# Jon and Kate + Eight



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

http://gosselinswithoutpity.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-can-jon-gosselin-sleep-at-night.html

What do you guys think about this family?


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

Enough?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I have no idea who they are. Are we talking about the geese??


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

I thought they were people...


----------



## jtlytle (May 17, 2005)

I thought you posted to let us know that Kate is expecting!!


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

My wife loves the show. I think Jon is funny, Kate is somewhat annoying with being clean and not letting the kids do stuff. I don't over analyse it. I started to read that blog and then closed it. I enjoy the show enough, I don't really want to read all the other stuff on line. How do you know who is really posting that stuff?


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

I can't believe there's a blog post about what Jon's job is.

The guy's got EIGHT kids to raise, if he's able to not have to "work" because of their fame and raise his family then more power to him.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> I can't believe there's a blog post about what Jon's job is.
> 
> The guy's got EIGHT kids to raise, if he's able to not have to "work" because of their fame and raise his family then more power to him.


not only that, but people seemed to be mad he had a job with paid vacation, health insurance, life insurance, etc. I've got all that. (except the pension. I don't have that) 

I don't get it.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

They both annoy me to death. I can't stand the show. My wife likes it though.

But I could care less how they make money. It won't be from me watching that dreck though.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

The only episode I've ever seen is the one where they go to Disney World...and that's only because we have Disney World flagged on our Tivo so anything that has to do with it gets recorded.

From what I've seen, nobody should've let this couple have that many kids! They take them to Disney World (drive no less!) they only appear to have spent one day at MK. Kate (the mom) gets upset when one of the girls gets all cranky about not wanting to wear the Mickey ears (I'd be cranky too after driving for two days!) and then she gets mad at Jon (dad) for giving the kids ice cream...and of course the ice cream is melting in the heat...and its getting all over their clothes. And you would thinking having that many kids you would be more prepared, but she didn't bring a change of clothes for ANY of them WTF? No wipes either apparently. She was really freaking out about not being able to clean them up. Oh, and apparently she can't even figure out how to work a camera. How unprepared can you be when you have 8 kids??? You should be more prepared than anybody because you should take anything that could go wrong and multiply that by 8!!!


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

I think people are just jealous. If that's what he wants to do, he likes it, and makes enough money doing it, then leave them alone. Why do people have to get involved in everyone elses lives..


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

this is a TV Show??


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

unicorngoddess said:


> You should be more prepared than anybody because you should take anything that could go wrong and multiply that by 8!!!


But then it wouldn't be good TV.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Bryanmc said:


> But then it wouldn't be good TV.


It still isn't. Reality TV is for lame-os.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I don't know why, but I find myself compelled to watch this show lately.

Kate seems like someone that I would really dislike. But the rest of them seem okay.


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm actually a fan of the show. I like the couch talks. They contradict themselves so much and Kate's always being *****y to Jon. It's funny in an uncomfortable sort of way. The kids are cute, and I like being able to say that I'm not them.  I'm guilty of having it DVR'd!!!


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Sounds like a love eight relationship to me.


----------



## Saturn (Apr 10, 2001)

unicorngoddess said:


> From what I've seen, nobody should've let this couple have that many kids!


How's the view from up there? 

They had twins and wanted one more. They had SEXTUPLETS. I don't think 8 kids was EVER in their plan. And if you think you could do a better job, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to let you have all 8 for a few days...


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Saturn said:


> They had twins and wanted one more. They had SEXTUPLETS. I don't think 8 kids was EVER in their plan. And if you think you could do a better job, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to let you have all 8 for a few days...


According to Wikipedia, it wasn't a spontaneously occuring incidence of sextuplets. Significant fertility treatment was involved. So while it might not have been their plan, given the choices they made, it was definitely a possibility.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Polcamilla said:


> According to Wikipedia, it wasn't a spontaneously occuring incidence of sextuplets. Significant fertility treatment was involved. So while it might not have been their plan, given the choices they made, it was definitely a possibility.


And?

They don't complain about having 8 kids.


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

Polcamilla said:


> According to Wikipedia, it wasn't a spontaneously occuring incidence of sextuplets. Significant fertility treatment was involved. So while it might not have been their plan, given the choices they made, it was definitely a possibility.


I agree with that. I do get a little irritated when people want a hand-out because "God blessed me with this many children, and it's just too hard for me to do it alone", when in reality, they put themselves into the position to have all those kids. If they wanted to be sure to not have more than one or two more babies, then they should have only transfered one or two embryos during her IVF.


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

Bryanmc said:


> And?
> 
> They don't complain about having 8 kids.


But they are using them to earn income. I don't really know if I agree or disagree with the exploitation, mostly because I'm entertained by it.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> And?
> 
> They don't complain about having 8 kids.


And nothing. Just that it wasn't a completely random and unpredictable occurance (as implied by the poster I quoted). They made a choice that carried a risk of having a lot of kids and they got a lot of kids.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Polcamilla said:


> And nothing. Just that it wasn't a completely random and unpredictable occurance (as implied by the poster I quoted). They made a choice that carried a risk of having a lot of kids and they got a lot of kids.


Gotcha.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Shouldn't this be in "Now Playing"?


----------



## slydog75 (Jul 8, 2004)

I find them both EXTREMELY annoying. Her because she's a royal ***** and treats her husband like S&^T and him because he lets her.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Saturn said:


> How's the view from up there?
> 
> They had twins and wanted one more. They had SEXTUPLETS. I don't think 8 kids was EVER in their plan. And if you think you could do a better job, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to let you have all 8 for a few days...


No thank you! 

Its just the part that REALLY bugs me is the unpreparedness through everything. Like i said, how could you not be prepared for worse case scenerio x 8 with that many kids? I know its suppose to make for good tv and all but the mom in me has to go, "COME ON!"


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

slydog75 said:


> I find them both EXTREMELY annoying. Her because she's a royal ***** and treats her husband like S&^T and him because he lets her.


