) that maybe all the snark about relationships with family members being severed will cause the members of the Gosselin and Kreider family to move closer to one anther.

indianprincess said...

Aparently Julie is going away from being considered an insider and going toward the exploition route after the whole Pennmommy blew up in her face. May be Jodi is finally moving on and hopefully Julie will too.

scarymerry said...

I'm sure everyone in their family wants to put all the kids' need first. (was what that last garbled sentence meant.)

I'm tempted to ask for the book as a present at Christmas. If nothing else, as a tribute to the time I've spent reading about the show and branch-out controversies. It seemed heartfelt and moving from all reviews.

sorry for the three in a row. I am busy and not totally in focus.

Anya said...

nomoredrama said..."I do hope that Jodi moving forward means that she's moving forward in the direction of the Gosselin children. There is no refuting she was great for them.

I hope (and I know this is naive and idealistic) that maybe all the snark about relationships with family members being severed will cause the members of the Gosselin and Kreider family to move closer to one anther."


Agreed. Not only Jodi, but Kevin appeared to be a positive influence too. Jon and Kate seemed to generally like his company and he had a nice interaction with the kids. The counsins are close in ages too, so I'd like to think the adults can try and put what happened in the past in the past and move forward without those of us in the viewing audience being privy to it (it's really none of our business, even if I can't help caring a little bit). While I am doling the advice, I hope the Gosselins stay in PA.

Off my soapbox.....

Marie said...

I bet the "other" blog will also have so do some damage control by scrubbing clean everything Jodi related from their site like what they did with Pennmommy.

Linda said...

I think that there are multiple reasons.

1. Penn Mommy fraud
2. CNN news story which clearly showed the connection between Julie's blog and Gwop.

And probably ...

3. The threat of legal action.

I'm less likely to believe that this represents any movement toward reconciliation. If it were me, I'd stay away from Jodi with a 10 foot pole soley because of Julie's actions (specifically her connection to Gwop).

Mom said...

I agree with those about reconciliation. I think that's the best possible outcome for this whole family, especially the children.

Linda said...

I just want to write it here as a prediction.

The next target of the Gwoppers will be the Duggars. They've got it all set up and as interest in the Gosselins wanes they will hyper focus on the Duggars.

Anya said...

Linda said..."I just want to write it here as a prediction.

The next target of the Gwoppers will be the Duggars. They've got it all set up and as interest in the Gosselins wanes they will hyper focus on the Duggars."


Well, Linda, you have been right before about this stuff, so I take your predictions seriously!

On that note, I caught about 10 minutes of the Duggar's show last night and the whole show was about the girls and boys reversing roles for the day (the boys had to make lunch, the girls learn how to check the oil in a car, etc.)

I am sure there will be "damage control" and "they read our blog" tossed around a lot at the other site over that one. Honestly, though, who cares? If it wasn't something the Duggars would normally do, it appeared nevertheless a good idea and they seemed to approach it with the right attitude, i.e. the boys *should* know how to cook. (Even if "cook" seemed to involve a rather unappealing tatter tot casserole).

The bottom line for me is the nitpicking has gotten beyond ridiculous and when you are reduced to statements such as "Kate's face looked puffy in last night's show", I think you need to find a new target , I mean, show.

floridamom said...

I hope Jodi can move past this,too. She seemed so sweet and caring. Julie (IMO) started the blog to defend her sister and blow off some steam, and it mushroomed into something else. If I had watched my sister be mistreated (from my point of view), I might have flown off the handle, too. It is easier to take someone treating you badly, than watching it happen to a loved one.
I still don't understand why her blog (especially her initial comments) caused such a strong reaction on either side. I saw different posts stating that there was no way Julie could know about her sister's sister-in-law's family, etc. How dare she air her family's dirty laundry? People said--I don't pay my family to babysit. Well if I was working,(which is what they are doing) I would pay my relative. Especially if I left them with eight kids. I just don't understand the venom towards Julie. She knows the Gosselins. She apparently had a reason to have animosity towards Kate, but we don't know any of the parties involved. My thoughts were--so what? Why does anyone care? Her blog is not going to shut down the show. And it wouldn't be the end of the world if it did. I don't think the blog gave her the satisfaction that she thought it might. Trying to get "your side" out rarely does.
Again, I can relate to her. I have a sister who is sweet, thoughtful, and sometimes people take advantage of her giving nature. If I thought someone had embarrassed her on nationwide t.v., I probably would have wanted to take out a full page add in the a national paper. I hope the family can mend their relationships, because when the show ends, and it will one day, the
Gosselins will need family--not fans.

Daisy said...

It's about time Julie took those posts off her blog. It's too bad she started it in the first place.

I pray that the Gosselin & Kreider relationships are reconciled. That would be awesome for them.

Mom on the Run said...

I'm not sure why Jodi/Julie don't leave the blog as is. The comment function was never activated, which meant the blog was not a clearinghouse for griping and namecalling. If what Julie/Jodi said was true then there should be nothing wrong with leaving the posts as is.

aap said...

Floridamom,

I agree with your thoughts 100%.

A Mom-ynous said...

"I pray this is not "Damage Control". I hope it more then we will ever know. Maybe Jon and Kevin are talking again, or even Kate and Jodi... and having a very hate filled blog out there for all to see is not helping. Family dynamics are hard enough without a spot light. I hope for everyone involved, this is the beginning of healing."

To clarify--I meant damage control for Julie--NOT Jody.

To elaborate--what I mean is--sometimes when you have a loud mouth in the family who stands up for you to stand up for what they perceive is right--doesn't mean that they should or are right to begin with.

I think Julie made a mistake with that blog if she is truly Jody's sister and tied to the Gosselins.

There is never a truly legitimate reason to air dirty laundry on the internet regardless of how much pained one is over situation. And by that I mean to divulge privied information.

Sometimes it does wonders to vent to complete strangers b/c it allows you to get things off of your chest and allows you to do it in the safety of anonymity.

This was way too out in the open and I feel it caused more harm than good and she was told she had to stop either by the Gosselins or by Jody or perhaps both.

Removing it protects Julie from potential liability.

And thus--why I feel it is damage control.

I never trusted Jody's video to be a true testimony to validate what Julie was saying either due to its vague nature. While some personal turmoil clearly took place with Jody--it wasn't a "swear on the Bible" type of validation. There were no specifics in the video and it made me wonder--if there was some...I don't know how to put it...

Perhaps that Jody was manipulated into making the statement without knowing how it would be used or what it would be used for.

While we can see that Jody is upset, can we really trust that Jody has the same agenda as Julie and GWOP?

Really makes me wonder.

And the whole thing sends a huge red flag on the matter of what is truly going on behind the scenes and what out there can we trust and cannot trust as fact.

I do know one thing--jealousy can do strange things to people...and while folks out there will think it twisted to equate child advocacy with jealousy...

Jody clearly does not seem jealous.

I cannot say the same for Julie's deleted material.

And why the video to back Julie up, but not a video of an actual statement or even an actual written statement as opposed to a 3rd party write up over what was supposedly said.

Something smells funny and it isn't Kate's hairspray.

patricia said...

I agree with floridamom. I never really understood the hatred towards Julie...I would defend my sister to the ends of the earth as well...I never really saw it as "airing dirty laundry in public" because the family already put themselves in the public eye and open for scrutiny.

Nina Bell said...

I just want to make sure that it is clear that I (and I believe most people who frequent this site) do not hate Julie. Again, that is one of those statements that if you say it enough it becomes fact.

I have a sister that I am extremely close to. I would never choose to public defend her on a blog. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't have been supportive in every other possible way I could have been.

I understand that Julie has a right to do what she thinks is best. I do not understand or agree with the method that she chose.

FIONA said...

I am confident that her blog on CNN was just what Jon and Kate needed legally to shut her down, and I can't really blame them. I hope GWoP is the next one to go down.

And Marie, I agree that the other blog will scrub her statments away.

Julie did not help anyone. Jodi seemed like such a pushover that Julie probably rolled over her. It is hard to imagine, given what I have seen of Jodi, that she would have ever been a party to Julie's blog. However, there are two sides to every story, including the G's side.

PM was all Jon needed to prove a case legally IMO that Julie was spreading lies, aiding and abeting etc.

I seriously doubt she ever posts again as Julie on any of the blogs again.

Being a reformed hater myself, reading all the negative crap about them, I would like to think that Jon and Kate are trying to change. While they don't raise their family the way I would, it is their decsion, not mine. I am rooting for them and the children.

Regulations for the kids is still important to me.

MonicaW42 said...

Nina,

Agreed!!!! I never hated Julie and agree with you on not airing dirty laundry. I would have found another way of dealing with it as well. But again everyone is different. And since Jon and Kate have not really spoken out to what has gone on with Jodi,,,,its all conjecture anyways. Families fight. It happens. And as much as people like to slam J&K I do give them props for not airing dirty laundry back.

lulubae said...

I think Julie's blog as well as "other" sites have a big problem. Something along the lines of foot in mouth. Everyone acts on impulse, writes things down, says things, etc. It may be with good intentions but too rash in any case. And then, when it hits the fan, it's hard to backtrack, apologize, etc.

I hope this situation helps everyone stand back a little bit and take things a little slower, think about things a bit, before losing it.

On another note, it's just sad and pathetic how Kate is criticized for going on Bonnie Hunt and leaving her children behind and then basically ripped into shreds for showing love to the boys last night. I just don't get it anymore.

floridamom said...

Nina Bell,
I didn't mean that you hate Julie, but you have to admit--reading the posts of others--you can't feel the love :)

Nina Bell said...

floridamom,

You are right there. There is definetely no love here for Julie.

Pooh Bear said...

I think this is a good move. When Julie's blog first came up and she was supported by GWOP times were different. GWOP had not yet become the hate feast it is today.
Nobody including Julie and Jodi could foresee the Pennmommy/Possummommy deceit and the effect it would have on so many people who became emotionally invested.
I feel Julie did a good thing for her sister initially. She was angry and her sister was very hurt. She wanted to stick up for her like a good sister would.
Now all kinds of lines have become crisscrossed from different blogs and it just doesn't make sense anymore. Her blog has gotten bogged down in the mud. Where certain connections were once good now the same connections are full of controversy.
She really loves and cares about Jodi enough to do what Jodi has has asked her to do.
My heart breaks for these families related to the Gosselins for all they have lost. My heart hurts for the Gosselin kids and what they are missing out on.

twinmom said...

Isn't it strange how all of these sites have dried up ?
Odd. I don't think anyone here ever said the word "hate" when they referred to Julie herself. Nobody hates her. I can only speak for myself and my own comments, however. I criticized Julie for putting that blog up, for fueling the flames of what appears to be a family dispute or argument and then seeming to enjoy it.

I have 1 sibling and I would do anything for him. I would never, ever take anything public anywhere. Family business is family business. It doesn't belong on everyone else's tongue. Just the rules of etiquette and good manners calls for discretion in all family matters. If we only followed the simple rules of etiquette many of the stupid things that cause arguments and problems would take up less of the precious time we all have to spend together. If you want to say something nasty-postpone it! If you never say it, it can't be remembered forever as something that caused pain. I think Julie's blog fueled the fires and encouraged a lot of gwop ugliness. Anyone who can read knows the posts at gwop are mean, snide and ugly. I don't believe that she couldn't see that. Sorry, she doesn't get a pass from me.

CeeCee said...

When you put the amount of personal stuff out there that Julie did, for the entire world to see, then you shouldn't be surprised when not everyone agrees with what you've done.

Kikibee said...

Boy, I would like to have been a fly on the wall when that conversation between Jodi and Julie took place.
I sincerely doubt Jodi just got tired of people at the grocery store telling her what a saint she is.

I have always wondered how much Jodi was aware of Julie's internet "fame". I would like to think that she would have asked her to stop a long time ago if she knew the sorts of things said by some of Julie's
associates. No matter what her feelings are about J&K, I'm sure she doesn't approve of making fun of the kids.

BEE said...

I am glad that she took the posts down, but don't understand why she didn't remove all of it. I find it hard to believe that she is a child advocate and truly cares for the Gosselin kids.

Where was Julie's child advocacy blog when Jodi was appearing on the show? Did Julie condone Jodi's involvement of the show and if so then both Jodi and Julie were "exploiting" the kids during that time.

I always thought that Julie's blog was done out of pure revenge and hatred. I never understood how Jodi could support what Julie was doing. It would of been one thing to stick to the topic of Jodi being hurt by the Gosselins, but Julie took it much farther then that.

Linda said...

My problem with Julie began after she aligned herself with the hate on GwoP.

I think that blogging in defense of one's sister is completely legitimate. Aligning herself with GwoP and PM was out of line. It was more than blogging with the goal of defending her sister, it was blogging to damage a family.

Jenn said...

About Me
"Truth Fears No Questions"-- I am Aunt Jodi's sister, and hopefully what I have to say will open eyes and help raise awareness for the need for laws to protect children in the entertainment industry. This is a tragic example of how money and fame can blind parents, preventing them from making decisions that are best for their children. I urge you to realize that these children were not brought into the world to be used for anyone's entertainment. Just because this is all they know doesn't make it "normal". They deserve privacy and protection.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this "About Me" very different than it was before. I don't recall her saying this was about the children. I thought it had more to do with the "truth", if you want to call it that.

Guinevere said...

If it were me, I'd stay away from Jodi with a 10 foot pole soley because of Julie's actions (specifically her connection to Gwop).

I kind of agree with this. As much as I think most of us agree that Jodi seems very sweet, and as much as I can believe that Kate had some part in the breach, I really believe that Jodi's apparent sweetness doesn't excuse the fact that she apparently gossiped about the Gosselins to her sister a lot, and her sister then chose to share a good deal of that gossip (along with a heap of innuedo) with the internet. Kate may or may not owe Jodi an apology (I'm not sure of the truth of what happened between them), but I'm pretty sure Jodi owes Kate and Jon, and the Gosselin children, an apology for her actions.

I don't hate Julie (honestly). I don't like her because I haven't seen her be very likable. I'm sure she has plenty of fine qualities, though. I don't think she's that different from Kate Gosselin - a human being with flaws and virtues. None of these people are monsters no matter how strongly some people want to believe they are.

SamanthaNC said...

Floridamom-

I agree. And to be fair, from what I understand it was never about being paid to babysit it was about the network paying to film in Jodi's home. And the fact that Kate would rather pay a stranger (Jenny and whoever else) to watch them then allow the network to give her family a dime- I like Kate but that is wrong on so many levels. I don't even think it was about the actual money itself, for the Kreiders but the fact that Kate was so hell bent against them getting a dime for opening their home to the camera crews- its not as if it was taking money from them. Anytime a show shoots in someone's home its typical that they be paid for it, and it has nothing to do with babysitting or the children. She knew that Jodi wasn't "using" the kids, it was just selfishness IMO. While I in no way support her affiliation with gwop and think that was a total misstep, I think to begin with Julie was just defending Jodi, and I understand that. As far as doing so on a public blog, I dont think she realized how popular it would become. Sometimes when someone has been hurt they want to shout it from the rooftops, it makes their pain feel valid if others know about it. Not to mention Gumgate which Kate was wayyyy out of line on. I know this may get a lot of dissection bc this isn't a popular opinion- feel free to speak your peace, I certainly have, but I will not be going back and forth, I've said what I feel and that's enough for me.

On a lighter note- it is FREEZING here! I know there have been record lows across the country, ya'll bundle up and have a great day!

SamanthaNC said...

I forgot to mention this before-

I think the direction her blog is going now with the whole advocacy thing is ridiculous bc it has obviously stemmed from anger at the Gosselins. She wasn't bloggin advocacy before the Jodi/Kate riff, so it has no credibility whatsoever now, and IMO looks not only petty- but catty.

Nina Bell said...

Samantha,

I don't think your opinion is unpopular or popular here. People tend to see both sides here of this situation. I do remember Julie saying on GWoP sometime in June that she started her blog as a form of therapy for herself. That turned me off to Julie right away.

I have always believed that Jodi and Kevin probably had a reason to be upset with the treatment they received over that issue. I also believe they are both old enough and wise enough to resolve this issue themselves.

jace said...

"There is never a truly legitimate reason to air dirty laundry on the internet regardless of how much pained one is over situation. And by that I mean to divulge privied information."

I completely agree with this statement.

Even though I understand Julie wanting to get back at the Gosselins for hurting her sister, I don't think she was justified for putting information all over the internet. I have always thought it was petty and irresponsible.

