tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post322719017210411189..comments2023-05-10T02:47:51.886-07:00Comments on GOSSELINS DO NOT NEED OUR PITY: SOUND OFF - Julie's BlogUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger119125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-75030425225411038532008-11-04T20:03:00.000-08:002008-11-04T20:03:00.000-08:00Anya -I glad someone enjoys it and I am not annoyi...Anya -<BR/><BR/>I glad someone enjoys it and I am not annoying everyone! :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-79446821324023320932008-11-04T15:12:00.000-08:002008-11-04T15:12:00.000-08:00Guin and AAP, I enjoy BOTH of your ramblings! Inte...Guin and AAP, I enjoy BOTH of your ramblings! Interesting and thoughtful points. Thanks for taking the time to share them.Anya@IWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10277215288731619588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-46961459855765832052008-11-04T10:21:00.000-08:002008-11-04T10:21:00.000-08:00Guin -I have to say just by watching the show, I g...Guin -<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>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. </B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>My guess is that if and where estrangements exist, there is blame to go around. That's usually the case.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Again, I don't know that they've "run everyone off".</B><BR/><BR/>Just to clarify, I used run everyone off in jest.<BR/><BR/><B>I do agree that this kind of upheaval is not ideal for kids. But people do come in and out of our lives.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/><BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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? <BR/><BR/>Can your kids watch it without you? </B><BR/><BR/>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 - <BR/><BR/><B>I just don't understand why if they do talk about money concerns or the expense of things, people assume they are lying. </B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Ramble over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-42850948589744625362008-11-04T00:08:00.000-08:002008-11-04T00:08:00.000-08:00You know that I had to go to GWOP to check out wha...<B>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. </B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><B>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.)</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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). <BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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? </B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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?</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>I feel as if I rambled on for long enough and I hope this makes sense.</B><BR/><BR/>I will always out-ramble you.:-)<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Guineverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12594898905741204155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-43746407018424905872008-11-03T13:09:00.000-08:002008-11-03T13:09:00.000-08:00And how did they do it? Creepy, stalker-ish detect...<B>And how did they do it? Creepy, stalker-ish detective work.</B> <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B> Not to mention that some of them are seemingly using resources through their workplaces, and probably on company time. Isn't that highly unethical?</B><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-74028121753614813082008-11-03T11:57:00.000-08:002008-11-03T11:57:00.000-08:00Quote:The same with the head lice - you know that ...Quote:<BR/><B>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.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Quote:<BR/><B>But the fact is, the house is going to be on TV and GWOP just beat them to the punch.</B><BR/><BR/>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?Tyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00063403849052207633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-57111570394289958962008-11-03T08:15:00.000-08:002008-11-03T08:15:00.000-08:00Guin -You know that I had to go to GWOP to check o...Guin -<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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?</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/><B>how, again, is that serving their mission of protecting the privacy of the Gosselin children?</B><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>I feel as if I rambled on for long enough and I hope this makes sense.<BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-47819706102692834402008-11-03T00:23:00.000-08:002008-11-03T00:23:00.000-08:00Define GWOP regular. Because I agree with some of ...<B>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?</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>You can not like Kate and still not be anti Gosselin, just like you can defend Kate and still not be pro-gosselin.</B><BR/><BR/>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.Guineverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12594898905741204155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-51615369186463829142008-11-02T15:14:00.000-08:002008-11-02T15:14:00.000-08:00"Perhaps, just what Julie explained in her blog is..."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?"<BR/><BR/>Possible and probable. All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one (Occam's razor).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-22938633681363029682008-11-02T10:02:00.000-08:002008-11-02T10:02:00.000-08:00Look, I'm guilty of waving the GWoP flag in people...Look, I'm guilty of waving the GWoP flag in peoples' faces and I'll try to be more careful about it. <BR/><BR/>Guin - I just want to make it clear that you are not the only person here who is guily of doing that.<BR/><BR/>I have to take my kids to a b-day party, but I just wanted to ask a few questions -<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/><BR/>Clue #1: Asserts something unproven and IMO likely untrue about Kate.</B><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-33045597224596741122008-11-01T23:40:00.000-07:002008-11-01T23:40:00.000-07:00Perhaps, just what Julie explained in her blog is ...Perhaps, just what Julie explained in her blog is the truth. Jodi just wants to move on from all of this. <BR/><BR/>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". <BR/><BR/>That is possible, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-4255531226745856512008-11-01T20:35:00.000-07:002008-11-01T20:35:00.000-07:00I've posted this before, and I still stand behind ...