I watched this once out of morbid curiosity and then never again. Part of me thinks back to the dionne quintuplets and the circus their lives became. Frankly I find the idea of providing food and shelter for the kids by shamelessly exploiting them to be in very poor taste and seems like a awful thing for a parent to do. Most large families manage to deal with it without turning the kids into sideshow freaks.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

slydog75 said:


> I find them both EXTREMELY annoying. Her because she's a royal ***** and treats her husband like S&^T and him because he lets her.


I watch it and think the same thing. But I still watch it. Sometimes it is amusing and sometimes it isn't. I can always change the channel.


----------



## slydog75 (Jul 8, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I watched this once out of morbid curiosity and then never again. Part of me thinks back to the dionne quintuplets and the circus their lives became. Frankly I find the idea of providing food and shelter for the kids by shamelessly exploiting them to be in very poor taste and seems like a awful thing for a parent to do. Most large families manage to deal with it without turning the kids into sideshow freaks.


Ehh, I'm not so much bothered by that aspect of it. It doesn't appear that they're actually interfering with the kid's lives in any negative way. It's just THEM that bother me.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

I hate the idea of taking advantage of the kids and living off of them. It seems wrong, and I worry about the long-term issues the kids are going to have growing up as a spectacle.

(Caveat - I don't watch the show. Mainly because I don't like the premise.)


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

unicorngoddess said:


> No thank you!
> 
> Its just the part that REALLY bugs me is the unpreparedness through everything. Like i said, how could you not be prepared for worse case scenerio x 8 with that many kids? I know its suppose to make for good tv and all but the mom in me has to go, "COME ON!"


Just out of curiosity, how many kids do you have?

I don't have 8, but I can recall many, many instances when I was not prepared. Stuff happens. With eight kids a lot more stuff happens.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

The kid and I watched one show and that was enough. We couldnt' handle all the crying and whining. No thank you.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I caught part of this by accident recently. When I realized who these people were I turned it off.

The fertility treatments usually involve the "culling" of a number of fetuses so that the ones remaining in the womb are more likely to be viable. When told of that proceedure they said that it was "unnatural" My reaction was that the whole process was unnatural and that humans are not meant to have litters.

Having a bunch of kids is a choice but the vast majority of people have them one kid at a time.


----------



## Penny Lane (Dec 3, 2007)

wprager said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many kids do you have?
> 
> I don't have 8, but I can recall many, many instances when I was not prepared. Stuff happens. With eight kids a lot more stuff happens.


I'm with unicorngoddess on this one. How can you go to someplace like that and not carry wipes. Kids hands are always needing a wipe down.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

wprager said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many kids do you have?
> 
> I don't have 8, but I can recall many, many instances when I was not prepared. Stuff happens. With eight kids a lot more stuff happens.


With *3* kids I always had wipes. Heck, with 2 adult sons & 1 teenager I usually have wipes. 

I'm one of 9. My mom ALWAYS had wet-ones (that's what we called diaper wipes back in the day.  ) or a reasonable facsimile thereof available. The first time we went to Disney (1972) she had wet washcloths at the hotel, wrapped them in plastic wrap and then in tin foil and threw them in her purse.

I think 35 years later a mom of 8 should be able to figure that out. She also always had a few extra tshirts around - and with 8 kids, 6 of whom are essentially the same size? Throwing a couple of extra outfits in the diaper bag is a simple no-brainer.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

I like watching this show...whenever I have doubts about my parenting abilities (when the time comes) I just think that if Kate can handle 8, I can handle 1! 

On a side note, I watched a special where she was interviewed and mentioned that the pregnancy originally had 7 babies. I guess as the pregnancy progressed the 7th didn't make it. 

The show could have been Jon and Kate + 9!


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

DeeDee said:


> The show could have been Jon and Kate + 9!


I think the show should be called: "jon and kate are idiots and shouldn't be allowed to breed!" Sadly, no one asked my opinion.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

If all these kids are being raised on welfare and/or charity they should have had how ever many they can afford. Is that teaching the kids that they are entitled.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

I've watched a few episodes here and there. I don't care much to watch couples who don't really like each othe try and live together.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

so the married couple doesn't seem to like each other. Great. Another bad marriage held together by religion.

This family belongs or belonged to a Baptist denomination I used to belong to. They are pretty old fashioned and fundamentalist. Unlike the Catholic church which actually is against the form of fertility treatment they have, this church has not thought through the issue so I guess you can get litters.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

BeanMeScot said:


> I've watched a few episodes here and there. I don't care much to watch couples who don't really like each othe try and live together.


Why do you say that they don't like one another and try to live together?


----------



## waldingrl (Jan 19, 2005)

They crack me up.


----------



## Miller6988 (Jun 13, 2002)

She might be a bit *****y, but...


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

People just crack me up. People watch 1, 2, 3 episodes and they think they know everything about them. I've been watching for a while, and it seems like a normal family to me with more kids. I know that my wife and I don't always agree on everything, and we get into arguments. Seeing that this is a TV show, and they only have 1 hour a week they go for whatever will be most entertaining. 

To me they seem very involved with the kids, taking them all over the place doing family things. Recently they did a series on when they take the kids 1 at a time to places that the kids choose. Yes there are times where things are crazy... perhaps because there are 8 kids.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

DeeDee said:


> Why do you say that they don't like one another and try to live together?


Their entire attitude when talking to each other and to the camera.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> Their entire attitude when talking to each other and to the camera.


I don't get that same feeling...


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

Lopey said:


> I don't get that same feeling...


Same here...i think that they occassionally will snap at each, but I don't think anyone can really blame them. They have to be under tremendous stress with that many kids.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Out of curiosity, I finally watched a few eps of this. I agree that she sometimes treats him like crap, but I can see me being the same way with EIGHT KIDS and I felt dear old hubby wasn't helping as much as I thought he should. 