If she is so concerned for the children, how does that help them at all to continue to feed any animosity that might be going on? Their welfare is far more important that Julie's need to get back at Jon and Kate or even Jodi's hurt feelings. They're adults; they can suck it up.

I thought the child advocacy angle was only ever to appear legitimate after the fact. She wasn't so concerned when Julie was actually on the show. Or did I miss that blog.

OK, so admitting that your actions are motivated by revenge is kind of a shallow thing to admit but at least it is honest and I respect honesty.

Bicoastal said...

I think it is completely understandable that Aunt Jodi would vent about her sister-in-law to her sister, Julie. Who hasn't done that?

I don't know the story about Julie and the fake PM; did Julie claim to have met PM? Or was she duped, albeit willingly?

As far as "bringing down" GWOP's site, I think that is pretty far- fetched. Citizen who decide to publicize their private lives lose a lot of their claims to privacy. Should they be subject to falsehoods? Of course not, but they are subject to conjecture which often can be inaccurate.

It's akin to tabloid magazines publishing photos of celebrities without makeup. The photo's intent may be to invite derision on the celebrity; can the celebrity stop the distribution of the photos? Nope; any more than the Gosselin adults can stop relatives, fans, foes, Joe the Plumber and assorted types from commenting (good or bad) about their lifestyle, parenting, travels, etc.

I don't think the Gosselin adults are quite the powerhouse (i.e. "threats of legal action") some fans make them out to be. Nor do I think they are awful parents out to destroy their kids' lives ("Call CPS"), as some ardent foes believe.

I think they're just ne'er-do-wells (like a lot of reality celebrities)looking to extend their televised shelf-life for as long as they can. Kate and Jon Gosselin are no different than the Duggar parents.

Wait; is that defamation? (Just joshing!) Sort of ... .

scarfoot said...

I think Julie reacted very emotionally to a sad situation with her sister. She got caught up in the emotion, and in the process, went way too far. Do I understand feeling upset or wanting to defend my sister? Absolutely. Do I agree with how she went about defending her sister? No. I think by doing this, Julie must have inadvertently created even more problems with her sister and the Gosselins, and was caught in some really ugly internet issues. I'm sure initially, becoming part of the GWOP community felt really good, and seemed right to her because they were devoted to bashing the woman she was already so angry with. Her decisions created more animosity than help for the kids.

This is a good lesson for us all. Keeping your emotions in check, and thinking decisions completely through, are critical.

MommyZinger said...

I'm glad she took all that stuff down.

I won't criticize her for focusing more on the advocacy side of things. I don't care if that wasn't her orginal intent. Maybe she can be a real advocate for the Gosselin kids and I wish her luck.

MoreCowbell said...

So, now Julie is a child advocate? Sure she is.

Well, that and a bit of a famewhore.

Jodi is married to Kate's brother. Their kids are blood related to the Gosselins. It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if Kevin put his foot down and said that enough is enough. He wants to see his nieces and nephews again, and as long as Julie is associating with hate blogs and putting Jodi's name out there, that will never happen. If so, I applaud Jodi for standing up to her sister, as well. Julie's misguided attempt to speak for her sister blew up more than she ever imagined. And evil part of me hopes there were legal papers served after she was "exposed" on CNN.

Heck, I'll be willing to bet that Jodi's KIDS want to see their cousins again, too, and as long as her name was tied in with a hate blog (thanks to her sister), that also was never going to happen.

Tyra said...

Quote:
I think Julie reacted very emotionally to a sad situation with her sister. She got caught up in the emotion, and in the process, went way too far.

I think that description gives Julie way too much credit for altruistic impulses. Her original facebook/myspace (don’t remember which it was) was started as fan site to cheer Jodi up. Okay, I’d call that nice sisterly support. On that site, Julie didn’t even reveal her identity initially. What made her reveal her identity, close down the fan site the next day, then start blogging about truth? Ego. Someone challenged her statements and opinions, so she pulled out the real-life-connection card. Then she started the truth blog. Remember how she talked about her ‘lovely commenter’ in the early entries of ‘Truth’? She claimed it was Jon, but whatever. The catalyst for her coming out with the truth blog was her anger at the response she got on the Jodi fan site. Bruised ego. And that’s the tone that I saw her take in all of her posts at GWoP.

scarymerry said...

I doubt there were was any legal serving here. If the National Enq can write that same type of stuff, I'm pretty sure that Julie has a right to also.
I do think Julie should have taken the entire thing down. She's said her piece and hasn't had anything new to add in a long time. IMO because Jodi quit talking to her about these things and it had all been said. Seems Julie can't let go of the spotlight.

Guinevere said...

I agree. And to be fair, from what I understand it was never about being paid to babysit it was about the network paying to film in Jodi's home. And the fact that Kate would rather pay a stranger (Jenny and whoever else) to watch them then allow the network to give her family a dime- I like Kate but that is wrong on so many levels. I don't even think it was about the actual money itself, for the Kreiders but the fact that Kate was so hell bent against them getting a dime for opening their home to the camera crews- its not as if it was taking money from them.

IF that is what happened, I have a bit of a different perspective on it - I guess I just don't understand WHY Kate would not want other people to be compensated, so my guess is that she has a thing about the idea that other people are involved in her children's lives for the money or the fame. She's said several times about various people - "Oh, so and so really loves our kids and loves taking care of them" - I've seen her criticized for this. The perception seems to be that she thinks she's doing people a favor by letting them do stuff for her or her kids. But I always saw it more as Kate reassuring herself that people who come into their lives do so with the right motives.

So, IF Kate objected to Jodi and Kevin being paid, I would guess it has something to do with that. Of course, it's just speculation on my part, but even the "Kate is an evil bitch" scenario doesn't really explain to me why she'd object if it wasn't taking money out of her pocket.

That said, and again with my "IF" - I think that if the producers wanted to pay Kevin and Jodi, Kate was wrong to object, and I do understand Jodi being upset about that.

I think it is completely understandable that Aunt Jodi would vent about her sister-in-law to her sister, Julie. Who hasn't done that?

Sure. But some of the stuff that Julie put out there didn't seem so much like venting to me as gossip. Which, again, okay, but if I gossip about someone and then the person I gossip about spreads it around, I'm partly at fault, right? I mean, it's within the realm of normal human behavior to gossip, but I think it puts lie to the "St. Jodi" image. I like Jodi, but I don't think she's perfect.

I don't know the story about Julie and the fake PM; did Julie claim to have met PM? Or was she duped, albeit willingly?

There seems to be conflicting accounts on whether she claimed to have met her - I think she said things on PM's blog that made people believe she had at least talked to her. She did vouch for her, quite strongly, on her own blog shortly before the whole mess unraveled. She said (I'm paraphrasing, but it's quoted in the blog entry I originally did on PM), "She is who she says she is".

So I don't think Julie vetted PM very carefully (or at all), and I think that's because PM gave Julie what she wanted (more dirt on Kate). It doesn't reflect well on Julie, IMO.

I don't think the Gosselin adults are quite the powerhouse (i.e. "threats of legal action") some fans make them out to be. Nor do I think they are awful parents out to destroy their kids' lives ("Call CPS"), as some ardent foes believe.

I actually haven't seen any fans portray the Gosselins as powerhouses. All of that stuff seems to come from the haters - the idea that any positive post anywhere on the internet about the Gosselins was a PR person in their employ, stuff like that. There always seemed to be a couple of whacky theories floating around a couple of months ago that implied J&K had way more pull than I think they in fact have.

Now, some people have now suggested that Julie took down her stuff on the threat of legal action. I just think it's more likely that Jodi finally put her foot down.

Guinevere said...

Tyra, you remind me that one of my main issues with Julie is all of the pretentious babble about "truth" - she tried so hard to frame a family squabble, which is inherently going to be full of shades of gray, as a black and white battle of good v. evil, truth v. lies. The conflation of opinion and perspectives with facts/truth is one of the things that most annoys me about the anti-Gosselin POV.

Mom said...

I do hope for the sake of all parties involved that these two families can make ammends. Reality show, blogging and snarking aside, this IS still a family.

Having two sisters, it's hard to say what I would done had I been in Julie's position. We could all speculate.

Now that I've digested this thing a bit more - I think, overall, what Julie just did is a good thing and a step in the right direction. It seems her blog might now just post what the media is saying about the issue of exploitation. Honestly, I don't have a problem with that. My biggest issue with Julie in general was the comments she was making about the G's on GWOP and PM's site. Most (comments) had nothing to do with the possible exploitation of the children and more to do with snarking.

marci said...

I have to say, for whatever reason, I'm glad Julie is backing off.

I thought it odd, the need to "defend" her sister, when, as far as I saw in Gosselin Land, all posts regarding Jodi (UNTIL Julie started blogging) were nothing but positive (particularly after the gum empisode). That's why I saw it as selfish venting on Julie's part.

Maybe things were said behind the scenes that were worse than what we saw on the Gumgate show, but I didn't hear Kate utter unkind words to or about Jodi in what was aired on the show. A little condescending, maybe, but not mean.

Even in Julie's recounting of Gumgate I didn't read anything that would have justified a public blog. Maybe I have a tougher exterior than most, but I honestly didn't see Jodi as being harmed and in need of a public defense.

I also have to agree with what others have said about Jodi/Julie's advocacy stance being too little, too late.

Even if Jodi only participated in the show toward the end to "protect" the kids and give them breathing room from the production...why let them film in her home and have her own kids appear on film? Was she willing to stand by (with no contract, as Julie stated) and let the "exploitation" of the G kids continue as long she could preserve a relationship with them, keep her extended family together?

If money was never the issue, then why tell the contract saga at all?

She could have easily said, "Kevin and I had growing concerns about the kids' exposure and overscheduling as the number of episodes increased in the Spring of this year. We knew if we addressed it with J & K that we risked being cut off, but we were willing to take that risk because we couldn't stand what was happening with the kids. We told them we'd be happy to watch the kids, but without cameras. We never heard from them again."

If that's what Jodi or Julie said had happened, I'd probably have found it more credible...although I still would have thought it a private matter, not worthy of internet publication.

But it certainly would have made Julie's claim of advocacy more credible as well...if that had been what she started with.. not with the threats towards Jon G. that she was witholding more info than he'd like exposed...that the reason Jodi was off the show was about a contract and Kate's jealously toward Jodi...the implications that Kate is much worse off camera than on towards her family.

It was all about the kids being exploited, right, Julie? Why isn't that how you started your blogging then?

Perhaps Jodi has realized that her sister's blogging hasn't helped. Perhaps it didn't make her feel better about having been treated badly by the Gosselins (IF she was...we'll still only ever know one half of this story). Perhaps she's no longer getting "supportive" comments from strangers she meets in the grocery store.

Julie's blog was never meant to heal ANYONE or ANYTHING...least of all any future relationship between the family members.

Hopefully Jodi HAS turned a corner, has gotten beyond any hurt, and is looking towards going on with her life and hopefully having a relationship with the Gosselins in the future. I'm actually REALLY hoping for that. I can see both sides have probably been hurt, but nothing is beyond repair...especially if they drop it now and keep it in the past.

Saint said...

Julie didn't claim to know Penn Mommy. From the Google Reader version of Truth Breeds Hatred, here are some quotes from the post, "In Support of Penn Mommy."
First paragraph:
Penn Mommy and I have shared a similar experience. I actually didn't know the story behind the reasons she started her blog until I read a response from her son, William (pasted below). For anyone who may be questioning her credibility, let me assure you that she is who she says she is.
Second paragraph:
I do not know Penn Mommy, but I have communicated with her and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that what she says is true. She has not lied and I am sick of those who are capable of twisting every word to try to discredit anyone who may have something to say that isn't easy to hear.
Third paragraph:
I am asking that everyone remember that we are all real people.

I do think Julie was justified in publicly airing her defense of her sister since her sister was humiliated publicly, compliments of Kate Gosselin and her decisions about what's best for her family. Julie did help someone with her blog, I think. I think Kate seems more careful about her on screen behavior. I think Julie's "truth" blog added to that change. Just my opinion/observations.

I would air "dirty laundry" in this case. I would say, "I have no respect for that woman," in some way, publicly, in proportion to the size of the audience that knew about her disrespect of my sister in the first place. However, I am really happy the blog posts are being removed, now that the point has been made.

Julie's big mistake was not vetting Penn Mommy, and snarking and answering questions on PM's blog. I probably would have done the same, BUT I would have been DEAD WRONG to do so.

A Mom-ynous said...

"I don't think the Gosselin adults are quite the powerhouse (i.e. "threats of legal action") some fans make them out to be. "

One does not need fame in order to threaten legal action.

If someone is defaming you, slandering you in anyway, you are entitled to legally protect yourself from this.

The internet is a way of publicizing information even if it is for fun, venting or whatever. If you lie about someone and those lies can result in damages, then yes--anyone can seek litigation.

I concede the Gosselins may not be such a powerhouse that the mere threat of "stop or I'll contact an attorney" may not be effective.

However--anyone with a valid issue over a legal matter can get an attorney to represent them at whatever price to have them write a cease and desist letter. It is very easy to do and doesn't require lawsuits. The attorney (usually) does have the power to get someone to stop..especially if that someone is doing something wrong and does not have the means to make the other side prove it.


I can protect my image and I am by no means famous.

The Gosselins can just as easily protect theirs.

So with all the "insider" information out there--unless someone has the $$$$ to fight the Gosselins in court...the matter has finally gotten big enough that it is quite feasible for the Gosselins to begin those threats of legal action through an attorney.

The whole removal of particular items just smells funny and looks odd.

Do I believe Jody said "take it down" and it will be.

Not anymore than the non-likers believe that Kate loves all of her children and not just a select few.

aap said...

Heck, I'll be willing to bet that Jodi's KIDS want to see their cousins again, too, and as long as her name was tied in with a hate blog (thanks to her sister), that also was never going to happen.

Yes - Let's see how fast Jon and Kate reconcile with Jodi and Kevin. I'm sure it will happen any day now...once the show ends and Kate no longer has a free babysitter.

Daisy said...

Given that Kate and Kevin were close it would seem to me that at some point they can forgive and put their differences aside. It may have already happened for all we know.

dotsicle said...

"I just want to write it here as a prediction.

The next target of the Gwoppers will be the Duggars. They've got it all set up and as interest in the Gosselins wanes they will hyper focus on the Duggars.

October 28, 2008 3:45 PM"

I respectfully disagree. The"Duggars Without Pity" blog shows a majority of posters in support of the Duggars, myself included. I see no exploitation on the Duggar show, they appear to give the kids a choice in being on camera and the "chatty" kids are the ones shown most.
There's a comment on the Duggar blog that it's turning into a "Duggar fan club"... evidently because not enough posters are spewing hate. I like the Duggar parents. I do not much like the Gosselin parents. I do however, enjoy all the kids.
As for Julie.... she stopped being a regular contributor to the gwop blog before the PM thing.

Nina Bell said...

Dotsicle

I really don't know who you are responding to on this thread and I ususally don't copy and paste however :


The Truth Will Set You Free said...
Question: Has there been any contact between Jodi/Kevin and Jon/Kate since the sextuplets birthday? Has Jodi or Kevin tried to contact them.

Also, could you tell us what personal interaction you have had with Jon and Kate over the years? How do you know them personally?

Answer: The first part of this question is answered on the previous page dated 8/07. Nothing has changed since that post.

My personal interaction has been sporadic over the years. J&K hadn't even met when I first got to know the family. Several years ago I lived alot closer to Jodi, so I was able to visit her more often and Kate would sometimes be around. There were also birthday parties, holidays, etc. Kate and I spent about 15 hrs together one day during the summer of 2006. That was just a few weeks before she had her tummy tuck. We actually have a lot in common and have always gotten along just fine.

9/22/2008 5:01 PM


Julie was still contributing regularly on GWoP right up to the bitter end.

avasmommy said...

Julie's blog was a good thing. She was standing up for sister and there should never be anything negative about that. She never intended for her blog to get national recognition. When she first started blogging, it was not even open to the public. Once she did that it just kind of snowballed. But she opened the eyes of many viewers. Jodi was not a pushover. Just because she is soft-spoken and gentle does not make her soft spoken. Jodi has had to endure a lot since this entire thing started. Not only had she been sacrificing things in life just because she loved the kids do much, she had to deal with Kate. She was kicked out of her neices and nephews lives for God's sake. Anyone who has a niece or nephew can imagine how hard that must be, especially if you were as close to them as Jodi was to the Gosselins. Julie stood up for her sister when she needed someone. Her taking down the posts about Jodi and what happened just shows that she is continuing to respect Jodi's wishes. If Jodi were really against Julie's blog, do you truly believe she would have made a short video for it? I don't think so.