<B>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?</B><BR/><BR/>Agreeing with Julie/Jodi and believing Julie about what? <BR/><BR/>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...<BR/> <BR/>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). <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.)</B><BR/><BR/>I don't think I assumed anything; these were the clues I was given:<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>Clue #1: Asserts something unproven and IMO likely untrue about Kate.<BR/><BR/><B>Jodi is someone who willingly provided ALOT of child care for Kate and Jon and extended unconditional love and compassion to the children.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>You here on this blog are so anxious that no one stand in judgement of the Goseelins.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>Point taken.Guineverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12594898905741204155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-7698050993084943322008-11-01T16:10:00.000-07:002008-11-01T16:10:00.000-07:00ruffie,I'm sure someone here has mentioned the pos...ruffie,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.marcihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13281734978135533903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-16267815431259097932008-11-01T14:36:00.000-07:002008-11-01T14:36:00.000-07:00I'm really happy that Jodi asked Julie to take tho...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. <BR/><BR/>I hope both sides can own up to their mistakes and heal the wounds.ldrew313https://www.blogger.com/profile/03163250527441638028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-24076697753633477782008-11-01T14:28:00.000-07:002008-11-01T14:28:00.000-07:00A Mom-ynousYes, Carol Burnett won a libel suit aga...<B>A Mom-ynous</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-14013408062114774142008-11-01T11:50:00.000-07:002008-11-01T11:50:00.000-07:00Nina Bell, You sure know how to pick a topic to g...Nina Bell,<BR/> You sure know how to pick a topic to get the "party" started :}. <BR/><BR/> Guin,<BR/> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-4703792017437001512008-11-01T10:37:00.000-07:002008-11-01T10:37:00.000-07:00I've posted this before, and I still stand behind ...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?<BR/><BR/>Guin, how many times have you posted something along these lines -<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-29249814763755869312008-11-01T10:01:00.000-07:002008-11-01T10:01:00.000-07:00"Was it Carol burnett who sued the enquirer and on..."Was it Carol burnett who sued the enquirer and one."<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><BR/>"That is an effort to damage a reputation and if effective based on untruths--could that never be proven?<BR/><BR/>I think it could be."<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-31093483453669953212008-10-31T19:52:00.000-07:002008-10-31T19:52:00.000-07:00"Jon and Kate are public figures. They can't stop ..."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."<BR/><BR/>That is not entirely true. While what you say is true in regards to how proving it works...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>Jon and Kate might have a decent time proving the damages if by chance maybe someone does finally agree to cancel an interview.<BR/><BR/>Was it Carol burnett who sued the enquirer and one.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/>That is an effort to damage a reputation and if effective based on untruths--could that never be proven?<BR/><BR/>I think it could be.<BR/><BR/>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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-84569367169201798882008-10-31T19:51:00.001-07:002008-10-31T19:51:00.001-07:00NannyofTwins.Thanks for your insight. I think you ...NannyofTwins.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your insight. I think you may be onto something.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.Anya@IWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10277215288731619588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-48353073836691695942008-10-31T19:38:00.000-07:002008-10-31T19:38:00.000-07:00"Perhaps if you actually read the entire comment y..."Perhaps if you actually read the entire comment you might have saved some time and energy on that over blown, smartassed reaction.<BR/><BR/><BR/>THAT was ridiculous."<BR/><BR/>I was responding to multiple and picked the latest one I read.<BR/><BR/>If you find that over blown and "smartassed" then that is unfortunate compared with most other commentary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-47090470950233119892008-10-31T19:31:00.000-07:002008-10-31T19:31:00.000-07:00"And, she obviously felt justified because sh..."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. "<BR/><BR/>I wanted to ask how you know this.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It is simply a presumption that she "controls" the final piece. <BR/><BR/>Kate has admitted on camera and in her book that she can come across harshly.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>**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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-69881559348815346962008-10-31T19:25:00.000-07:002008-10-31T19:25:00.000-07:00"Ok, I am not a regular poster here but I cannot b..."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"<BR/><BR/>Grasped it completely--in fact said so. Two wrongs don't make a right that is for sure.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-37269303304421247342008-10-31T18:22:00.000-07:002008-10-31T18:22:00.000-07:00nannyoftwins,I can see what you mean about certain...nannyoftwins,<BR/><BR/>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. :)calebsmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02210958419516640491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-875099505545555742.post-15870783699225990222008-10-31T16:58:00.000-07:002008-10-31T16:58:00.000-07:00I know that a lot has been said about the lack of ...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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com