It's interesting. I will give it that. Just the mechanics of having to do/feed/prepare/bathe/watch that many kids and they try to make life fun - I do like that they seem to want to do things with them (i.e. take them places) because I imagine a lot of parents would just sit them in front of the TV and hope things go well (or I've been watching too much Nanny 911 lately). I mean, really, what SANE person would want to take 8 kids "big bed" shopping? Did they ever think that could go well? But they did it any way, because they wanted the kids to feel special. That takes a special kind of person.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i never watched this show but saw it was coming back may 25 

I had NO idea these folks lived down the road! I guess I need to keep more on top of the news


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

newsposter said:


> I had NO idea these folks lived down the road! I guess I need to keep more on top of the news


Yeah, especially the local news. Get with it, man!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

sushikitten said:


> It's interesting. I will give it that. Just the mechanics of having to do/feed/prepare/bathe/watch that many kids and they try to make life fun - I do like that they seem to want to do things with them (i.e. take them places) because I imagine a lot of parents would just sit them in front of the TV and hope things go well (or I've been watching too much Nanny 911 lately). I mean, really, what SANE person would want to take 8 kids "big bed" shopping? Did they ever think that could go well? But they did it any way, because they wanted the kids to feel special. That takes a special kind of person.


They do the stuff because it makes for interesting TV.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Show maybe more interesting now that Jon was caught with a 23 year old woman at 2 am while Kate was out of town.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

I can see why Jon is tapping the 3rd grade teacher. If I had to live with Kate for more than 10 minutes I would do the same.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

andyw715 said:


> I can see why Jon is tapping the 3rd grade teacher. If I had to live with Kate for more than 10 minutes I would do the same.


Or kill yourself.

She's just nasty.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

Havana Brown said:


> She's just nasty.


She really does have to be about the most horrible wife I have ever seen. I really, really, have to hope that some of it is a put on for TV, but after watching pretty much every episode I kind of doubt it.  Jon and the kids, even Mady, all deserve better.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> I've watched a few episodes here and there. I don't care much to watch couples who don't really like each othe try and live together.


Prophetic...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Wow. Another victim of the "reality show curse". Feel bad for all (10) of them... That's sad.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

geez now with these comments above it really makes me want to watch! She sounds pretty bad and i wouldnt be surprised if tlc has had to fence in their yard lol...i did read one article that they have a "body guard" when they go out.



MickeS said:


> Yeah, especially the local news. Get with it, man!


well if i had a decent news source, i wouldnt be so uninformed.

Maybe i can moonlight as paparazzi


----------



## Jeffho (Apr 8, 2004)

Apparently their family isn't too happy with the show either. Kate's brother and sister-in-law, both of whom I believe have been on the show numerous times. They were shown helping out with babysitting and the such. They say how their marriage is now for show and Jon has a contract with Kate to do as he pleases as long as he shows up for the show.



> Kate Gosselin gave husband Jon a contract saying he could date others as long as he showed up for filming of their hit reality show, Jon & Kate Plus Eight, her brother and sister-in-law Kevin and Jodi Kreider said in an explosive new interview, exclusively with RadarOnline.com.
> 
> Kate Gosselin has told Jon their relationship is over and they should begin dating others, according to Jodi Kreider. She said Kate had presented Jon with a contract that laid out the aforementioned circumstances in explicit detail. She said Jon was taken aback by Kate's bluntness in terminating the relationship.
> 
> ...


Here is a link to them being interviewed.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-new-interview-jon-kates-secret-marriage-contract


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

newsposter said:


> well if i had a decent news source, i wouldnt be so uninformed.


The Reading Eagle doesn't carry it?


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Jeffho said:


> Apparently their family isn't too happy with the show either. Kate's brother and sister-in-law, both of whom I believe have been on the show numerous times. They were shown helping out with babysitting and the such. They say how their marriage is now for show and Jon has a contract with Kate to do as he pleases as long as he shows up for the show.
> 
> Here is a link to them being interviewed.
> 
> http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-new-interview-jon-kates-secret-marriage-contract


That's not surprising to me at all. I'm glad I didn't watch one episode. It's sick to whore out your family for $$$. And even after you've destroyed your marriage, you put on a show to continue to get $$$.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Havana Brown said:


> The Reading Eagle doesn't carry it?


It's pretty surprising how much J+K stay below the radar locally. I recall something a few years ago when the 6 were born but since then they just don't do local news, I guess. They have no visible community involvement to speak of, and it's a bit interesting to see them portrayed among local landmarks that I'm familiar with, because other then the show you would not be aware of them at all.


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

Their big mistake is that they couldn't keep it quiet. It won't take long for the show to get pulled now. I'd be surprised if this isn't their last season. Right after they bought that big ass house too. Ouch.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

evaporated said:


> Their big mistake is that they couldn't keep it quiet. It won't take long for the show to get pulled now. I'd be surprised if this isn't their last season. Right after they bought that big ass house too. Ouch.


As soon as she handed Jon that contract it was over. There is no way he wasn't going to "get caught" and there was no way something like that was going to stay a secret. He should've kept it in his pants until the show was off the air. Now he's gonna have to get a "real job". Hope it was worth it.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

evaporated said:


> Their big mistake is that they couldn't keep it quiet. It won't take long for the show to get pulled now. I'd be surprised if this isn't their last season. Right after they bought that big ass house too. Ouch.


There was an article about them in a recent EW, and they mentioned they had considered pulling the plug on the show. I was just thinking "yeah right!". As if they would ever give up that income voluntarily.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

LlamaLarry said:


> She really does have to be about the most horrible wife I have ever seen. I really, really, have to hope that some of it is a put on for TV, but after watching pretty much every episode I kind of doubt it.  Jon and the kids, even Mady, all deserve better.