GLO said...

Dotsicle:

"I see no exploitation on the Duggar show..."

How can it be exploitation on J&K+8, but not on the Duggars? They are the same thing--a reality show about an unusual family. I would very much like to understand your reasoning. Thanks.

dotsicle said...

Glo, to answer your question: IMO, the exploitation comes in when little kids are forced to WORK in front of cameras 3 or 4 days a week under permanently-installed studio lighting to make 40 "episodes" of a show, whether or not they want to or like to, and have their personal moments shown. I have seen this on the Gosselins' show but not on the Duggars'. The small Duggars are in the background and not required to perform for the camera, no toilet habits or bathing are seen, the older chattier kids speak on camera but the shy ones don't have to say much, and they are said to be filming only TEN episodes with no studio lights installed in the home.
That's what makes the difference, to me. JMO.

To Nina Bell: Evidently I missed Julie's postings at the other place.I don't always read everything. What Julie or Jodi do doesn't matter a hill of beans to me anyway.

Guinevere said...

Julie's blog was a good thing. She was standing up for sister and there should never be anything negative about that.

I disagree. I understand the impulse to defend a sibling that you believe has been wronged, but I think:

1) Julie's blog hurt rather than helped Jodi's relationship with the Gosselins, which isn't a "good thing" if Jodi's goal was the remain in the Gosselin childrens' lives;

2) Julie's blog damaged Jodi's reputation. Before Julie came out with all of her crap, I don't think I'd ever seen anyone online say anything bad about Jodi. Now I think that there are at least some of us who are put off by her gossiping about J&K so much to her sister (which strikes me as two-faced). There are those that now question Jodi's integrity vis a vis the money issue, and question why Jodi only now supposedly has concerns about the "exploitation" of the children (not only did Jodi allow the Gosselin children to be filmed in her home, she allowed her own children to be filmed; in at least one case her daughter was filmed only wearing underwear - where is all the concern about pedophiles over THAT?);

3) Julie's blog was never about defending her sister; it was about demonizing Kate (and to a lesser extent, Jon) Gosselin. To that end she gossiped and revealed (or manufactured) personal info. She went so far as to tell a story (about the dreaded potties) that she was privy to only because she was at one time an invited guest in the Gosselin home. Which was, IMO, unbelievably tacky and low-class.

Basically, I don't see Julie as that different from any other Gosselin-hater - she just had a slight tangential connection to the family, which she milked for all it was worth, IMO for her own fame-whoring purposes. I think she got off on being told how "brave" and noble she was.

She never intended for her blog to get national recognition.

Are you talking about the CNN thing? Because I wouldn't consider her blog to be even the tiniest blip on the radar of national recognition in any other way.

Jodi has had to endure a lot since this entire thing started. Not only had she been sacrificing things in life just because she loved the kids do much, she had to deal with Kate. She was kicked out of her neices and nephews lives for God's sake. Anyone who has a niece or nephew can imagine how hard that must be, especially if you were as close to them as Jodi was to the Gosselins.

It seems to me that what Jodi has had to "endure" is partly Jodi's own fault and partly Julie's. I don't blame the Gosselins for not wanting Jodi around knowing that anything they share with her will be shared with Julie, who in turn will share it with the internet.

CeeCee said...

In retrospect, it would have been better had Julie not put on-line, for all the world to see, the problems that Jodi had with Kate.

I'm sure Julie thought she was helping Jodi but if Jodi didn't have nerve enough to put all that stuff on-line herself then it should not have been done at all.

Whatever the true story, whether Jodi is really being approached by people or not, at least Julie came to her senses and deleted all that stuff.

LoriNJ1970 said...

I think it's great that Jodi asked her sister to remove those items from her blog.

Kate as well and Jodi made some mistakes. Hopefully this will be a step towards healing.

tintin said...

Guinever you said

"Now I think that there are at least some of us who are put off by her gossiping about J&K so much to her sister (which strikes me as two-faced)."

My goodness, if one can't talk to one's sister about hurts, concerns, thoughts, events in one's life, who can one talk to?

I don't feel that two-faced is a fair statement towards Jodi. Unless you have never said anything even mildly negative (or even positive) about another person to someone close to you, you have "gossiped" too. Everyone needs someone to vent to. Some of our feelings aren't pefect and our opinions not always kind; we should all have an outlet to share them with.

I do agree that Julie should have kept it out of the internet. Jodi should have insisted it not be published in a public venue, but who knows? Maybe her personality is that meek that she couldn't tell Julie to back off.

Guinevere said...

My goodness, if one can't talk to one's sister about hurts, concerns, thoughts, events in one's life, who can one talk to?

Well, if Jodi had hurts and concerns, she could have talked to Kate about them. But I'm not objecting to Jodi sharing her feelings with Julie - though I would think she'd have issue with Julie putting it out on the internet. I'm talking more about the "inside info" - the gossipy little bits that Julie loved to drop to her adoring masses. I think thatt when you gossip about someone, you need to be prepared for the possibility that it will come back and bite you in the butt. I don't think it makes Jodi the anti-Christ, or anything.

I don't feel that two-faced is a fair statement towards Jodi. Unless you have never said anything even mildly negative (or even positive) about another person to someone close to you, you have "gossiped" too. Everyone needs someone to vent to. Some of our feelings aren't pefect and our opinions not always kind; we should all have an outlet to share them with.

Oh, I totally agree. I do gossip and I' frequently not as kind as I should be. Maybe "two-faced" is harsh, but my issue is that Jodi is often portrayed by her supporters as being saintly. She's not. If her depiction on the show is a pretty accurate portrayal of how she was with Kate, Jodi was nice to Kate's face and then trashed her behind her back to Julie. Again, this is not something I'm judging super-harshly, but I do think it takes Jodi out of the running for sainthood, and puts some of the responsibility for the rift on Jodi.

avasmommy said...

Guinevere,

1)I believe that Kate is the one that shut Jodi and Kevin out, for no valid reason. Julie's blog is not what broke Jodi and Kate's relationship up. Julie waited a couple of months before publicly stating any of this information to see if things turned around for Jodi or to see if Kate came around. It didn't happen. From my understanding, Jodi was aware of Julie starting her blog and obviously was not oppossed to it.

2)Maybe you don't have a sister, and if you do then maybe you have a relationship very differemt than that kind of relationship that I have with mine and Julie has with Jodi, but I tell my sister everything! We love to talk about all the happenings in our lives and the others around us. We vent about other people in our family, but not because we dislike them. We do it because people get annoyed with people, that is life. My sister and I have a beautiful friendship in which we can talk to each other about everything. When I have a problem I go to her, and I feel that this is what Jodi did with Julie rather than being "two-faced." People talk about other people all the time. What the hell is this and all the blogs doing? Do you consider yourself two-faced because you watch the show yet you come here to discuss it? And Jodi's children were rarely seen on the show so I'd say this is FAR from exploitation. Not to mention they didn't have lighting installed in their home and they don't have a camera crew there 3-4 days a week. Much different from that of J&K.

3) I do not at all feel like Kate demonized Kate. If that is what you call it then what do you call what Kate did to Jodi? She spoke negatively about her on camera in front of millions of viewers. Talk about two-faced. Kate demonizes her self for a half an hour each Monday, sometimes an hour. She doesn't need much help making herself look bad. I do not feel that the information that Julie revealed was much more than what we saw on tv (concerning GumGate). She revealed about the contract issue and I feel that was Jodi's information to choice to be revealed, and I'm pretty sure she gave Julie the okay.

As far as Julie being a "famewhore", that is ludicrous. Julie could have gone so much further with her story, instead she chose not to. And as much fame as you think she may have got, she got equal the amount of negative responses. People have been downright cruel to Julie simply for having an opinion of Kate. We all have our own opinion of Kate and that is what has brought us all to the same place. As far as her getting off on being told she was brave, I think you are wrong. My only reasoning is because I know that Julie is a real and genuine person. Her intentions in this entire charade were not selfish.

CNN is a pretty big network in case you didn't get that memo. The segment may not have been long, and it may not have been solely about her and her blog, but it did raw more readers to her blog looking for answers. Some viewers were probably not aware of Julie's blog until CNN mentioned it and were then drawn to it. Hopefully this gave some a better idea of the truth behind J&K. This was definitly more than just a little blip on the radar. I can only imagine how you might feel had you been mentioned on CNN. It is national recognition whether you chose to see that or not.

And in regards to your last comment, I said it earlier -- Kate cut off Jodi and Kevin because she is a selfish "famewhore" (as you might say). It had absolutely nothing to do with Julie or her blog.

aap said...

Julie was still contributing regularly on GWoP right up to the bitter end.

Nina -

I'm interested in hearing what you think the bitter end is. The bitter end of what? Julie still has her blog, so that hasn't ended.

Nina Bell said...

If you read the comment I am responding to:

"As for Julie.... she stopped being a regular contributor to the gwop blog before the PM thing."


I was talking about PM's bitter end.

Guinevere said...

1)I believe that Kate is the one that shut Jodi and Kevin out, for no valid reason. Julie's blog is not what broke Jodi and Kate's relationship up. Julie waited a couple of months before publicly stating any of this information to see if things turned around for Jodi or to see if Kate came around. It didn't happen.

That's not my recollection. In the early posts in her blog, Julie indicated that Jodi would not be on the show but that she was still in contact with J&K - I specifically remember her saying somewhere (maybe on GWoP, because I think it was in response to a question) that apparently Jon and Kate had not talked to Jodi and Kevin about Julie's blog. This indicates to me that they were in contact. It was only sometime later that Julie indicated that J&K had cut off contact. I think it's reasonable to assume that Julie's blog had something to do with it, though I suppose there may be have an argument or something that we weren't privy to (and Julie wasn't privy to, because if she knew, everyone knew) that occurred.

2)Maybe you don't have a sister, and if you do then maybe you have a relationship very differemt than that kind of relationship that I have with mine and Julie has with Jodi, but I tell my sister everything! We love to talk about all the happenings in our lives and the others around us. We vent about other people in our family, but not because we dislike them. We do it because people get annoyed with people, that is life. My sister and I have a beautiful friendship in which we can talk to each other about everything. When I have a problem I go to her, and I feel that this is what Jodi did with Julie rather than being "two-faced." People talk about other people all the time. What the hell is this and all the blogs doing? Do you consider yourself two-faced because you watch the show yet you come here to discuss it?

I do have a sister, and I do discuss everything with her. If she went and told someone something negative that I'd said about them, I would have a problem with it. I don't know why Jodi didn't have a problem with Julie blogging about the Gosselins; I can only guess that she was "hiding behind" Julie to some degree.

I'm capable of being two-faced, sure. But I don't think I have a reputation far and wide of being so, so sweet. Jodi does, or did. I have a problem with people who act nicey-nice to your face and then talk behind your back. If Julie's blog is any indication, Jodi had A LOT of problems with Kate, her personality, and the way she raised her children. I don't respect Jodi much for not talking to Kate about these things but talking behind her back. That doesn't mean I think she's a horrible person; I just don't think she's the personification of all things good and gracious as she is sometimes made out to be. She is not blameless in this situation.

And Jodi's children were rarely seen on the show so I'd say this is FAR from exploitation. Not to mention they didn't have lighting installed in their home and they don't have a camera crew there 3-4 days a week. Much different from that of J&K.

Um, yeah, because the show wasn't about Jodi's kids. Not because Jodi objected to those things. She didn't object to her kids being filmed, even undressed (and for the record, I don't think showing toddlers in underwear is the crime of the century, but many of those who venerate Jodi apparently do).

3) I do not at all feel like Kate demonized Kate. If that is what you call it then what do you call what Kate did to Jodi? She spoke negatively about her on camera in front of millions of viewers. Talk about two-faced.

Kate was on several occasions condescending about Jodi on camera. I agree that Jodi has a right to be pissed over that. I don't think Kate demonized Jodi. I do think she was two-faced, in a fairly mild way. And it made her look bad on TV. Being two-faced is like being a hypocrite - we are most of us guilty of it at one time or another, but we hate it when we see it in other people.

Kate demonizes her self for a half an hour each Monday, sometimes an hour. She doesn't need much help making herself look bad.

This, I totally disagree with. In fact, you could say that is exactly my issue with the anti-Gosselin blogs, and the reason I'm even involved in talking about the show to the degree that I do. Kate is a flawed human being who sometimes does not show her best side on camera (the same goes for Jon, but for a variety of reasons, he doesn't get nearly as much crap for it).

Kate is not a demon. She's not OJ Simpson. She's not Diane Downs or Susan Smith. She's not a monster. She's not psychotic. She doesn't make herself look THAT bad on TV. Even at her worst, I don't think she is as bad as she is portrayed at GWoP as being on an average day. She was perfectly pleasant and in fact unusually positive and affectionate (with Joel, especially). But what do I hear from my few short forays into GWoP and reading the Princess Marie Chantal thread? How disgusted posters are with her, how she was just being phony, how she obviously doesn't love her kids, etc., etc., etc.

Kate does not demonize herself. YOU all demonize her. Therein lies the issue.

As far as Julie being a "famewhore", that is ludicrous. Julie could have gone so much further with her story, instead she chose not to.

Maybe. I think you have to buy all of her coy, "I know something you don't know" crap in order to believe that.

And as much fame as you think she may have got, she got equal the amount of negative responses. People have been downright cruel to Julie simply for having an opinion of Kate.

She hasn't gotten a fraction of the cruelty directed to her that Kate has. I'm sure some people have behaved inappropriately towards her, and that's not right. It's no more or less right when people do it to Kate.

As far as her getting off on being told she was brave, I think you are wrong. My only reasoning is because I know that Julie is a real and genuine person. Her intentions in this entire charade were not selfish.

Do you know her personally? I judge her by what I've seen of her. Her behavior was not helpful or kind, to ANYONE. No of us can really know her motives fully. I think that she was at first motivated by anger towards Kate and later by the desire to continue her (extremely minor) internet celebrity.

CNN is a pretty big network in case you didn't get that memo.

No, I didn't. They send memos around about stuff like that? But I was aware that CNN is "a pretty big network", one with 24 hours to fill.

It's funny that the anti-Gosselin folks keep proclaiming each little thing - the CNN segment, the bit on "The Soup" - as The Beginning of The End. They are like those people who believe the world is going to end on x date, and when that date passes and everyone is still here, they just come up with a new date and pretend the first one never existed. It cracks me up.

The segment may not have been long, and it may not have been solely about her and her blog, but it did raw more readers to her blog looking for answers. Some viewers were probably not aware of Julie's blog until CNN mentioned it and were then drawn to it. Hopefully this gave some a better idea of the truth behind J&K.

Here's the thing: there is no one "truth" that has been hidden from the majority of viewers and only revealed to a chosen few. Again, I feel compelled to make a religous-nut comparison. What the Gosselins are, what they and the show are about - that is all on the show every week. There is no hidden truth. Anyone watching the show knows what Kate is like. Anyone watching the show knows the kids are being filmed. What hidden truths do you think people found at Julie's blog? Info about petty family infighting and gossip about potties?

And if the CNN piece did draw new poeple to Julie's blog (and I'm sure it did), they went there in search of gossip and dirt, not any great truth. Julie can google as many quotes about truth from Blake and Schopenauer and Soupy Sales that she wants, and slap them up on her blog to make herself look learned and analytical. What she's written on her blog is still opinion and gossip, period.

This was definitly more than just a little blip on the radar. I can only imagine how you might feel had you been mentioned on CNN.

Oh, I'm expecting that any day now. The headline will be "Woman Beats Head Against Wall."

It is national recognition whether you chose to see that or not.

As are the GMA appearance, the Regis and Kelly appearance, the 700 Club appearance, etc. It seems to me that if it's a battle of good publicity v. bad publicity, good is winning.

Anyway, I would venture to guess that the CNN piece netted the show at least a few more viewers. Great job there, haters!

And in regards to your last comment, I said it earlier -- Kate cut off Jodi and Kevin because she is a selfish "famewhore" (as you might say). It had absolutely nothing to do with Julie or her blog.

I disagree, for the reasons stated at the beginning of this post. But I don't think either of us know the truth of the situation. The only person's word we've gotten on it is Julie, and she is apparently not talking about it any more. I would also consider her an unreliable narrator. So who really knows where Jon and Kate and Jodi and Kevin are in their relationship right now? I just hope Julie keeps her nose out of it from now on.