Maybe I am just disillusioned, but I don't think I would consider her the most horrible wife ever. I can imagine LOTS more horrible people out there. Is she perfect? Of course not. Is she whacked out? Certainly to some extent (and I am sure I would be a little nutso too with 8 kids). But the most horrible wife ever? Not by a long shot.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Havana Brown said:


> The Reading Eagle doesn't carry it?


game/set/match



pdhenry said:


> It's pretty surprising how much J+K stay below the radar locally. I recall something a few years ago when the 6 were born but since then they just don't do local news, I guess. They have no visible community involvement to speak of, and it's a bit interesting to see them portrayed among local landmarks that I'm familiar with, because other then the show you would not be aware of them at all.


Plus while i get understand you cant devote a column every day to them, you'd think i would have at least seen 1 or 2 articles a season on them to promote the local area. A search of a certain newspaper site shows only 19 hits total with their last name as a parameter and a few of them were duplicates.

maybe the Myerstown Herald has more 

and now that i know local stuff is in the show, almost makes me wanna watch!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

> Kate Gosselin gave husband Jon a contract saying he could date others as long as he showed up for filming of their hit reality show, Jon & Kate Plus Eight, her brother and sister-in-law Kevin and Jodi Kreider said in an explosive new interview, exclusively with RadarOnline.com.


I never even heard of these people until two weeks ago and have never watched an episode of this show. I just can't figure out who would want to date a soon to be divorced, married guy with eight young children who is a reality show star.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

I've watched bits and pieces here and there and I could tell before the whole being caught thing that they didn't get along. Just watch their body language. They'll sit on a couch and be on opposite ends. They'll cross their arms across their chest. They'll tilt their body to the outside of the couch instead of inside toward each other.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

How many episodes have there been? I heard that they get paid $50K per episode. Would it be worth it? Would you accept that kind of money to be on national TV?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Mars Rocket said:


> How many episodes have there been? I heard that they get paid $50K per episode. Would it be worth it? Would you accept that kind of money to be on national TV?


My count from tv.com shows there have been 93 episodes (two 10 ep seasons, a 32 ep season and a 41 ep season). Though, of course, they weren't getting $50k per for the entire run.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

on these kinds of shows. are there scripts or is the stuff 'real'

for 50K an ep, i may have to consider letting them into my house. It's a very decent amt of money for the area they live in to make in one year, much less a handful of eps


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

TLC is renaming the show Jon and Kate: Ingrate


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Havana Brown said:


> I've watched bits and pieces here and there and I could tell before the whole being caught thing that they didn't get along. Just watch their body language. They'll sit on a couch and be on opposite ends. They'll cross their arms across their chest. They'll tilt their body to the outside of the couch instead of inside toward each other.


That is what I was saying last year in this thread. I've never thought they got along.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

newsposter said:


> on these kinds of shows. are there scripts or is the stuff 'real'


I don't think it's "scripted" per se, but they do create situations that will be the basis for interesting episodes, rather than simply keep the cameras running 24/7 and hope that something interesting happens.


----------



## speaker city (Sep 28, 2005)

I've never sat down and watched an entire episode, but I'm familiar with the concept. A so-called Christian couple had a bunch of fertilized eggs put into the wife's uterus and were :SHOCKED: when more than one baby came out. Right away I have a problem because it's the so-call Christians in this country that rail against birth-control and embryonic stem-cell research because they consider it "playing god." But hey, Christianity and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand with each other. Then these 'Christians' whore out their kids to make a buck. I'm pretty sure the Fifth Commandment goes both ways.

This family is going to be in shambles and the parents will have no one to blame but themselves. These kids are not going to have happy lives. I'm predicting lots of drug use, crime, hardcore porn, and probably suicide in the future of these kids. Oh well, it will make for interesting television.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The shows are based on typical activities: The family goes to dutch wonderland (kiddie amusement park). The family goes to the pumpkin patch. The family paints the family room. The family goes on the Today Show. Etc.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

speaker city said:


> A so-called Christian couple had a bunch of fertilized eggs put into the wife's uterus...


FWIW, there's little to no prosteletizing on J&K+8. I understand she may have "got religion" but it's not really an aspect of the show (as it is, to a greater extent, on 17 Kids & Counting, but there the parents have done it themselves without help).


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Also, they didn't "put fertilized eggs into the wife's uterus." They used a fertility treatment, but not that one.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

speaker city said:


> I've never sat down and watched an entire episode, but I'm familiar with the concept. A so-called Christian couple had a bunch of fertilized eggs put into the wife's uterus and were :SHOCKED: when more than one baby came out. Right away I have a problem because it's the so-call Christians in this country that rail against birth-control and embryonic stem-cell research because they consider it "playing god." But hey, Christianity and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand with each other. Then these 'Christians' whore out their kids to make a buck. I'm pretty sure the Fifth Commandment goes both ways.
> 
> This family is going to be in shambles and the parents will have no one to blame but themselves. These kids are not going to have happy lives. I'm predicting lots of drug use, crime, hardcore porn, and probably suicide in the future of these kids. Oh well, it will make for interesting television.


That's quite the presumptive post. From what little I've seen of the show, there is no mention of religion at all. And I don't recall seeing any mention of religion in this thread either. So to turn it into a Christian-bashing opportunity seems pretty intolerant of you.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

With all the pub they have gotten lately for their marriage issues, I am hooked. I set up a pass and have been watching every episode I can. I think the show is kind of funny. Their marriage is a bit dysfunctional, but the kids crack me up, and I am just amazed at all the logistical challenges you have to undertake when you have that many kids.

Like someone who complained because they drove the kids to Disney World. I already saw them take one plan trip, it is a massive undertaking, to take all of them on the plane, so I suspect in a lot of cases going by land driven vehicle is the only sensible choice. I also admire that Kate actually wants the kids to try and have some normal exposure and kid experiences that they often might be denied just because it is so unwieldy with that number of small children all the time. I don't like everything about them, but I find the whole thing very interesting.

As for that initial blog berating the guy, I do think they have to be careful and think beyond the tv show. However, it is not stupid for someone to devote their efforts to maximizing their energy to get the most of out something that brings in 100s of thousands and millions of dollars of revenue. It would be like someone telling a guy he is crazy for leaving his job to help manage the million dollar family business. On what planet is that crazy?


----------



## speaker city (Sep 28, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> there is no mention of religion at all.


O RLY??

Kate Gosselin: "Bible-Believing Christian" Who Hopes To Inspire Moms

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/fame...christian-quot-who-hopes-to-inspire-moms.aspx

I don't care if their religion is part of the show or not. You don't get to protest against science like birth-control and stem-cell research one day, then use science to get pregnant the next.

And yeah, I'll take any oppurtunity I can get to expose organized religion for the detriment to society that it is.


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

aindik said:


> Also, they didn't "put fertilized eggs into the wife's uterus." They used a fertility treatment, but not that one.


Correct. It was Intra-Uterine Insemination (IUI). I've never seen it addressed if Clomid was also used.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Sneak preview of the season opener http://tlc.discovery.com/videos/jon-kate-plus-8-season-premiere-sneak-peek.html



Spoiler



Interesting that they have separate interviews, normally they are together. I wonder if their lives thru the season will be this way, interacting only as necessary to raise the kids


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

firerose818 said:


> Correct. It was Intra-Uterine Insemination (IUI). I've never seen it addressed if Clomid was also used.


IUI, by itself, doesn't increase the risk of multiples. There had to have been drugs involved.


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

aindik said:


> IUI, by itself, doesn't increase the risk of multiples. There had to have been drugs involved.


That's what I figured in order to get seven eggs fertilized (they have said one embryo died early on).


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

speaker city said:


> And yeah, I'll take any oppurtunity I can get to expose organized religion for the detriment to society that it is.


LOL That is funny. You can isolate some idiots, but taking a few individuals and declaring all organized religions a detriment is inane.

Ignorning all the good, organized religion does is pretty foolish IMO. There are some pretty awesome charities that are religious in nature. And of course there are some great non-religious based ones as well. But if you are going to make blanket statements, at least try to be unbiased.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

whitson77 said:


> But if you are going to make blanket statements, at least try to be unbiased.


Isn't that an oxymoron?


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> Isn't that an oxymoron?


Yeah, I like it. 

All TCF member are respectful and thoughtful.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

JoBeth66 said:


> I hate the idea of taking advantage of the kids and living off of them. It seems wrong, and I worry about the long-term issues the kids are going to have growing up as a spectacle.
> 
> (Caveat - I don't watch the show. Mainly because I don't like the premise.)


It is kind of hard to be part of sextuplets and not have a pretty out of the ordinary expereince growing up, regardless of tv cameras. I actually give the parents credit because they actually do try to do things that normal kids and families do, and that other children who have grown up in similar circumstances have often done with out.

From the dozen or so episodes I have seen so far, it seems like the children are having a pretty extraordinary childhood. Not to mention the cameras are not there 365 days a year.



BeanMeScot said:


> I've watched a few episodes here and there. I don't care much to watch couples who don't really like each othe try and live together.


I think more people need to see that sometimes every day in married world is not hunky dory, and even at times when you are at odds you have to work at it, and it can be hard and not every day is going to be your best friend waking up next to you.. but you still have to work at it.

As for this contract stuff, that is too bad but even without that I think it is pretty much impossible for the to get divorced. It just seems like it would be totally unmanageable. Are you going to have two places to house 8 children? Visitation all the rest. I think they are stuck with each other until the kids are grown up.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

latrobe7 said:


> Isn't that an oxymoron?


No, blanket statements and bias have nothing to do with each other.

"All water is wet"


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Mars Rocket said:


> No, blanket statements and bias have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> "All water is wet"


Sure they do. A blanket statement means that every instance of "x" is "y". That indicates a pretty strong bias toward "y".

Saying "All water is wet" shows a very strong bias toward the determination that water is wet, as opposed to the idea (as absurd as it may be) that "All water is dry", or that "Some water is dry; if one considers ice 'water'.".


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

bareyb said:


> As soon as she handed Jon that contract it was over. There is no way he wasn't going to "get caught" and there was no way something like that was going to stay a secret. He should've kept it in his pants until the show was off the air. Now he's gonna have to get a "real job". Hope it was worth it.


Considering that before he left his full-time employment to stay home for the show, he was making less than $40k and was an "IT Analyst", I'm guessing that it will be pretty hard to make enough money that will support himself living alone going forward PLUS all that child-support. I know that in Texas, for the first child, it's 22.5% after tax income that goes to child support. For each additional child, it's 7.5% (these are based on figures from the late 90s; this could have changed in the past 10 years). I'm not sure how that is figured when you have so many children to support, but JEEZUS, that's going to be a fat payment every month. Add that to the fact that he's been out of his working element for a while now, and I'm guessing he's going to have to take a step backward in order to go forward. That's just the way it is with the IT industry.



cheesesteak said:


> I never even heard of these people until two weeks ago and have never watched an episode of this show. I just can't figure out who would want to date a soon to be divorced, married guy with eight young children who is a reality show star.


No kidding. He's cute, but he ain't *that* cute.



Mars Rocket said:


> How many episodes have there been? I heard that they get paid $50K per episode. Would it be worth it? Would you accept that kind of money to be on national TV?


I have to admit, if someone wanted to give me $50k _per episode_ to follow me around and video my mundane life for TV, I'd take it.



speaker city said:


> I've never sat down and watched an entire episode, but I'm familiar with the concept. A so-called Christian couple had a bunch of fertilized eggs put into the wife's uterus and were :SHOCKED: when more than one baby came out. Right away I have a problem because it's the so-call Christians in this country that rail against birth-control and embryonic stem-cell research because they consider it "playing god." But hey, Christianity and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand with each other. Then these 'Christians' whore out their kids to make a buck. I'm pretty sure the Fifth Commandment goes both ways.
> 
> This family is going to be in shambles and the parents will have no one to blame but themselves. These kids are not going to have happy lives. *I'm predicting lots of drug use, crime, hardcore porn, and probably suicide in the future of these kids. *Oh well, it will make for interesting television.