Anya said...

avasmommy said..."I tell my sister everything! We love to talk about all the happenings in our lives and the others around us. We vent about other people in our family, but not because we dislike them. We do it because people get annoyed with people, that is life. My sister and I have a beautiful friendship in which we can talk to each other about everything. When I have a problem I go to her, and I feel that this is what Jodi did with Julie rather than being "two-faced." People talk about other people all the time."

True enough. I do the same. I don't think either you or I takes the private conversations between our siblings and ourselves and broadcasts them on the internet, however. Yes, Jodi's behavior is normal, understandable and doesn't make her an awful person by any stretch of the imagination. It makes her HUMAN. GWoP, etc. have done Jodi a disservice by putting her on a pedestal. People are bound to want to knock you down a bit when you are venerated in this fashion.

She spoke negatively about her on camera in front of millions of viewers. Talk about two-faced. Kate demonizes her self for a half an hour each Monday, sometimes an hour. She doesn't need much help making herself look bad. I do not feel that the information that Julie revealed was much more than what we saw on tv (concerning GumGate). She revealed about the contract issue and I feel that was Jodi's information to choice to be revealed, and I'm pretty sure she gave Julie the okay."

So, if you believe Kate doesn't need help making herself "look bad", why did Julie need to start her blog? I have yet to see ONE viewer come forward on any blog after the gum episode who thought that Jodi was in the wrong. Everyone - Kate lovers, Kate haters and everyone in between - agrees that Kate made a jackass of herself.

I agree that Julie most likely asked Jodi's permission before starting the blog. And I personally don't think it was a good idea on either of their parts.

As far as Julie being a "famewhore", that is ludicrous. Julie could have gone so much further with her story, instead she chose not to.

"Famewhore" - perhaps this is an unfair label to put on Julie. I don't approve of it when it's done to Kate, so I agree it's not the choice of words I would use to describe her. Julie did seem to enjoy the attention she got from her internet friends, however. I do give Julie credit for not revealing more than she did, however, some of the time I think this was just a tactic on her part, i.e., "I could tell you SO much more bad stuff about Kate, but I'll refrain."

"Kate cut off Jodi and Kevin because she is a selfish famewhore."

Well, that's your opinion and you are hardly alone in that feeling. I will say that my opinion is that Kate is not so much in this for the fame, but the money. Just my opinion, of course.

HBIC8u said...

dotsicle said...

I see no exploitation on the Duggar show, they appear to give the kids a choice in being on camera and the "chatty" kids are the ones shown most.



I think it's pretty safe to say that no one would watch a show about Jimbob and Michelle sans kids. They are paid to do a reality show because they have a lot of children. How is that any different from the Gosselins?

As for the idea that the Duggar kids get to choose whether or not to be on camera, how do we know this? If all 28 of them aren't in the frame at all times should we just assume that the missing kids opted out that day? I don't know if I'm buying that.

Bottom line if putting your kids on tv for money is exploitation, the Duggars are every bit as guilty as the Gosselins.

Anya said...

If all 28 of them aren't in the frame at all times should we just assume that the missing kids opted out that day

LOL!

Of course, this may well be true come the 2013 season...

Michelle's got another 5 or 6 years of birthin babies left, right?

Anya

P.S. The Duggars are entitled to have as many children as they want. And they seem to do a good job providing for them and showing them love. Please just don't tell me that their show is NOT "exploitation" and the Gosselins show is.

GLO said...

Dotsicle,
Thanks for your reply to my questions regarding the Duggars and exploitation, but I have to respectfully disagree with your reasoning.
If J&K+8 is exploitation, then the Duggars' show is as well. Just because the Duggars' have fewer episodes, no industrial lighting, and show no baby butts or potty chairs, does not exempt them from the label of child exploitation.
The fact that they do not feature every child, like hbic8u mentioned so humorously, does not make it less exploitative because it would be virtually impossible to feature each family member in a 22 minute episode.
They are making money doing a reality show about their family, the same as J&K. If this is an example of exploitation, then the Duggars are guilty of it also.

A Mom-ynous said...

"I think it's pretty safe to say that no one would watch a show about Jimbob and Michelle sans kids. They are paid to do a reality show because they have a lot of children. How is that any different from the Gosselins? "

Why is this a point of discussion????


Jon and Kate Plus 8...the parents and 8 children...so yeah, the show is about parents and children--if they just showed the parents..it would be a different show entirely.

17 and counting--same deal.

Seinfeld...if Jerry Seinfeld wasn't on it--why would we watch a show about nothing about him that had his character omitted.

This is ridiculous.

We are watching a story when we watch television. Be it a news program, documentary, reality show, comedy, drama or whatever.

If the show was about a family of ducks--but then they never showed a family of ducks...just the pond where they lived. It really wouldn't be much to watch.

Gone with the Wind without Scarlet--might have been a lovely movie...but the story was about Scarlette DUH!

To say folks wouldn't be watching if it wasn't for the kids...

Well that is a very true statement indeed. Teh show wouldn't exist b/c it is a story about a family.

This is not rocket science people!!!!

A Mom-ynous said...

"permanently-installed studio lighting "

The lighting is temporary permanent. It can be unplugged and removed at any time.

If you have ever been on ANY set--real or fictional story to be told...lighting is necessary for a quality visual product so folks appear "normal" and in their "best light" and it doesn't look like a crappy home video.


(In some episodes you can see the wires taped to the ceiling and running down a wall corner headed presumably to the power source since the cables would not be necessary if the light was "permanently" installed.)

A Mom-ynous said...

"The small Duggars are in the background and not required to perform for the camera, no toilet habits or bathing are seen, the older chattier kids speak on camera but the shy ones don't have to say much, and they are said to be filming only TEN episodes with no studio lights installed in the home."

Not that there is "anything wrong with this"--but you also won't see a hubby and wife to be kissing either.

The family is ultra-conservative and very private. We pretty much will hardly ever see the kids in pj's let alone their undies.

The values are different for sure, but we don't have the side of good and the side of evil.

And again--the lights are not permanent. They can be taken down at any time.

With the configuration of the duggar home for a perma-show--they wouldn't be able to put up tempoary lighting b/c it would be ineffective.

But what you don't see is the sidekicks with lights and such so that we get a clean and well lit visual image. You may see vidoe of the mic guy or the other camera guy, but you don't see lighting b/c it is off to the side.

The duggar home is also better lit than the Gosselin home.

A Mom-ynous said...

"My goodness, if one can't talk to one's sister about hurts, concerns, thoughts, events in one's life, who can one talk to?"

True. I have to guard what I say to my sister b/c i discovered she will broadcast stuff when it benefits her to do so.

So now I guard my thoughts b/c she is not the confidante I thought she was.

I am sure this is more than possible with Julie and Jodi.

While Jodi's intent may have not been malicious and just venting b/c she was going through a hard time, it was not her sister's place to broadcast it. Nor should Jodi have vouched for it (though in a very vague and generic video).

In that way the venting turned more into feeding a gossip frenzy that was most inappropriate.

Julie was perhaps only "defending Jodi" to the fools that maybe were being hateful when she blogged under a pseudonym. The public at large had nothing against Jodi and with all due respect probably wouldn't have suspected anything was up.

As far as Jodi and gum--Kate overreacted, but since when do you trust a 4 year old to tell you the truth on whether they could have gum--something that can get sticky and messy. It was the wrong decision to have been made. She should have called Kate and not trust 6 4-year olds. Gum is not allowed in pre-schools and schools for a reason.

I think Kate was right to call Jodi to let her know the problem. I do not think Kate was right to speak about Jodi the way she did on camera, but not on the phone.


Jodi did do wrong things. But folks don't see that b/c they think Kate's wrongs were worse.

But Jodi did wrong things.

A Mom-ynous said...

"I have yet to see ONE viewer come forward on any blog after the gum episode who thought that Jodi was in the wrong"

<-----not a famewhore btw :)


But I have posted that I do think Jodi shares partial responsibility.

Just like there would be no show without the kids....

There would have been no "gumgate" without the gum...that was provided by Jodi after being told by 4 year olds that "yeah--mommy let's us have gum".

Witnessing or hearing that their mother let them have it "once" is not the same as them being allowed to have it all the time.

4 year olds do not have the mental capacity yet to fully understand gums physical properties nor their potential damaging capabilities.

Kate was fully in the wrong for her on-camera tirade against Jodi...

The lovey decision--I think parents are kidding themselves if they don't think it is possible they would "go there". Kate was angry--and it is frustrating when something is perceived ruined and the task of cleaning something such as stuck gum out of a precious object is daunting.

We also do not know the outcome of Gumgate in regards to how in the family this issue was resolved--if Kate turned to loving mother--how it was all settled.

The purpose of the episode was a controverisal decision that JODI made that caused a huge problem for Kate.

No gum--not gumgate.

BGR said...

Ok, I am not a regular poster here but I cannot believe how people here do not grasp that, regardless of whether Jodi made a mistake or not, Kate was absolutely rude and disrespectful in her response. And, she obviously felt justified because she gets to edit what goes in to an episode so it can be presumed that she had no second thoughts. Jodi is someone who willingly provided ALOT of child care for Kate and Jon and extended unconditional love and compassion to the children. Although I cannot assume that it did not happen (before you get up in arms), Jodi and Kevin's children were never seen at Jon and Kate's house being cared for by them. With two adults now "working" from home, surely that would be a possibility. If Jodi can look after 10 children, surely Kate and/or Jon could extend the same courtesy. Oh wait no, they are too busy being celebrities to do such things and that would entail giving rather than receiving. I forgot.

You here on this blog are so anxious that no one stand in judgement of the Goseelins. Good for you. Why do you not want to extend the same perspective to Julie and Jodi? You do not seem to get the point that Kate's "side" is out there for all to see. She should not have a monopoly on kindness and consideration. You here go on the attack when someone like Julie or Jodi has the audacity to respond. Give them a break.

Guinevere said...

Ok, I am not a regular poster here but I cannot believe how people here do not grasp that, regardless of whether Jodi made a mistake or not, Kate was absolutely rude and disrespectful in her response.

I haven't heard anyone say that. A few people have said that Jodi erred in giving the kids the gum. No one has said Kate did not overreact. I think you are reading things that people are not saying.

I personally don't think Jodi giving the kids the gum was that big of a mistake, or a mistake at all, really. I know someone here said that you're not supposed to give children as young as three gum, because of the choking hazard it presents. That would be my only concern. I understand that Kate has reasons to avoid messes as much as possible (eight reasons, plus her own messaphobe personality), but you can't keep kids hermetically sealed. I think giving six three year olds gum was a slight lapse in judgment on Jodi's part, but not worthy of anything more than Kate casually telling her that she doesn't let the little kids have gum.

And, she obviously felt justified because she gets to edit what goes in to an episode so it can be presumed that she had no second thoughts.

Can you give me a source for the notion that Kate edits the show? I've heard that rumor before, but I must say, it sounds *extremely* unlikely to me.

Anyway, in the unlikely event that it's true, I still don't think you can assume that Kate thought her behavior was okay. She seems to feel pretty strongly about the show portraying her family, warts and all, so perhaps it was left in for that reason.

Jodi is someone who willingly provided ALOT of child care for Kate and Jon and extended unconditional love and compassion to the children.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that from the interactions we've seen on the show, Jodi is good with the Gosselin kids. But I bet if you added up all of the minutes that those interactions were shown, it would be a lot fewer than people think. My point is that it seems that some viewers have elevated Jodi to some mythical uber-mother status. She seems sweet and is soft-spoken and has pretty long hair and she isn't like Kate - loud or brash or sarcastic.

What I object to is the implication that Jodi loves Kate's kids more than Kate does. That is a HUGE, unfounded assumption, and it bothers me. It's part and parcel of the anti-Gosselin creed that there is only one kind of good mother, of which Jodi is the shining example. Women are *so* hard on each other. Kate is not Jodi, but that does not mean she doesn't love her kids unconditionally, or have compassion for them.

You here on this blog are so anxious that no one stand in judgement of the Goseelins.

I'm not at all "anxious" that no one judges the Gosselins. *I* judge J&K. I judge Jodi, Julie and other posters. It's the nature of the judgments: the viciousness and vociferousness and the freaking NITPICKING that I have an issue with. Good Lord. There is judgment and then there is not giving a person a break, EVER. Explain to me how Kate can win with you? If she acts in ways you've complained about (bitching at Jon, not behaving in a way that you approve of with the kids), you get angry. If she acts in the way you claim that you want her to (being kind to Jon, being affectionate with the kids), you scream DAMAGE CONTROL and prattle on about how disgusted you are and how phony she is. What in the hell do you want? What's going to make you happy? I think you like (actually, LOVE) having someone to hate and pick on and judge. I think the problem is with you, not with Kate. If the show ended tomorrow you'd find a new victim.

avasmommy said...

guinevere,

That's not my recollection. In the early posts in her blog, Julie indicated that Jodi would not be on the show but that she was still in contact with J&K - I specifically remember her saying somewhere (maybe on GWoP, because I think it was in response to a question) that apparently Jon and Kate had not talked to Jodi and Kevin about Julie's blog. This indicates to me that they were in contact. It was only sometime later that Julie indicated that J&K had cut off contact. I think it's reasonable to assume that Julie's blog had something to do with it, though I suppose there may be have an argument or something that we weren't privy to (and Julie wasn't privy to, because if she knew, everyone knew) that occurred.
I have read Julie’s blog several times and have never seen a place in which she stated that Jodi was still in contact with J&K. If you have evidence of this, please enlighten me. I don’t follow all of Julie’s comments on GWoP, so if she mentioned something about J&K not talking to Jodi about the blog then I missed that. Just as you think it’s reasonable to assume that Julie’s blog had something to do with it, I think it is reasonable to assume that Kate’s selfishness and greed had A LOT to do with it.



I do have a sister, and I do discuss everything with her. If she went and told someone something negative that I'd said about them, I would have a problem with it. I don't know why Jodi didn't have a problem with Julie blogging about the Gosselins; I can only guess that she was "hiding behind" Julie to some degree.

I'm capable of being two-faced, sure. But I don't think I have a reputation far and wide of being so, so sweet. Jodi does, or did. I have a problem with people who act nicey-nice to your face and then talk behind your back. If Julie's blog is any indication, Jodi had A LOT of problems with Kate, her personality, and the way she raised her children. I don't respect Jodi much for not talking to Kate about these things but talking behind her back. That doesn't mean I think she's a horrible person; I just don't think she's the personification of all things good and gracious as she is sometimes made out to be. She is not blameless in this situation.
Jodi’s reputation of being so, so sweet was played up by Kate as well as by TLC. They went to far with it, making her appear to be a pushover which I don’t believe is the case. And exactly how do you know that Jodi was acting nicey-nice to Kate’s face and that she had a lot of problems with Kate? I don’t ever remember Jodi or Julie saying this. Obviously there was a confrontation because of the contract and that is how this whole thing started. Jodi probably didn’t have a problem with Julie blogging because the viewers were entitled to knowing what happened to Jodi and why she was no longer on the show. I don’t blame her for not wanting to blog about it herself. She had enough to deal with let alone haters and people wanting more information. They would have sucked the life out of her.

Um, yeah, because the show wasn't about Jodi's kids. Not because Jodi objected to those things. She didn't object to her kids being filmed, even undressed (and for the record, I don't think showing toddlers in underwear is the crime of the century, but many of those who venerate Jodi apparently do).
Maybe you are confused. The problem is not that J&K allow their children to be filmed, the problem lies in the fact that they film SEVERAL of their private moments, they have no life outside of the show because after all the show is their life and their life is the show, and they have no protection. No rights. You’re right, the show is not about Jodi’s kids – so when they are 21 they won’t be missing out on the money they could have cashed in on because they were not getting paid. Not only have J&K taken away the childhoods of their 8 children, there are no laws protecting them from working long hours or protecting the money that they are earning so that they have something to show for it one day.



Kate was on several occasions condescending about Jodi on camera. I agree that Jodi has a right to be pissed over that. I don't think Kate demonized Jodi. I do think she was two-faced, in a fairly mild way. And it made her look bad on TV. Being two-faced is like being a hypocrite - we are most of us guilty of it at one time or another, but we hate it when we see it in other people.
Sure I have been two-faced as well. But Oh Holy Kate, who relies solely on God for all of her needs is not being very Christian-like when she is talking negatively about Jodi on camera. I don’t mind being two-faced because I don’t claim to be saintly. Kate felt the need to put Jodi down in front of all the viewers because it was obvious that Kate looked bad next to Jodi. Even people who like Kate thought so. If Kate were the wonderful Christian that she claims to be, she a) could have elected not to discuss this matter on tv or b) prayed for Jodi. There is never anything wrong with a good Christian praying for someles else; there is however a real issue when someone defames someone else’s name, a friend nonetheless, in front of millions of viewers.