Wow, I would have never said that. Yes, their life is odd and the fact that it's broadcast pretty much 24/7 has to be a strain on the life of this family. But if you have ever watched the episodes, you'd know that those kids are pretty well-adjusted, and I'd have to say they are better behaved than most of the kids I come in contact with on a regular basis. The only brat is Maddy, and she hasn't really done anything to indicate that she's going to turn into a suicidal crack-whore on the run in a few years.



pdhenry said:


> FWIW, there's little to no prosteletizing on J&K+8. I understand she may have "got religion" but it's not really an aspect of the show (as it is, to a greater extent, on 17 Kids & Counting, but there the parents have done it themselves without help).


Um, that's 18 kids and counting. 



DevdogAZ said:


> That's quite the presumptive post. From what little I've seen of the show, there is no mention of religion at all. And I don't recall seeing any mention of religion in this thread either. So to turn it into a Christian-bashing opportunity seems pretty intolerant of you.


Um, that's not exactly true. There are bible verses taped on index cards throughout their house. They don't hide them. They are everywhere. If you pay attention, you'll see that.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Just saw an ad for the new season which starts on Monday. It looks like they are going to run with the "marital problems" theme. I'm ashamed to admit, I set up an SP just to see what all the noise is about, so perhaps I played right into their hands... Now I'm starting to wonder if this isn't all just a setup to get better ratings.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I like the show. I don't agree with everything I see, and
I don't necessarily agree that having the show is "whore-ing" out the kids. If it allows them to have a better life, what is the harm? One thing seems to shine thru all the BS. There is a lot of genuine love in their family. If that is staged, they are the best 8 kid actors in the universe.

One other thing:
I think the fact I tuned it in out of curiosity (from this thread originally) and stayed with it- says much about the quality of entertainment offered to television audiences today.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

speaker city said:


> I've never sat down and watched an entire episode, but I'm familiar with the concept. A so-called Christian couple had a bunch of fertilized eggs put into the wife's uterus and were :SHOCKED: when more than one baby came out. Right away I have a problem because it's the so-call Christians in this country that rail against birth-control and embryonic stem-cell research because they consider it "playing god." But hey, Christianity and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand with each other. Then these 'Christians' whore out their kids to make a buck. I'm pretty sure the Fifth Commandment goes both ways.
> 
> This family is going to be in shambles and the parents will have no one to blame but themselves. These kids are not going to have happy lives. I'm predicting lots of drug use, crime, hardcore porn, and probably suicide in the future of these kids. Oh well, it will make for interesting television.


As far as I know only Catholicism (of the "big" ones) has an issue with _birth control_, although abortion as a method of birth control is pretty much universally panned.

Actually, the Fifth does not go both ways. At least not in the original form. It is expanded upon in Ephesians, though, where it says "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord". Maybe that's what you meant.

And did you ever stop to think that, perhaps, doing this show is the only way they can afford some of the things they would otherwise not be able to afford? Like going to Disney World, or that nice, big house, or food. It may not be a choice you would make, but it's their choice. I'm sure the CAS is well aware of this show and, if there had been any indication of improper treatment they would have been in touch.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

evaporated said:


> Um, that's not exactly true. There are bible verses taped on index cards throughout their house. They don't hide them. They are everywhere. If you pay attention, you'll see that.


Yes, you may see them if you pay VERY close attention, but they never say anything about them or read them...


----------



## Steeler Mike (May 5, 2005)

bareyb said:


> Just saw an ad for the new season which starts on Monday. It looks like they are going to run with the "marital problems" theme. I'm ashamed to admit, I set up an SP just to see what all the noise is about, so perhaps I played right into their hands... Now I'm starting to wonder if this isn't all just a setup to get better ratings.


You set up a SP for J&K+8???? Report to the nearest man station & turn in your man card immediately! :down:


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Steeler Mike said:


> You set up a SP for J&K+8???? Report to the nearest man station & turn in your man card immediately! :down:


I know... I _did_ say I was "ashamed to admit it". It's just kind of morbid curiosity at this point.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

sushikitten said:


> Yes, you may see them if you pay VERY close attention, but they never say anything about them or read them...


Yeah but she does have a book coming out with the children's favorite bible verses in it.


----------



## Martyp (Jan 6, 2004)

I allway liked at the end of the show they allways leaned away from each other.

She loves to cross her arms and ***** a lot


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i have what i guess, under forum rules, has to be considered spoiler information on an upcoming show...who would have thunk me with such information lol 

today my gf came back from a place where kate was yesterday and told me



Spoiler



The place is the bell tower spa. the manicurist told her that Kate was there yesterday getting filmed and there was a guy from american chopper there too. Unsure who it was or why they would pick someone for a guest on a show that's supposed to be about her?? Kate was all *****y and complained that real customers were in the spa and she thought she should be the only one that should have been there for a treatment. Overall the employees did not get a good impression of her 



SP set!:up: cant miss this local action and drama


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> Maybe I am just disillusioned, but I don't think I would consider her the most horrible wife ever. I can imagine LOTS more horrible people out there. Is she perfect? Of course not. Is she whacked out? Certainly to some extent (and I am sure I would be a little nutso too with 8 kids). But the most horrible wife ever? Not by a long shot.


I agree with this. She is very controlling, but given her circumstances, I'm not sure her life would work if she wasn't. She doesn't have two or three kids, she has eight, with six the same age. That means to be a successful parent, you have to be pretty regimented with your time. Getting them anywhere can take hours - washing 8 faces, having 8 kids brush teeth, putting on shoes, making sure they go to the bathroom - it's a lot more time-consuming then non parents can imagine, times 8. If you don't have a regimented schedule, it won't work.

Look at octomom - way worse parent and her older kids can't even get to school on time - or at all.

Jon seems like a nice, relaxed guy who lets Kate do all the hard work. He kind of acts like one of the kids, rather than her partner. It's all just flexible to him - he ignores naptime, lets them stay up too late and then Kate has to deal with the consequences. So, because she is strict and controlling, part due to her nature but part due to her circumstances - and because he's irresponsible but charming and nice, people naturally dislike her rather than realize they have a bad dynamic going on. Jon needs to man up and be a disciplinarian more and then maybe she would be able to relax a bit more and they'd achieve some balance.

I don't believe that contract story for a second. But, I do believe their marriage is in serious trouble due to both of them, and if they don't turn the cameras off and work on it, it's doomed. I guess at this point, all of their money comes from the show, but they should have enough put aside to make it work and just do a yearly special again.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Well I finally got a chance to see the show and I actually kind of like Kate. Maybe I'm weird but I think she's okay. She kind of reminds me of my wife so maybe I'm just partial to that particular brand of "the crazy" but she seems perfectly normal to me under their circumstances. Yes, they take little shots at each other, and yes she does tend to finish his sentences, but really that's just standard married stuff that's common in a lot of marriages. You learn to let it go in one ear and out the other if you're lucky.  

I do think it's funny when HE cuts her off and then she flips her lid. I guess it's easier to see faults in others than in yourself. 

The show is actually pretty good and I plan to start watching it. So I guess my man card is gone for good. I think the kids are really cute and smart and very well behaved considering they outnumber the parents four to one. I'm curious to see the season opener which I believe starts tonight.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Spoiler



Well the season premiere was tonight, and Jon so wants out of his marriage it is not even funny. Seems Kate wants to keep things together to continue to maximize their revenue stream but that is about it. I would not be surprised if this was the last season of the show.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Would be helpful if you gave some idea about what your spoiler is so people can decide to read it or not.


----------



## slydog75 (Jul 8, 2004)

Bryanmc said:


> Would be helpful if you gave some idea about what your spoiler is so people can decide to read it or not.


The season premiere was on last night. Pretty good chance it's about that.


----------



## Ekims (Oct 18, 2002)

I just wonder if some of this isn't just a publicity stunt gone a little too far...


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Are we allowed to talk about the season premier or does it need a new thread to talk without spoilers?


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Whomever he cheated with (so say the media), I hope she's infertile and hot. Kate is pure evil.


----------



## Nina108 (May 5, 2004)

I also thought it might have been a publicity stunt, but having watched this show from the beginning I highly doubt it. They both love their kids way too much to do this to them. Even if they don't know about this now, one day they will. It is just a sad situation all the way around.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

No way this is a publicity stunt. I feel bad for them - families in turmoil is never a good thing.


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

How did LAST Season end and how much time spanned between the two? 
Wonder if you could see the demise happening then to now.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

The last season ended with them moving into a new house. Things were "normal" for them as far as I could tell. I think the cheating allegations started right after that.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Last season ended with a cryptic interview where Jon said, without saying, that he really doesn't want to keep doing the show but Kate does. The allegations starting to surface back then were that he was photographed out partying with younger women, and the excuse at the time was that they were fans of the show who wanted pictures with him. He said he was getting annoyed being famous - he wanted to just "be Jon," not "Jon & Kate Plus 8."


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

bareyb said:


> I know... I _did_ say I was "ashamed to admit it". It's just kind of morbid curiosity at this point.


Your love of MMA balances it out


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

Jon has a creepy look to him. He looks like the guy who was on TV a few months ago who had a sex change operation (male pregnancy).


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

My wife watches this show all the time, and I've caught quite a bit of them over the years.

We both watched the premiere last night and I found it to be very, very sad. Impossible to know what's going on behind the scenes but it sure looks like Jon needs to grow up a bit and get it in gear.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Bryanmc said:


> My wife watches this show all the time, and I've caught quite a bit of them over the years.
> 
> We both watched the premiere last night and I found it to be very, very sad. Impossible to know what's going on behind the scenes but it sure looks like Jon needs to grow up a bit and get it in gear.


I think people may forget that there are allegations out there about Kate and her bodyguard. Just because there are no photos doesn't mean it didn't happen. She is so intent on becoming a star that she does not want this to ruin her chances. Easier to blame Jon then have to take the blame yourself.

As for Jon 'growing up', he is the one at home the majority of the time while she is out being a 'star'. Taking care of 8 kids seems pretty grown up to me.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Wonder how long until these 2 make an appearance on Dr. Phil to 'work things out'?


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

Martyp said:


> I allway liked at the end of the show they allways leaned away from each other.
> 
> She loves to cross her arms and ***** a lot


The body language on both is pretty easy to read!



newsposter said:


> today my gf came back from a place where kate was yesterday and told me


gf? Dude, I thought you were married.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

flyers088 said:


> I think people may forget that there are allegations out there about Kate and her bodyguard. Just because there are no photos doesn't mean it didn't happen. She is so intent on becoming a star that she does not want this to ruin her chances. Easier to blame Jon then have to take the blame yourself.
> 
> As for Jon 'growing up', he is the one at home the majority of the time while she is out being a 'star'. Taking care of 8 kids seems pretty grown up to me.


Did you watch the premiere? Again, we don't know what's really going on but that show sure seemed clear it was Jon's actions causing the problems. He even basically admitted that.

I think the Kate/bodyguard thing is bogus.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

I don't know from nothin' here, just what I've seen on this thread and on the news.

If I were the bodyguard I think I'd be crapping my pants right about now though, I bet he thought he was getting a nice little piece on the side and that would be the end of it. Now he's probably running scared, thinking she'll want him to be her new baby daddy x 8.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Bryanmc said:


> Did you watch the premiere? Again, we don't know what's really going on but that show sure seemed clear it was Jon's actions causing the problems. He even basically admitted that.
> 
> I think the Kate/bodyguard thing is bogus.