This, I totally disagree with. In fact, you could say that is exactly my issue with the anti-Gosselin blogs, and the reason I'm even involved in talking about the show to the degree that I do. Kate is a flawed human being who sometimes does not show her best side on camera (the same goes for Jon, but for a variety of reasons, he doesn't get nearly as much crap for it).

Kate is not a demon. She's not OJ Simpson. She's not Diane Downs or Susan Smith. She's not a monster. She's not psychotic. She doesn't make herself look THAT bad on TV. Even at her worst, I don't think she is as bad as she is portrayed at GWoP as being on an average day. She was perfectly pleasant and in fact unusually positive and affectionate (with Joel, especially). But what do I hear from my few short forays into GWoP and reading the Princess Marie Chantal thread? How disgusted posters are with her, how she was just being phony, how she obviously doesn't love her kids, etc., etc., etc.

Kate does not demonize herself. YOU all demonize her. Therein lies the issue.
Kate may not be a “demon” so to speak, or OJ Simpson for that matter, but she is not a good person. She does not look out for her children’s best interest, only her own personal, high-maintenance needs. Ask Collin if he thought she was a monster when threatening to throw away his bear. And the issue of being psychotic is debatable. And she does look very bad on television. She slaps her husband while putting him down with hurtful name-calling. She yells at her children for acting like children. She fails to discipline her children for biting, hitting, and name-calling, habits I’m sure they picked up from her. She is constantly complaining and falsely portraying an exhausted, herd-working mother of 8. Aside from her own show, she looks equally as bad on other shows. On her ad for K-mart, she said um more times than she said actual words. At her speaking engagements she cries poverty when we all know they are more than well off. The reason that Kate appears “phony” when being affectionate with Joel, is because we have NEVER seen this before. If it were a true statement when she said that she and Jon fight over Joel, then surely would have seen this kind of affection towards him before. So yes, Kate DOES demonize herself. She looks bad from all angels, especially straight on. She is a greedy liar, and she does not need any of our help in making that apparent. So no need to give us so much credit. All we do is discuss what is clearly visible. And yes, we are freee to discuss whatever we so choose about Kate because she puts herself out there, knowing that people are bound to talk about her. Not one ounce of me feels guilty for that.

She hasn't gotten a fraction of the cruelty directed to her that Kate has. I'm sure some people have behaved inappropriately towards her, and that's not right. It's no more or less right when people do it to Kate.
I’m sure she hasn’t. But Julie has a blog, not a television show that airs every week. Julie does not appear on talk shows, speaking engagements, nor did she write a book. It is only logical to think that when you are continuously outing yourself in front of the world, that some people are bound to respond negatively. Julie took the same risks in opening her blog to the public. Sure, it wasn’t as large of an audience but Julie is not a liar claiming poverty and seeking financial assistance. The only thing Julie is guilty of is speaking her mind. The only reason she got put down for it is because people did not like what she was saying. Kate put a huge target on her back the minute she decided it was a good idea for her 8 children to be exploited and the breadwinners of the entire family. I was always under the impression that parents are supposed to provide for their children, not the other way around. Kate has no right to tell people what is right or wrong. She is the epitome of wrong.

Do you know her personally? I judge her by what I've seen of her. Her behavior was not helpful or kind, to ANYONE. No of us can really know her motives fully. I think that she was at first motivated by anger towards Kate and later by the desire to continue her (extremely minor) internet celebrity.
When asking if I know Julie personally, no we have never met. But I have connected and talked to her on a stronger level than most of her readers. How was her behavior not helpful or kind? She was standing up for her sister who had been hurt by her own family. You may not see it as a smart move, but I would much rather have someone that loves me stand up for me and what is right than to blow off the cruel things that someone has done to me. No, I may not know FOR SURE what Julie’s motives were, but again I have talked with her and concluded from that and reading her blog that her motives were solely in supporting Jodi. She was not in this for herself. What was she going to get out of it that would benefit her life? By standing up Jodi she can pride herself in supporting her sister at all times. It is your choice to believe whatever; I am not going to fight your beliefs. But I am not going to let you put mine down just because you see it another way.


No, I didn't. They send memos around about stuff like that? But I was aware that CNN is "a pretty big network", one with 24 hours to fill.

It's funny that the anti-Gosselin folks keep proclaiming each little thing - the CNN segment, the bit on "The Soup" - as The Beginning of The End. They are like those people who believe the world is going to end on x date, and when that date passes and everyone is still here, they just come up with a new date and pretend the first one never existed. It cracks me up.
Well I am glad that you could find some humor in “us”. What I find funny, is that you lump the people over at GWoP, including myself, into one lump. That is not fair. While we agree on several issues pertaining to J&K, there are also several points that are brought up and challenged. I also find it hilarious that this blog continues to defame GWoP at every chance they get. If you really disagree with GWoP and what is discussed there, then don’t go there, move on, and quit talking about it. There are many people that don’t agree with this blog, but it is not a recurring topic. There are some things that are talked about on this blog that I don’t necessarily agree with, but they don’t bother me so much that I am going to run the name through the mud, If it gets to the point that I can’t stand, then I will stop reading g this blog. Please, quit classifying us at GWoP as all the same, it makes you look silly.

Here's the thing: there is no one "truth" that has been hidden from the majority of viewers and only revealed to a chosen few. Again, I feel compelled to make a religous-nut comparison. What the Gosselins are, what they and the show are about - that is all on the show every week. There is no hidden truth. Anyone watching the show knows what Kate is like. Anyone watching the show knows the kids are being filmed. What hidden truths do you think people found at Julie's blog? Info about petty family infighting and gossip about potties?

And if the CNN piece did draw new poeple to Julie's blog (and I'm sure it did), they went there in search of gossip and dirt, not any great truth. Julie can google as many quotes about truth from Blake and Schopenauer and Soupy Sales that she wants, and slap them up on her blog to make herself look learned and analytical. What she's written on her blog is still opinion and gossip, period.

Sorry, but wrong. The truth that Julie revealed pertained to the reasons why Jodi was no longer going to be seen on the show and what had happened behind the scenes. That was something that could not be seen by the viewers. And if you truly believe that Julie didn’t reveal anything that couldn’t have been seen on the show, then why do you insist that she aired dirty laundry? Sure Kate shows most of her true colors during the segment. But different people see different things. Sometimes you need someone to point you in the right direction before you can see clearly. If a viewer only catches the show every once in awhile then he or she may not notice the negative qualities that Kate possesses. If a viewer likes the show, it may take some time before they notice that Kate is repetitive in her ways. Ways that should not be repeated. For example, a couple slip-ups of correcting your husband’s grammar or hitting him might otherwise be overlooked, but when it is happening constantly and an obvious form of abuse, it becomes apparent that Kate is a manipulative control freak. Even if people were drawn to Julie’s blog because they wanted dirt or gossip, by finding Julie’s blog, it may have opened their eyes to how cruel Kate truly is, especially when the cameras are not rolling. Maybe a lot of what Julie said on her blog is opinion, but isn’t that what most blogs are. It certainly is the basis of this blog, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, I'm expecting that any day now. The headline will be "Woman Beats Head Against Wall."
Well I for one can’t wait to tune into that segment. It might be better than SNL, and it’s definitely better than campaign coverage!

As are the GMA appearance, the Regis and Kelly appearance, the 700 Club appearance, etc. It seems to me that if it's a battle of good publicity v. bad publicity, good is winning.

Anyway, I would venture to guess that the CNN piece netted the show at least a few more viewers. Great job there, haters!
Yes it is very annoying to those that see the real Kate and are not blinded by her lies that she appearing on these talk shows (without the kids) simply for being a mother with two sets of multiples. There are so many amazing women in this country that are contributing to society in many more ways than Kate ever could. Kate thinks society should care for her, after all it is our obligation. But the good thing about Kate appearing on all of these shows, is that she looks bad. She is digging herself in a hole with each one of her lies. It won’t be long before more people catch on to her lies. I’m sure that after people saw her on the Bonnie Hunt, show claiming that her kids give back fast food even though in the previous week’s episode they were gobbling it down, they will see that Kate is full of lies bigger and worse than this one. She won’t be able to keep her lies straight much longer. People will realize this just by watching Kate, with no help from the “haters.” So once again, no need to flatter us with credit.

I disagree, for the reasons stated at the beginning of this post. But I don't think either of us know the truth of the situation. The only person's word we've gotten on it is Julie, and she is apparently not talking about it any more. I would also consider her an unreliable narrator. So who really knows where Jon and Kate and Jodi and Kevin are in their relationship right now? I just hope Julie keeps her nose out of it from now on.
Only Jodi, Kevin, Jon, and Kate know the truth. But Kate is pretty transparent, for me at least. I’m sorry if you haven’t come to that conclusion just yet.

HBIC8u said...

a mom-ynous said...

To say folks wouldn't be watching if it wasn't for the kids...

Well that is a very true statement indeed. Teh show wouldn't exist b/c it is a story about a family.

This is not rocket science people!!!!




The point was that the Duggars wouldn't have the show without the kids, therefore are profiting from them, just like the Gosselins. I was pointing out the obvious double standard in the argument that that the Gosselin kids are being exploited but the Duggar kids aren't.

Perhaps if you actually read the entire comment you might have saved some time and energy on that over blown, smartassed reaction.


THAT was ridiculous.

BGR said...

Please bear with me, I am new to this so I may not set this up right:

But I bet if you added up all of the minutes that those interactions were shown, it would be a lot fewer than people think.

What I object to is the implication that Jodi loves Kate's kids more than Kate does. That is a HUGE, unfounded assumption, and it bothers me. I

This seems like an over-reaction to what I said. I don't think that I ever said that I did not think Kate loves her kids. I think quite the opposite is true. I just think that as a parent I would appreciate that Jodi obviously really loves and values the Gosselin children. Also, I think that they said that she volunteered to keep the children so that they both could have a day away, at least with the girls because they mentioned that the children were getting tired of going to Jodi's. Didn't Jodi and Kevin also stay with them for a weekend or two and Jodi help them travel? Those seem like pretty big things to me and it would be nice to see some reciprocation. Like I said, maybe it was reciprocated and we just did not see it or maybe it wasn't.

It's the nature of the judgments: the viciousness and vociferousness and the freaking NITPICKING that I have an issue with.

Sorry about that. I did not know what I wrote was in the nature of viciousness. It is just how it looks to me. I guess it just seems to me that you can't have it both ways, i.e., criticize Julie and Jodi but hands off Kate.

Having just posted once (today), I can see how you can get sucked in to the back and forth and I think people maybe should get off these blogs and turn off the sets. There are more important things in life.

Sorry I offended you.

BGR said...

Just one more thing. I really resent the following in your response:

Explain to me how Kate can win with you? If she acts in ways you've complained about (bitching at Jon, not behaving in a way that you approve of with the kids), you get angry. If she acts in the way you claim that you want her to (being kind to Jon, being affectionate with the kids), you scream DAMAGE CONTROL and prattle on about how disgusted you are and how phony she is. What in the hell do you want? What's going to make you happy? I think you like (actually, LOVE) having someone to hate and pick on and judge. I think the problem is with you, not with Kate. If the show ended tomorrow you'd find a new victim.

YOU don't even know me. I posted for the first time today and I get attached like this?! I don't at all like having someone to hate. Why this reaction? My most recent comment applies to all the Gosselin blogs which, after a quick look, do not seem to be much different from each other. No doubt you have all more important things to do.

Anya said...

BGR, I am sorry if you felt attacked. I don't think it was *you* that was being personally assailed - it's more a particular mindset that quite a few Gosselin detractors (not all obviously) share.

I hope you will post more because you sound like a reasonable person who one can discuss different perspectives with.

Things may get heated from time to time, but I promise the vast majority of posters here do put this all into perspective. We blog about the show for entertainment. We realize we aren't righting the world's wrongs! :-)

Have a good day.

Guinevere said...

I have read Julie’s blog several times and have never seen a place in which she stated that Jodi was still in contact with J&K. If you have evidence of this, please enlighten me. I don’t follow all of Julie’s comments on GWoP, so if she mentioned something about J&K not talking to Jodi about the blog then I missed that. Just as you think it’s reasonable to assume that Julie’s blog had something to do with it, I think it is reasonable to assume that Kate’s selfishness and greed had A LOT to do with it.

I'm not going to go over to the cesspool and try to find Julie's comment; all I know is that it came up in the context of "what do J&K think about Julie's blog", and that Julie's response was that J&K had not mentioned it to Jodi.

Jodi’s reputation of being so, so sweet was played up by Kate as well as by TLC. They went to far with it, making her appear to be a pushover which I don’t believe is the case.

Why do you not believe it's the case? What is your evidence? I don't feel that Jodi was necessarily portrayed as a pushover, but I think she was portrayed as sweet. Her segments on the show are really pretty brief in the context of the overall filming time.

And exactly how do you know that Jodi was acting nicey-nice to Kate’s face and that she had a lot of problems with Kate? I don’t ever remember Jodi or Julie saying this.

I don't know. I'm going by the way she acted on camera. Obviously, they may have had screaming rows every day that weren't captured on camera or weren't shown. But consider this: the GWoP view is that Kate immediately cuts people out of her life once they criticize her. So it would seem to me that the anti-Gosselin POV is that Jodi never complained about any of the things to Kate that she complained about to Julie.

Obviously there was a confrontation because of the contract and that is how this whole thing started. Jodi probably didn’t have a problem with Julie blogging because the viewers were entitled to knowing what happened to Jodi and why she was no longer on the show.

I don't think watching a tv "entitles" one to anything.

I don’t blame her for not wanting to blog about it herself. She had enough to deal with let alone haters and people wanting more information. They would have sucked the life out of her.

I don't blame her, but it does make her look like she's hiding behind her sister.

Maybe you are confused. The problem is not that J&K allow their children to be filmed, the problem lies in the fact that they film SEVERAL of their private moments,

Like prancing around in underwear? As Jodi allowed?

they have no life outside of the show because after all the show is their life and their life is the show,

It's an assumption, and a pretty outrageous one, that they have no life outside the show. These people are not on camera 24/7.

The "their life is the show..." quote is one that constantly gets twisted around to mean something that I really don't think Kate intended when she said it. It seems obvious to me that what she was saying was, "what you see is what you get." It had nothing to do with the show being their whole life.

and they have no protection. No rights. You’re right, the show is not about Jodi’s kids – so when they are 21 they won’t be missing out on the money they could have cashed in on because they were not getting paid.

1) I have no objection to legislation protecting children on reality tv; 2) the Gosselin childrens' protection and rights are granted by their parents, same as any child's. Same as YOUR child's. I wonder how much you'd like strangers interfering with and nitpicking your every decision? 3) You don't know squat-all about the financial arrangements that the Gosselins have made, so you have no basis for any assumption about what the kids will or will not be getting when they are 21.

Not only have J&K taken away the childhoods of their 8 children,

How do you "take away" someone's childhood? The kids are not working in factories. They aren't begging on the streets. They are going to Disneyland and Hawaii and Broadway shows. The horror!

But Oh Holy Kate, who relies solely on God for all of her needs is not being very Christian-like when she is talking negatively about Jodi on camera. I don’t mind being two-faced because I don’t claim to be saintly.

Neither does Kate. How many times does she have to say variations of "I'm not perfect" before you'll hear it?

I don't know if your comment is an anti-Christian swipe - if it is, I'll just say that Christians are not expected to be perfect. If you are a Christian, you must realize that hating a total stranger is not very Christian of YOU.

Kate felt the need to put Jodi down in front of all the viewers because it was obvious that Kate looked bad next to Jodi. Even people who like Kate thought so.

No, people who like Kate thought that she was mad about the gum and she lost her shit. It had nothing to do with feeling a need to put Jodi down. She was pissed off.

I do think that Kate MAY have issues with the way that the anti-Gosselins venerate Jodi and constantly criticize Kate. If you had a sister-in-law who had children, and practically everyone you knew went on and on (and on) about how wonderful, compassionate and saintly she is, how she poops rainbows and vomits kittens, while at the same time comparing you to a child murderer on a regular basis, do you think maybe you'd feel the teeniest bit of resentment? Just maybe?

If Kate were the wonderful Christian that she claims to be,

PLEASE, please, please - show me where Kate has claimed to be a wonderful Christian. I do not see Kate as someone who is self-aggrandizing, at all. She doesn't make statements about being a wonderful person. If anything, she is self-deprecating. I don't mean to say that Kate doesn't have flaws, but talking about what a wonderful Christian she is is not one I've observed.

she a) could have elected not to discuss this matter on tv or b) prayed for Jodi. There is never anything wrong with a good Christian praying for someles else; there is however a real issue when someone defames someone else’s name, a friend nonetheless, in front of millions of viewers.

Defame? Really?

I wonder if all the good Christians at GWoP have considered praying for Kate rather than joking on the site about her being killed.

Kate may not be a “demon” so to speak, or OJ Simpson for that matter, but she is not a good person.

By your own highly judgmental criteria. If everyone were judged by that criteria, do you think you'd be judged a good person?

She does not look out for her children’s best interest, only her own personal, high-maintenance needs. Ask Collin if he thought she was a monster when threatening to throw away his bear.

Some parents get angry at their kids and say things they shouldn't. Apparently, this has never, ever happened to you. I guess you ARE a saint. Or maybe your child is extremely unchallenging and easy to deal with, and never causes any problems.

And the issue of being psychotic is debatable.

Can I ask where you got your degree from? You do realize how unprofessional it is for you, a licensed psychologist (I guess?) to diagnose someone based on watching them on an edited tv show, don't you? I hope you do better with your patients.

And she does look very bad on television. She slaps her husband while putting him down with hurtful name-calling. She yells at her children for acting like children. She fails to discipline her children for biting, hitting, and name-calling, habits I’m sure they picked up from her.

That's between the two of them. I think she's too critical of Jon (I think he can be unkind towards her too, usually behind her back), but I think they need to work that out amongst themselves. Jon is not some cowed, beaten-down, abused husband. If he doesn't like the "love taps" or the criticisms, he needs to address it with Kate.

Again, some parents, just occasionally, every once in a blue moon, do yell at their kids. I hope I haven't shocked you with this behavior that you've apparently never encountered before.

Both Jon and Kate DO discipline their kids. Those kids know to go to time-out and do so with impressive alacrity. Also, get out the smelling salts, but kids do call each other names, hit and, yes, bite each other (ask my sister. I was a biter, and she never lets me forget it). The kids may have picked up some bad behavior from their parents, yeah. It happens when people are not perfect. But J&K do try to correct the behavior.

Of course, that's just another opportunity for criticism: make a perfectly reasonable rule that kids who don't make a good effort to eat their dinner don't get dessert, and what's the result? Wailing and beating of breasts over the Great Cupcake Incident of 2008. (Pre-emptive note #1: IT WASN'T THEIR BIRTHDAY! pre-emptive note #2: there is no way to tell from the edited show how much of her dinner Hannah ate!)

She is constantly complaining and falsely portraying an exhausted, herd-working mother of 8.

I don't know if it's false; I would think being a mother of 8 would be exhausting. That said, yes, Kate is a complainer. She is as unstoic as unstoic can be. It doesn't bug me, but I can see it bugging other people. I'd advise those people not to watch the show.

Aside from her own show, she looks equally as bad on other shows. On her ad for K-mart, she said um more times than she said actual words.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Also, for someone who despises Kate Gosselin, you certainly seek her out at every opportunity. I've never seen her ad for K-mart. I saw her on GMA, and she seemed fine there. I didn't count the "ums", though. Um is an annoying verbal tic, but I, for one, will take it over the overuse of "basically" or "like"; once I become aware that someone is saying one of those every other word, I can't focus on anything else and I get hella annoyed.

But, um, I digress.

At her speaking engagements she cries poverty when we all know they are more than well off.

More lies, rumors and half-truths. No one has ever come forward with credible evidence that the Gosselins have "cried poverty" at any recent speaking engagement. They may have talked about their past money woes, but that is not the same thing.

The reason that Kate appears “phony” when being affectionate with Joel, is because we have NEVER seen this before.

No. The reason she appears phony (to YOU) is that you are incapable of/unwilling to give her credit for anything. This is a person you don't know. Who you watch on an edited tv show. And yet you've somehow determined that she doesn't love her kids? There are parents who are genuinely abusive (which the Gosselins are not) who I would not say didn't love their kids.

I have no doubt I could go back to early episodes and find examples of Kate being affectionate towards Joel, but what would be the point? You are so ridiculously invested in your beliefs now that there is nothing that would sway you.

If it were a true statement when she said that she and Jon fight over Joel, then surely would have seen this kind of affection towards him before.

Hmm. She kissed him in the van in the "cupcake episode" and the GWoPpers clutched their pearls over how he flinched away from her. Because obviously, he thought she was going to hit him.

Just so we're clear: you are asserting that because you claim not to have seen any affection from Kate towards Joel before these recent episodes, that it is indisputably the case that she has never shown him affection? Never hugged, kissed or held him?

So no need to give us so much credit. All we do is discuss what is clearly visible. And yes, we are freee to discuss whatever we so choose about Kate because she puts herself out there, knowing that people are bound to talk about her. Not one ounce of me feels guilty for that.

And you put yourself out there here, and what you show about yourself is not pretty, at all.

When asking if I know Julie personally, no we have never met. But I have connected and talked to her on a stronger level than most of her readers.

Why does that not surprise me? Birds of a feather...

but again I have talked with her and concluded from that and reading her blog that her motives were solely in supporting Jodi.

By blogging about potties she saw as an invited guest in the Gosselin home. Riiight. That was to support Jodi, not because Julie herself is a tacky and classless person who doesn't understand basic etiquette.

Well I am glad that you could find some humor in “us”. What I find funny, is that you lump the people over at GWoP, including myself, into one lump. That is not fair. While we agree on several issues pertaining to J&K, there are also several points that are brought up and challenged.

It may not be fair, but when you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I myself would not spend any amount of time at a website that thinks it's okay to repeatedly make vicious comments about a 4-year-old girl. But since the 4-year-old in question is the perceived favorite, she deserves what she gets, I guess?

If you really disagree with GWoP and what is discussed there, then don’t go there, move on, and quit talking about it.

The kettle agrees with you; the pot isn't seeing the equivalency. (In other words, why, again, do you watch Kate Gosselin's every appearance on TV?)

For the record, I don't go to GWoP very much. Maybe once a week, for a few minutes. It gives me a bad feeling, honestly, to see so much anger. I get most of my tidbits from the Princess Marie Chantal thread.

Sorry, but wrong. The truth that Julie revealed pertained to the reasons why Jodi was no longer going to be seen on the show and what had happened behind the scenes. That was something that could not be seen by the viewers. And if you truly believe that Julie didn’t reveal anything that couldn’t have been seen on the show, then why do you insist that she aired dirty laundry? Sure Kate shows most of her true colors during the segment. But different people see different things. Sometimes you need someone to point you in the right direction before you can see clearly.

It's J&K Plus 8, not "The Matrix". I don't think there are all these layers of meaning that people need help deciphering.

Julie was right (so far) about Jodi not appearing on the show. Whether anything else she wrote is "the truth" is unverified. At least one thing she swore - that PM was who she said she was - turned out to be a lie.

If a viewer only catches the show every once in awhile then he or she may not notice the negative qualities that Kate possesses.

And we can't have that, can we? Everyone must hate Kate as much as you do.

It won’t be long before more people catch on to her lies.

Okay, on the count of three, let's all hold our breaths! One, two...

Guinevere said...

This seems like an over-reaction to what I said. I don't think that I ever said that I did not think Kate loves her kids. I think quite the opposite is true.

I'm sorry for conflating your opinion with the general anti-Gosselin mindset. I'm in a slash-n-burn mood today. If you acknowledge that Kate loves her kids, then we're on the same page there.

I don't know whether J&K have reciprocated in terms of child care. I can see why Kate is seen by some as selfish. I think she does consider herself and her circumstances "special", and maybe that keeps her from feeling able or willing to do things for others. I really don't know. I don't think that she's as unappreciative as she's sometimes criticized for being, but she may not reciprocate as much as she should.

Sorry about that. I did not know what I wrote was in the nature of viciousness.

I was not referring to anything you wrote, I was referring to your saying that we here at GDNNOP are against being judgmental, across the board. I think it's natural to make judgments about others. It's human. I don't judge people for judging, if it's within the bounds of what I consider normal judgment. It's when it gets to the calling someone a monster and saying that they don't love their kids that I have a problem with it.

It is just how it looks to me. I guess it just seems to me that you can't have it both ways, i.e., criticize Julie and Jodi but hands off Kate.

No, I criticize Kate myself. I think we are fine with criticizing Kate, here. Or Jon, even. He's part of the family too.

Having just posted once (today), I can see how you can get sucked in to the back and forth and I think people maybe should get off these blogs and turn off the sets. There are more important things in life.

Yeah, there definitely are.

Sorry I offended you.

You didn't offend me; I just didn't think it was fair to suggest that people here did not "get" that Kate was rude about the gum incident. She was, and I think (almost) everyone here agrees with that.

Just one more thing. I really resent the following in your response:

Explain to me how Kate can win with you? If she acts in ways you've complained about (bitching at Jon, not behaving in a way that you approve of with the kids), you get angry. If she acts in the way you claim that you want her to (being kind to Jon, being affectionate with the kids), you scream DAMAGE CONTROL and prattle on about how disgusted you are and how phony she is. What in the hell do you want? What's going to make you happy? I think you like (actually, LOVE) having someone to hate and pick on and judge. I think the problem is with you, not with Kate. If the show ended tomorrow you'd find a new victim.

YOU don't even know me. I posted for the first time today and I get attached like this?! I don't at all like having someone to hate. Why this reaction? My most recent comment applies to all the Gosselin blogs which, after a quick look, do not seem to be much different from each other. No doubt you have all more important things to do.


I am sorry for letting that loose on you. If you are truly new to this (and forgive my suspicion but I've seen a lot of people claim that when it's not true), then it's not fair for me to lump you in with all of the anti-Gosselinites. You seemed to say several things in your initial post that made me think your views were very much sympatico with the party line. That said, my screed should not have been directed specifically at you; it wasn't intended to be. It's for any of the anti-Gosselin folks who complain when Kate misbehaves and then complain when she does something positive. I really don't understand what they think they want. What would make them happy? Do they realize how unfair they are being? I've asked this question before, but never gotten an answer.

marci said...

Guin,

I think my eyebrows are singed...and my smoke detector went off when I opened up GDNNOP....you're smokin'....;))))

Happy Halloween, everybody!

BGR said...

Yes, I am new to this. I started out a few years ago when we got cable (we live on a farm in rural Canada and it only came to our community the last few years) watching the show and I was fascinated (and intimidated) with the logistics of managing a household like the Gosselins'. I thought they were awesome and I admired them very much for their determination to do the best they could for their family and by that I do not mean financially. Of course, I did not have their exact situation but I did have three kids, a farm to run with my husband who worked away, other self-employment, two aging parents to look after and community commitments (because here if there are no volunteers some things just don't happen). So, it just proves that everyone has their story and no one likes a complainer. Gradually, however, I was turned off by their behaviour and by the intrusion of the cameras, e.g., when Maddy got her ears pierced and had the cameras in her face when she cried. That really bothered me. So, no, I am a first timer.

I have been dropping in on the blogs like I said and I think the dialogue sometimes brings out the worst in people. The Gosselins, Julie, Jodi, et al have made their choices. Our choice can be to just stop watching (or not) but find something better to do.

MonicaW42 said...

Dang Guin,

I need to go get a new eye prescription for eye strain. LOL...

:)~

Ruffie said...

As a attorney, I can assure you that I could write 100 letters demanding someone stop saying something. It makes $$ for me, and it's really not worth the paper it's printed on.

Libel (printed word) and slander (spoken word) are very difficult to prove. First, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. Jon would have to prove that what Julie wrote wasn't true. Then he would have to prove that it caused him damage - to his reputation, his source of income, etc. He also would have to prove that Julie acted in malice instead of just defending her sister.

Jon and his attorney would have to go before a judge/magistrate to request that Julie be ordered to delete her blog. Jon would have to give some very compelling reasons why the judge should so order on basically a first amendment issue, and I don't think Jon has any compelling reasons. In fact, such an action might pave the way for some embarrassment for the Gosselins.

Jon and Kate are public figures. They can't stop you from photographing them - despite their claims it violates their contract with TLC. They can't really stop anyone from writing about them - even if they don't like what is written.

Anya said...

Ruffie, thanks for the information.

I think it's possible a letter was sent. I am not a lawyer, but based on the little knowledge I have and what you have written, a letter would carry no real weight. That said, lawyers do write these type of letters all the time with the hope that whoever receives the letter will either be scared or just decide whatever "action" they are doing that has caused the letter to be sent isn't worth the aggravation of getting involved with lawyers (no offense to YOU!).

The more plausible explanation to me, however, isn't too far off from what Julie herself stated. I think Jodi wanted the information taken down. For whatever reason. Maybe she was sick of being approached. Maybe she wants to try and heal the relationship with the Gosselins.

Of course, none of us really know the truth....

calebsmom said...

ruffie,

My husband is an attorney also, and I had him read what you wrote. He said that you gave some very good information and shared some great points.

Whatever has happened between the families can hopefully be mended. With the holidays coming I hope they get back together. It would be nice to see the smiles and happy children. It is sad that people let money (if that's what happened) get in the way of a family being together.

NannyofTwins said...

I know that a lot has been said about the lack of affection that Kate shows Joel and I just wanted to share my insight.

I am a nanny for twins, a girl and a boy, who are only a few months older than the sextuplets. I have been with them for almost three years. In spending so much time with them I know them pretty well. The "girl twin" is extremely affectionate not only does she want to be on your lap all of the time and contantly playing with you, she also adores getting hugs and kissed. But, on the other hand the "boy twin" would rather play by himself and absolutely despises hugs and kisses. If you try to kiss him he will flinch, wipe your kiss off and get angry. They are just different children with differing temperments, likes, and dislikes.

what I'm saying is that maybe Kate doesn't hug and kiss Joel as much as the other kids because Joel just does not like the lovey-dovey moments, and Kate is respecting their individual likes and dislikes.

Just my take on the situation. I mean we really will never know how much attention each child is individually shown, but just something for you to think about...

calebsmom said...

nannyoftwins,

I can see what you mean about certain boys not wanting the hugs, kisses and lovey-dovey moments. However,on the show with Kate fussing over Joel, hugging him and laying on the floor with him, he REALLY seemed to like it. He wasn't pushing her away or trying to get away from her. It seems to me like all those boys like affection. I do see your point though. :)

A Mom-ynous said...

"Ok, I am not a regular poster here but I cannot believe how people here do not grasp that, regardless of whether Jodi made a mistake or not, Kate was absolutely rude and disrespectful in her response"

Grasped it completely--in fact said so. Two wrongs don't make a right that is for sure.

To assume Jodi did no wrong is just plain ignorance and refusal to observe ALL sides of the situation. There are TWO sides to every story. Folks choose to only witness Kate's evil side and Jodi's saintly side as opposed to Kate being angry over something completely FOOLISH done by someone entrusted with the care of her children.

A Mom-ynous said...

"And, she obviously felt justified because she gets to edit what goes in to an episode so it can be presumed that she had no second thoughts. "

I wanted to ask how you know this.

As of yet I have not seen the Gosselins credited as editor, director, or producer. I could be mistaken though. I didn't notice that Matt & Amy were credited as co-producer (or similar label) on their latest episode.

We have yet to see an authenticated copy of a written contract. We have yet to see their name listed anywhere as able to control final edited content.

It is simply a presumption that she "controls" the final piece.

Kate has admitted on camera and in her book that she can come across harshly.

I would be the first to swear on a Bible that I could seem myself "go there" with the gum incident b/c I would be pi$$ed that my children knew they couldn't have gum, told another adult they could, and then be extremely puzzled how a competent adult could accept the "mommy says we can" argument from a 4 year old.

Doesn't mean that I am right if I go on a tirade by any stretch, but it certainly does not make me in the wrong for being disappointed that the person watching my kids would allow my children to do something inappropriate for their age.

**my kids get gum when they are 5 fully supervised (no walking anywhere and in my view at all times b/c I know that they have to learn appropriate gum chewing etiquette) and at age 6 they can do so unsupervised.

A Mom-ynous said...

"Perhaps if you actually read the entire comment you might have saved some time and energy on that over blown, smartassed reaction.


THAT was ridiculous."

I was responding to multiple and picked the latest one I read.

If you find that over blown and "smartassed" then that is unfortunate compared with most other commentary.

Anya said...

NannyofTwins.

Thanks for your insight. I think you may be onto something.

Additionally, I hate making generalizations based on a 22-minute edited t.v. show, but Joel has always seemed to be a "daddy's boy." I don't think that is because he doesn't get affection from Kate - he has always just gravitated to Jon.

Similarly, Hannah has demonstrated that she is one of the sextuplets in need of a lot of attention and affection from Kate. Not that the others don't want and need that too, but I think it's fair to say Alexis, for example, is a bit less clingy and more independent (again, based solely on what we have seen on the show).

My point? Each child is different. It must be a very difficult job trying to cater to and address each child's personality and most essential needs. I am sure they fall short some of the time, but I don't think it is for lack of effort or because they "love" one child more than another.

A Mom-ynous said...

"Jon and Kate are public figures. They can't stop you from photographing them - despite their claims it violates their contract with TLC. They can't really stop anyone from writing about them - even if they don't like what is written."

That is not entirely true. While what you say is true in regards to how proving it works...

You cannot publish untruths about anyone. Since many things are hashed out ad nauseum as fact--they probably have a decent fair chance of proving something untrue if it was.

Since there is a major drive to get the show cancelled and by writing to various publications and shows that feature them in an effort to have them not show them due to these "facts" and such...

Jon and Kate might have a decent time proving the damages if by chance maybe someone does finally agree to cancel an interview.

Was it Carol burnett who sued the enquirer and one.

Now I never read the article nor ever heard of her being damaged from it--but bad press is bad press and if it is a lie and cannot be backed up, then the guilty party is liable for this.

Of course I am not an attorney--but there does seems to be a group of folks out there in their efforts to boycott who are crossing the line in some instances and using things such as blogs as their "evidence".

That is an effort to damage a reputation and if effective based on untruths--could that never be proven?

I think it could be.

Also--if it is impacting the personal lives of the family--causing them troubles they didn't have before..then would that not be damages?

spanglish said...

"Was it Carol burnett who sued the enquirer and one."

Yes, Carol Burnett sued the NE and won, a settlement of $1.6M, because they printed an item that claimed she was drunk in a restaurant and argued with Henry Kissinger. The judgment in favor of Burnett occurred in 1981 (5 years after the story was published in 1976).


"That is an effort to damage a reputation and if effective based on untruths--could that never be proven?

I think it could be."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the facts are as ruffie and calebsmom's husband have confirmed: neither the NE stories, nor comments that appear elsewhere, about the Gosselins is anywhere near as egregious as the Burnett story. I'm not an attorney, but I've worked for a law firm for many years and they've yet to accept a libel/defamation suit they thought they could win.

aap said...

I've posted this before, and I still stand behind it - whenever someone comes on this board agreeing with Julie/Jodi, they are immediately labeled anti-Gosselin or pro GWOP. How can there truly be a balanced conversation when you first have to "prove" that that believing Julie is not the same as agreeing with everything GWOP does?

Guin, how many times have you posted something along these lines -

If you are truly new to this (and forgive my suspicion but I've seen a lot of people claim that when it's not true), then it's not fair for me to lump you in with all of the anti-Gosselinites. You seemed to say several things in your initial post that made me think your views were very much sympatico with the party line.

Why can't you just have a dialogue without automatically assuming anti-gosselin? (and I don't mean to pick on you because I know that several regular posters do it as well. Your quote was handy.)

That said, my screed should not have been directed specifically at you; it wasn't intended to be. It's for any of the anti-Gosselin folks who complain when Kate misbehaves and then complain when she does something positive.

OK, but you are not preaching to the anti-gosselin folks - you are responding the the poster. If there's something you want to say to the anti-gosselins who troll this blog, make it a separate post so it is clear when you are responding to the poster herself, and not the public at large.

floridamom said...

Nina Bell,
You sure know how to pick a topic to get the "party" started :}.

Guin,
I'm sorry, but Julie babysitting eight kids along with her four, elevates her to saintly status--case closed :]. Kate should be glad that gum was all she gave them lol.

Ruffie said...

A Mom-ynous
Yes, Carol Burnett won a libel suit against NE, but it took five years - time and money that she could afford. Both of Carol Burnett's parents were alcoholics, so the public sympathy was very much on her side. In addition, Carol was (and is) extremely well liked. I'm not sure about the Gosselins. :) Moreover, I doubt the Gosselins have five years and the $$ to pursue a libel/slander suit against anyone.

I repeat: The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. This is important to remember. If I were on trial for murder, I don't have to say a word. The state has to prove I murdered someone; I don't have to prove I didn't. (I probably should, but you get the idea.)

If Jon Gosselin wants to go to court to prove that what is being written about Kate and him are lies, HE must prove they are lies, and he must provide proof - lots of it. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove they are not lies.

I'll skip the part about proving damage and go to intention. Did Julie speak out of malice or a desire to protect her sister against what she perceived were attacks against Jodi? Again, Jon would have to prove it was done out of malice - not out of sisterly love.

The Gosselins are celebrities (of sort), so they lost any expectation of privacy and are now fair game for gossip. That's the price one pays when one choses this path.

ldrew313 said...

I'm really happy that Jodi asked Julie to take those posts down. I'm sure Jodi felt hurt by Kate and or Jon. She acted out (haven't we all made this kind of mistake before?) and ended up really hurting herself more by her behavior.

I hope both sides can own up to their mistakes and heal the wounds.

marci said...

ruffie,

I'm sure someone here has mentioned the possibility that the Gosselins have taken some kind of legal action that would have shut down Jodi and Julie, but I don't think that was the case.

Mostly I don't believe that's what happened because what Julie wrote isn't carrying that much weight outside the Gosselin blogging world. It's not affecting the popularity of the show...unless you count bringing in more viewers as affecting it...so why would the Gosselins take any legal action?

It may be hurtful and annoying to the Gosselins on a personal level that Julie started blogging, but I don't think (despite some bloggers' hopes that each nugget of bad press is a nail in the coffin of the show) it's even a blip on the radar of the Gosslin's publicity screen.

So, no, I don't think you sue someone who's trying to cause you embarassment and harm your reputation when their efforts are, so obviously, not working.

There's a certain point where commenting on a rumor or filing a lawsuit would just add fuel to a fire, and another point where rumors have gone too far and actually are doing damage to one's reputation or ability to make a living where action should be taken. I don't think there's anything out there that's close to bringing on the need for legal action in the Gosselins' case, despite some people's best efforts.

And I have to disagree with you on this point...I don't think that once you become a public figure you lose "any expectation of privacy." I think there are lawsuits backing up the judges' calendars in LA Superior Court filed by celebrities that prove that's not the case.

Even gossip isn't given a free ride. There are plenty of lawsuits celebrities have won against the tabloids that prove that fact also...and they didn't take 5 years to come to fruition. Although, I think Carol Burnette's case created some much needed case law for celebs to use in their efforts against the tabloids, and that's why these cases settle rather quickly these days.

Guinevere said...

I've posted this before, and I still stand behind it - whenever someone comes on this board agreeing with Julie/Jodi, they are immediately labeled anti-Gosselin or pro GWOP. How can there truly be a balanced conversation when you first have to "prove" that that believing Julie is not the same as agreeing with everything GWOP does?

Agreeing with Julie/Jodi and believing Julie about what?

Look, I'm guilty of waving the GWoP flag in peoples' faces and I'll try to be more careful about it. Sometimes I'm not as precise in my writing as I mean to be; sometimes I'm just not precise enough in my thinking. But if someone comes here and reiterates the same dozen talking points you find on GWoP, can one be forgiven for thinking they are GWoP habitues? You know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

If someone is a GWoP regular, I don't think it's fair to assume that they agree with everything that's posted there, no. But...this is a site where the most recent recap expressed the wish that a four year old would get lice and have to get her head shaved. The same four year old that the posters like to call fat and oafish. I've said it before; people are judged by the company they keep. The atmosphere there is toxic. Never mind not agreeing with everything they do; I can't sympathize with agreeing with 95% or more of what they say and do. That's why I feel comfortable judging people who hang out there regularly (and by "judging", I mean in a, "you're kind of a yucky person" way, not in an "OMG YOU ARE A MONSTER AND I MUST MAKE IT MY QUEST TO STALK YOU AND RUIN YOUR LIFE!" kind of way).

I don't apologize for using "anti-Gosselin" if I think it applies. It's probably fairer than assuming everyone is GWoPper, at any rate.

Why can't you just have a dialogue without automatically assuming anti-gosselin? (and I don't mean to pick on you because I know that several regular posters do it as well. Your quote was handy.)

I don't think I assumed anything; these were the clues I was given:

And, she obviously felt justified because she gets to edit what goes in to an episode so it can be presumed that she had no second thoughts.

Clue #1: Asserts something unproven and IMO likely untrue about Kate.

Jodi is someone who willingly provided ALOT of child care for Kate and Jon and extended unconditional love and compassion to the children.

Clue #2: BGR cleared this up, but I honestly and mistakenly took it as a dig at Kate, who is so often accused of not loving her own kids.

If Jodi can look after 10 children, surely Kate and/or Jon could extend the same courtesy. Oh wait no, they are too busy being celebrities to do such things and that would entail giving rather than receiving. I forgot.

Clue #3a/b: Assumption that she admits may not be true (about J&K never taking care of Jodi's kids) paired with a sarcastic dig at J&K.

You here on this blog are so anxious that no one stand in judgement of the Goseelins.

Okay, this isn't really a clue that she is anti-Gosselin, but it's unfair to GDNNOP and its posters, and it's not true.

OK, but you are not preaching to the anti-gosselin folks - you are responding the the poster. If there's something you want to say to the anti-gosselins who troll this blog, make it a separate post so it is clear when you are responding to the poster herself, and not the public at large.

Point taken.

michelle said...

Perhaps, just what Julie explained in her blog is the truth. Jodi just wants to move on from all of this.

While, all the bloggers are discussing Jon and Kate and the show. Jodi and Kevin are maybe just wanting to move on from "Jon and Kate and the show".

That is possible, right?

aap said...

Look, I'm guilty of waving the GWoP flag in peoples' faces and I'll try to be more careful about it.

Guin - I just want to make it clear that you are not the only person here who is guily of doing that.

I have to take my kids to a b-day party, but I just wanted to ask a few questions -

If someone is a GWoP regular, I don't think it's fair to assume that they agree with everything that's posted there, no.

Define GWOP regular. Because I agree with some of the points GWOP made, and depending on the topic spend every where from 0 times a week checking them out ot maybe 1 or 2 days a week checking out their blog. So does that make someone a regular?

And, she obviously felt justified because she gets to edit what goes in to an episode so it can be presumed that she had no second thoughts.

Clue #1: Asserts something unproven and IMO likely untrue about Kate.


Well by previous definition, the only thing that is considered proven is something that comes out of Jon and Kate's mouth - and even when people bring that up for arguement - posters on this blog shoot it down. So in general, just about every opinion people have in unproven - including YOUR comment about Kate - and depending where their opinion lies (for vs. against Jon and Kate) depends on the backlash people receive here. A lot of the regulars here make unproven statements all the time, and don't get challenged - especially to the degree you challenge people you consider anti-gosselins. You can not like Kate and still not be anti Gosselin, just like you can defend Kate and still not be pro-gosselin.

spanglish said...

"Perhaps, just what Julie explained in her blog is the truth. Jodi just wants to move on from all of this. ... That is possible, right?"

Possible and probable. All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one (Occam's razor).

Guinevere said...

Define GWOP regular. Because I agree with some of the points GWOP made, and depending on the topic spend every where from 0 times a week checking them out ot maybe 1 or 2 days a week checking out their blog. So does that make someone a regular?

I don't really have a definition for it. Maybe it's more of a mindset. It's an attitude towards the site and their "mission" rather than how many times a person visits. I don't understand, at this point, not agreeing with "everything" they do, but still supporting the site. They are stalking the Gosselins and putting up purported pictures of their new home. They joke about Kate being killed, about a child getting lice and getting her head shaved. Their latest knee-slapper is about "Missing Persons", which, call me oversensitive, I don't actually consider that funny of a topic.

Let me ask you - how much vileness is okay? If you agree with 90% of what gets posted there, but the other 10% is anathema to you, are you still a supporter of the site? I'm not talking about visiting, necessarily, because, heck, I go there occasionally. I'm talking about thinking that the Powers That Be and the majority of posters there have good motives or bad motives for what they do and say.

Considering how diluted their supposed mission has been with pettiness and ugliness, I find it hard to understand people really buying what GWoP is selling. How does posting photos of the Gosselins' supposed new home, feverishly searching county records for information, and making it clear that you know exactly where the family is - how, again, is that serving their mission of protecting the privacy of the Gosselin children?

Well by previous definition, the only thing that is considered proven is something that comes out of Jon and Kate's mouth - and even when people bring that up for arguement - posters on this blog shoot it down. So in general, just about every opinion people have in unproven - including YOUR comment about Kate - and depending where their opinion lies (for vs. against Jon and Kate) depends on the backlash people receive here.

I can only speak for myself here, but I don't jump on people just because I perceive them as anti-Gosselin. I respond to people, positive or negative, if I feel like I have something worthwhile to say in response to something they've posted.

I don't necessarily believe everything J&K say, of course. Or at least, I don't take it as gospel. But I do consider them greater authorities on their own lives than strangers who stalk them on the internet and appear to hate them for no reason, or disgruntled relatives of in-laws.

I hope I'm fairly clear that the things I say about Kate or anyone, by and large, are opinions. I think most of us are sophisticated and smart enough to distinguish opinions from facts. Certainly, a lot of the explanations I use to defend Kate are perspectives, opinions and speculation. I don't know her, and even if I did, there would be a limit to how much I could understand what was really going on in her heart and mind.

A lot of the regulars here make unproven statements all the time, and don't get challenged - especially to the degree you challenge people you consider anti-gosselins.

Well, again, I challenge people if I feel that there is something to challenge. It may be true that I'm not as quick to post when I disagree with a pro-Gosselin opinion. For instance, I don't totally agree with the POV that Jodi did much of anything wrong by giving the kids gum; I did touch on that briefly in a post, though. If someone posted, "I think Kate Gosselin is the bestest mom ever, and anyone who doesn't think so is a hater!!!!", I probably wouldn't post a disagreement, but that doesn't mean that I agree. There are only so many hours in the day, you know? I need to prioritize my arguments and conserve my bitchiness.

You can not like Kate and still not be anti Gosselin, just like you can defend Kate and still not be pro-gosselin.

Absolutely. And I'm going to try not to paint people with such a broad brush, because I think it does inhibit productive discussion. At the same time, it would be helpful if, if I do say something negative about GWoP, posters don't assume I am personally attacking them just because they post or visit there.

aap said...

Guin -

You know that I had to go to GWOP to check out what the Missing Persons story is - lol! I think they are pointing out the people that disappeared from the kids life in a light-hearted manner (however, I don't think it was as funny as they hoped it would be) and don't see the problem with it. The same with the head lice - you know that the poster did not mean it literally. The joke might have been in poor taste but it was an attempt at satire, and it is clearly presented as satire. I think labeling it vile is a little extreme.

I go and check out GWOP every once in a while. I definitely don't think I am a regular. And I am capable of independent thought, but sometimes my view of Jon and Kate is the same mindset of GWOP. We're all watching the same show - it's bound to happen.

Let me ask you - how much vileness is okay? If you agree with 90% of what gets posted there, but the other 10% is anathema to you, are you still a supporter of the site?

I can tell you that I probably haven't even read 1% of the content at GWOP - I just don't have the time. I do agree with their stated mission that someone who is not making money off the kids needs to be an advocate for them. (This is not to say this is their only mission, just the only one they state.) I do think that Jon and Kate are putting too much of the kids personal lives out there for public consumption. Again, these are my own thoughts that tend to agree with GWOP. However, I would think it even if I never heard of GWOP.

For example, before I even read the Missing Persons story, I found it sad that there is not 1 person from either Jon or Kate's family or a close friend at their vow renewal ceremony. This is a special moment for them, and who is there to witness it? A TV crew and their "part time" helper. That's it.

And you know, for the most part I could care less about the things Jon and Kate do. However, somewhere I read that they are having 8 to 10 people over for Thanksgiving. Well, I want names! I want proof that they are capable of having a long term relationship with anyone and that they haven't run everyone off yet. (Am I going to stalk out their house to get that information, no. Will my life go on if it's just one of those things that I will never know -yes.

This is my own personal opinion but I think one of the worst things you can do to a child is take away people that they love. I think it's horrible that people who were important to the kids and were a part of their lives are no longer welcome in the Gosselin home. And if it was just Jodi or just Beth or just the grandparents, it would be one thing. But too many people are missing for it to always be someone else's fault.

And if Kate is so worried about budgeting and saving money for Christmas, I want to see her out at Kamrt on black Friday planning her strategy to get the best deals on toys for her kids.


And I think now that the show is nothing be tools for promotional placement products, it has jumped the shark which I believe has also been mentioned on GWOP and numerous other blogs. However, I keep hoping that it will get better and my kids like watching it. So am I anti-Gosselin still?

how, again, is that serving their mission of protecting the privacy of the Gosselin children?

You would have a better point if Jon and Kate had made the decision not to show their house on tv. But the fact is, the house is going to be on TV and GWOP just beat them to the punch. Does it really make a difference if we see the house first on GWOP then 2 months down the road on the show?

I feel as if I rambled on for long enough and I hope this makes sense.
Basically all I am asking for is that if you disagree with things that people say, challenge their ideas without labeling them anti-gosselins first. If they are truly anti-gosselins, it will come out anyway and you will still have your opportunity to attack them. Guin has said she is going to be more careful about it, I hope others will as well.

Tyra said...

Quote:
The same with the head lice - you know that the poster did not mean it literally. The joke might have been in poor taste but it was an attempt at satire, and it is clearly presented as satire. I think labeling it vile is a little extreme.


I don't think 'vile' is too extreme a word. What shocks me is that people like the recapper, who label themselves as child 'advocates', would paint such a picture of a child. Since when is satirizing children an art form? As far as I know, satire is a literary art that's appreciated by adults because it points out the follies and stupidities of adults. If Kate was the target, the writer is a very poor satirist, because she ended up targeting a child as the object of her satire. I'm disgusted that I have to have that gross, vindictive little scene in my memory.

This is the same recapper (Dew) who used the word 'oafish', then edited it out when too many of the regulars were compelled to protest. Makes me wonder if this particular recapper has issues when it comes to mothers having 'favorites', and isn't self aware enough to recognize that she's doing some projecting of those resentments.

Quote:
But the fact is, the house is going to be on TV and GWOP just beat them to the punch.

And how did they do it? Creepy, stalker-ish detective work. Not to mention that some of them are seemingly using resources through their workplaces, and probably on company time. Isn't that highly unethical?

aap said...

And how did they do it? Creepy, stalker-ish detective work.

Or someone was just bored and decided to search public records for Jon and Kate? Someone who has way too much time on their hands? Creepy and stalker-ish to me would be if they used illegal methods to gain the information.

I used to love, love, love searching things on the internet - if there was a way to make a career out of it I would. But that was when I was younger, had better eye sight (I can't stare at a computer screen for hours any more), and had nothing but time on my hands. So for me it is an acceptable way to pass the time.

Not to mention that some of them are seemingly using resources through their workplaces, and probably on company time. Isn't that highly unethical?

Well, I believe someone else mentioned that this hasn't been proven and who knows if it is true? However, other than that, I plead the 5th.

Guinevere said...

You know that I had to go to GWOP to check out what the Missing Persons story is - lol! I think they are pointing out the people that disappeared from the kids life in a light-hearted manner (however, I don't think it was as funny as they hoped it would be) and don't see the problem with it.

I guess it's borderline for me. They claim to care about exploited children but at every turn display, at best, bad taste and insensitivity.

The same with the head lice - you know that the poster did not mean it literally. The joke might have been in poor taste but it was an attempt at satire, and it is clearly presented as satire. I think labeling it vile is a little extreme.

I think it was quite mean, and in bad taste, and again, not congruent with GWoP's mission statement. But what really pushes it over the edge for me was who it was directed at. Hannah is their little punching bag over at GWoP - if one of the kids is singled out for a nasty comment, 90% of the time it's Hannah (most of the other 10% would probably be Mady). Why? Is Hannah so objectionable a person, even at four? No, it's simply that she is perceived (unfairly, IMO) as Kate's favorite. They dislike a 4-year-old, for something that is not even her fault or under her control. And I don't think I'm being too strong to say that a number of the posters there genuinely dislike Hannah - Dew certainly does. You don't call a child oafish and then wish head lice on her unless you have a problem with her. It is just very wrong and ugly, IMO.

I go and check out GWOP every once in a while. I definitely don't think I am a regular. And I am capable of independent thought, but sometimes my view of Jon and Kate is the same mindset of GWOP. We're all watching the same show - it's bound to happen.

I agree with that. I mean, if a certain subset of people see things the same way, it may well be that it's because things are at least open to being perceived that way. But I do think that when people's "talking points" so closely match each other's, there is little independent thought going on. On the contrary, I think it's an example of groupthink (I'm certainly not accusing you of this specifically).

I can tell you that I probably haven't even read 1% of the content at GWOP - I just don't have the time. I do agree with their stated mission that someone who is not making money off the kids needs to be an advocate for them. (This is not to say this is their only mission, just the only one they state.)

I think most people here agree with that. My only stipulation is that I don't see it as being necessary solely or even mostly to protect the Gosselin children. I think it would be just to have laws enacted to protected all children appearing on reality TV.

I'm digressing a bit, but I just get my back up at the notion that J&K+8 is uniquely exploitative or inappropriate in its content. I watched Friday's episode of Supernanny, which featured in one scene a 2- or 3-year old boy peeing outside against a fence. He was completely visible, urine stream and all; only his penis was blurred. I thought that was a lot more inappropriate than any of the potty or topless stuff I've seen on J&K+8 (and even that, I don't care about *that* much. I don't think it was really necessary to show, but I wasn't outraged by it).

I do think that Jon and Kate are putting too much of the kids personal lives out there for public consumption. Again, these are my own thoughts that tend to agree with GWOP. However, I would think it even if I never heard of GWOP.

I can understand that. I do understand people having qualms about it. My only assertion is that I do believe that J&K are making what they think is the best decision for their family, much as most other parents do in most situations.

For example, before I even read the Missing Persons story, I found it sad that there is not 1 person from either Jon or Kate's family or a close friend at their vow renewal ceremony. This is a special moment for them, and who is there to witness it? A TV crew and their "part time" helper. That's it.

See, that's where you lose me. We really don't know enough about the state of the various relationships the Gosselins have with their relatives - it may be a case of people not wanting to appear on camera, or not wanting to fly to Hawaii. Or they may be estranged from most of both of their families at this point. We don't know. Is that sad? I guess it is, maybe. Sometimes, families need breathing room from each other. My guess is that if and where estrangements exist, there is blame to go around. That's usually the case. Anyway, J&K already had one wedding with their relatives there - I just don't think it's so sad to have another in a beautiful place with their eight children attending them.

And you know, for the most part I could care less about the things Jon and Kate do. However, somewhere I read that they are having 8 to 10 people over for Thanksgiving. Well, I want names! I want proof that they are capable of having a long term relationship with anyone and that they haven't run everyone off yet. (Am I going to stalk out their house to get that information, no. Will my life go on if it's just one of those things that I will never know -yes.

Again, I don't know that they've "run everyone off". It may be that it will be easier for them to work on relationships with friends and family once the cameras go away.

This is my own personal opinion but I think one of the worst things you can do to a child is take away people that they love. I think it's horrible that people who were important to the kids and were a part of their lives are no longer welcome in the Gosselin home. And if it was just Jodi or just Beth or just the grandparents, it would be one thing. But too many people are missing for it to always be someone else's fault.

I'm not saying it's always someone else's fault. I'm saying it takes two to tango. Jodi, IMO, violated J&K's trust, and that something they are going to need to work through (as well as whatever Kate may or may not have done to Jodi). I have no idea what the deal is with Beth. I'm not sure that the grandparents have been in their lives much for a very long time, so I don't know if it's a case of the younger kids, at least, missing them.

I do agree that this kind of upheaval is not ideal for kids. But people do come in and out of our lives. I think the greatest thing you can teach a child - if it's even teachable - is resiliency.

If J&K have made a conscious and deliberate decision to shut certain people out of their lives, I would hope that they have good reason. I don't know that they do, but I wouldn't assume that they don't, either.

And if Kate is so worried about budgeting and saving money for Christmas, I want to see her out at Kamrt on black Friday planning her strategy to get the best deals on toys for her kids.

Again, this argument really loses me. I feel like any talk of scrimping and saving is at least half a year old, or more, at this point. Also, we don't know their financial situation. Maybe the Gosselins are putting away a great deal of their income for college funds - that's what people supposedly want, right? Maybe they give a bunch to their church. Maybe they just worry about money. I just don't understand why if they do talk about money concerns or the expense of things, people assume they are lying. It doesn't seem like the most likely explanation to me, just the one that makes them look bad.

And I think now that the show is nothing be tools for promotional placement products, it has jumped the shark which I believe has also been mentioned on GWOP and numerous other blogs. However, I keep hoping that it will get better and my kids like watching it. So am I anti-Gosselin still?

Can your kids watch it without you? I have never understood (and this goes back to my days hanging around TWoP and all of the people who posted faithfully every week about how much Buffy sucked, or whatever show was terrible) watching a show you don't like. Life is too short, and there are too many other things to do. Entertainment is supposed to be entertaining, and I am strongly of the opinion that anyone who doesn't enjoy J&K+8 shouldn't watch it.

You would have a better point if Jon and Kate had made the decision not to show their house on tv. But the fact is, the house is going to be on TV and GWOP just beat them to the punch. Does it really make a difference if we see the house first on GWOP then 2 months down the road on the show?

It makes a difference to me. The Gosselins are showing their house because they are on a TV show that features them, often at their house. Why, exactly, is GWoP showing it? Why are there people there making it clear they have the address or trying to get the address or talking about how the Gosselins have tried to "hide" from them, but they can't? Just as some people can't understand why some of us don't think J&K are pimps, I cannot understand how anyone cannot see this behavior as creepy with capital C.

I feel as if I rambled on for long enough and I hope this makes sense.

I will always out-ramble you.:-)

Basically all I am asking for is that if you disagree with things that people say, challenge their ideas without labeling them anti-gosselins first. If they are truly anti-gosselins, it will come out anyway and you will still have your opportunity to attack them. Guin has said she is going to be more careful about it, I hope others will as well.

I will be more careful, though I don't think I really (um, usually) "attack" people. One thing I will say about someone's true opinions coming out later - I feel like since I've been on this blog I've encountered a number of people who seem semi-reasonable at first, but get more and more hostile and agitated and obviously, well, anti-Gosselin. And I can't quite explain why, but it leaves me feeling like I've been tricked or played for a fool a bit. I'm not talking about people who are reasonable, and then for whatever reason the discussion turns them a bit more intense or emotional. I'm talking about people who I feel are really trolls, and deliberately present a false front at first, and then kind of jump on you when you're not expecting it.

I think I *am* rambling here. I'm not sure if people understand exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe I'm a little paranoid or wary at this point. I just know that I really do approach conversations here with sincerity and honesty. I can be sarcastic or bitchy at times, but I'm not false, I don't say things I don't mean in order to play games or trap people or manipulate them. I don't feel I can say the same about everyone from "the other side" who posts here.

aap said...

Guin -

I have to say just by watching the show, I get the impression that Hannah is Kate's favorite too. She enjoys the same activities Kate does, and, from what I can see, possesses one of the calmer dispositions of the kids so it's natural that Hannah spends the most time with Kate. However, I still think the lice comment is based on Kate's love of Hannah's long hair vs. Hannah actually getting lice.

But I agree that GWOP crosses the line with some of their comments about the kids, though I'm not on it enough to know who they are singling out out (I actually thought, based on some comments here, that they made fun of Joel the most.) and that they often don't live up to their stated mission.

I agree that some members of GWOP has gone way past the bounds of decency on several issues, and anyone who is calling locations Jon and Kate are speaking with, writing letters, etc. need to use the efforts on behalf of a real cause.

And I'm confused by something. Either GWOP has no influence over the things Jon and Kate do, and such a small portion of the TV audience read the blog that it has no affect (or effect, I can never remember which to use), so the things they say really has no impact. Or GWOP has a large audience and the comments they make has the power to influence people's thought about the show? Because if the blog doesn't have much impact, then I think the time spent getting angry over the things they say is wasted effort.

I'm digressing a bit, but I just get my back up at the notion that J&K+8 is uniquely exploitative or inappropriate in its content. I watched Friday's episode of Supernanny, which featured in one scene a 2- or 3-year old boy peeing outside against a fence.

I can understand your point, but I think the difference is that you will only see this family on 1 episode, where it's Jon and Kate all the time at TLC. I don't know if Jon and Kate would have this level of backlash if they did a lesser number of shows.

My only assertion is that I do believe that J&K are making what they think is the best decision for their family, much as most other parents do in most situations.

I think money - especially the amount of money Jon and Kate are reportedly raking in - can cloud a person's judgement. A poster here - I'm pretty sure it was you but not positive - have mentioned that Kate has issues with money, which I agree with. Based on this, I don't know if Jon and Kate are capable of making the right decision for their family. The lure of easy money might override their instincts of what is right or wrong for their family.

My guess is that if and where estrangements exist, there is blame to go around. That's usually the case.

You are right, we don't know the status of all their relationships (some of the people on GWOPS list I had never even heard of), but just watching the progression of the show, from having a support group of family and friends to help them out and were an important part of their life, to now having no one is odd. My guess is that shows with Beth and Jodi were popular with the TV audience - I know I liked them - so I can't see an objection to showing other people on TV. I realize that not everyone wants to be on TV, but I find it hard to believe that out of everyone they currently know, there is not 1 person who is willing to be seen on TV. Especially when the the show is their life.

Again, I don't know that they've "run everyone off".

Just to clarify, I used run everyone off in jest.

I do agree that this kind of upheaval is not ideal for kids. But people do come in and out of our lives.

I don't know if I've made this clear, but for some reason people coming in and out of kids lives really bothers me - I know it's more than the average person. Not sure why, but if it seems like I harp on this, that is the reason way. I do agree with your statement BTW.

And if Kate is so worried about budgeting and saving money for Christmas, I want to see her out at Kamrt on black Friday planning her strategy to get the best deals on toys for her kids.

Again, this argument really loses me. I feel like any talk of scrimping and saving is at least half a year old, or more, at this point.


Is Kate currently the spokesperson for Kmart's layaway program? Is she not implying that this is the method she will be using this Christmas season to purchase their presents as a way to budget their money? But really, I think it would be interesting to see Kate navigate the crowds on Black Friday - I think that will be interesting, amusing show.

And I think now that the show is nothing be tools for promotional placement products, it has jumped the shark which I believe has also been mentioned on GWOP and numerous other blogs. However, I keep hoping that it will get better and my kids like watching it. So am I anti-Gosselin still?

Can your kids watch it without you?


But Guin, then I would have nothing to argue with you about :-). I do think there were cute moments in last night's episode. I thought how excited Alexis got over the alligator was fun to watch, and I think the aquarium at Legoland looks incredible. As a former Buffy fan myself, after watching a show for so long you do get somewhat emotionally invested in it and I know I keep watching to see if it will return to it's former glory (I still blame SMG for killing the show. I think it had at least 2 more good seasons left in it.) Though now I will be watching for more examples of "untruthes" stated by Jon and Kate, which brings me too -

I just don't understand why if they do talk about money concerns or the expense of things, people assume they are lying.

Kate has looked at the camera and has said, this is not fake, this is our real life when that is clearly not the case. It's not just money, it's Kate exclaiming on camera that all she does is cook when they get their food catered in, or Kate saying that she will be using Kmart's Layaway Program as a way to budget for Christmas, when they didn't use layaway when they had less money (who could forget the infamous Toys R Us episode?), or that the kids don't enjoy or won't eat fast food when you see them eating McD's on trips or at Red Robin? (did McDonald's turn her down as a spokesperson?) I wouldn't expect the show to be their real life if Kate didn't shout from the top of her lungs that this is their real life. She can't have it both ways.

Just a side note, but I wonder how VTech is going to feel about Maddie and Cara playing with a Leapster on the plane vs. a Vtech toy?

Ramble over.

Anya said...

Guin and AAP, I enjoy BOTH of your ramblings! Interesting and thoughtful points. Thanks for taking the time to share them.

aap said...

Anya -

I glad someone enjoys it and I am not annoying everyone! :-)