Why do you believe Jon over Kate? Jon just doesn't run around acting like an ****** about her. I am sure Kate would silence any rumors because she wants a talk show of her own. I am sure she threatened Jon to keep him quite about her and just focus on him.

Interesting to see local news reports where former workers and patients have no sympathy for Kate because she has expressed interest for years about wanting to be famous and now she is getting exactly what she wanted. I am not sure Kate cares if it costs her Jon. Looking at next weeks previews it looks as if Kate has no interest in working on the marriage.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Truman Story, its all fake.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

flyers088 said:


> Why do you believe Jon over Kate?


What do you mean? I don't believe one over the other, it just appeared from the show (again, who really knows the truth) that Jon was admitting to bad decisions and he was the one deciding to pull away.

Who knows why this has happened or what drove him to it, of course it's never one sided, but I didn't get the impression that SHE'D done something to cause the rift (like cheating).

Jon said something like, "One day my kids are going to Google me and I'll have to explain myself."


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> What do you mean? I don't believe one over the other, it just appeared from the show (again, who really knows the truth) that Jon was admitting to bad decisions and he was the one deciding to pull away.
> 
> Who knows why this has happened or what drove him to it, of course it's never one sided, but I didn't get the impression that SHE'D done something to cause the rift (like cheating).


Kate belittled and berated him regularly, right there on national television. It was obvious that he didn't enjoy it, nor was it merely humorous banter on her part; she bordered on contempt in many cases. That doesn't justify cheating, but it can certainly drive someone away. If he's trying to escape from something, I think it's that poisonous relationship dynamic more than anything.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

dcheesi said:


> Kate belittled and berated him regularly, right there on national television. It was obvious that he didn't enjoy it, nor was it merely humorous banter on her part; she bordered on contempt in many cases. That doesn't justify cheating, but it can certainly drive someone away. If he's trying to escape from something, I think it's that poisonous relationship dynamic more than anything.


Sure, everyone knows about how she treated him but that seems to be a different thing than what's happened lately. Some action was taken, something happened which has caused this potential breakup.

She may have pushed him to being unhappy but that's different than someone cheating, if that actually happened.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Bryanmc said:


> Sure, everyone knows about how she treated him but that seems to be a different thing than what's happened lately. Some action was taken, something happened which has caused this potential breakup.
> 
> She may have pushed him to being unhappy but that's different than someone cheating, if that actually happened.


If we're discussing why Jon decided he wanted to leave Kate, her treatment of him is certainly a factor. What happened lately is, he decided he wanted out.

I'm sure he has people who watch the show telling him what a shrew his wife is and how he's less of a man because he lets her treat him like that.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> Sure, everyone knows about how she treated him but that seems to be a different thing than what's happened lately. Some action was taken, something happened which has caused this potential breakup.
> 
> She may have pushed him to being unhappy but that's different than someone cheating, if that actually happened.


I suppose; I don't watch the show regularly enough to comment on all the little twists and turns. But I could tell from just a couple of interview scenes that their basic dynamic was: 1) She criticizes/berates him, and 2) rather than defending himself, he slumps moodily in the corner and dreams of escape. I don't think it really took anything more than that to drive him into inappropriate behavior, given enough time & pressure. After all, what is a romantic "fling" if not escapism?


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Bryanmc said:


> What do you mean? I don't believe one over the other, it just appeared from the show (again, who really knows the truth) that Jon was admitting to bad decisions and he was the one deciding to pull away.
> 
> Who knows why this has happened or what drove him to it, of course it's never one sided, but I didn't get the impression that SHE'D done something to cause the rift (like cheating).
> 
> Jon said something like, "One day my kids are going to Google me and I'll have to explain myself."


Kate said something like "They are not going to take me down with that stuff" referring to the rumors about her and the bodyguard. At least Jon has owned up to 'wrong place, wrong time' in his judgment. Kate admits to nothing in order to keep her celebrity prospects up. I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle with both of them but I am not ready to absolve Kate of all blame.

What gets me is that if all the reports from both are true that Jon/Kate did not cheat then what is the real issue here between them. Is it just that they have grown into 2 different people over their fame and have grown apart or ???

If he/she truly was cheating and this is just a marriage to keep the show going I truly feel sorry for both of them.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

The fact that she wanted him to sign a contract stating he would show up to the show, depicts what kind of character she has. Her past treatment of her husband shows what kind of character she has. Doing a book tour for 21 out of 29 days, shows that she puts $$$ above family. And all the other numerous things she has done to her parents, and relatives. 

However, even if she is a pretty horrible person that doesn't excuse cheating. That said, greed and egos pretty much destroyed their family. But both sides of the marriage share plenty of blame.

I don't know if Kate cheated, and I don't care. They both are horrible parents in my opinion. I don't watch the show, but I've read enough to know that I don't need to watch these people. I'd rather spend my time doing something more productive than watching two complete idiots. What blows my mind, is everyone that watches the show thinks Kate is total B. Why watch a reality show about a total B treating her family like crap? That I don't get. But I am sure a lot of people threw up when the watched Legend Of the Seeker and I love that show.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

View of the show from Kate's brother.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5042669n


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

+1 to bareyb's analysis two posts above. Excellent analysis, one of the best I've read. (and I've read about 100)


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I haven't seen any of the shows from the first season, I don't think, but in what I have seen, it's never seemed to me that Jon & Kate liked each other terribly much. Some couples bicker a lot but it is good-natured in tone. Or they argue but they make up and seem closer. J&K just seem like they have a lot of contempt for one another on a fundamental level that never goes away. She yells at him and belittles him; he rolls his eyes at whatever she says. I read somewhere that contempt was the best predictor of a marriage failing and I see a lot of it in their interactions. 

I don't know what is really going on with them, of course, but it certainly wouldn't surprize me to hear that they've been faking it (for some combination of the kids and the cameras) for a long while now. It's a sad situation all around.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

Ruth said:


> I haven't seen any of the shows from the first season, I don't think, but in what I have seen, it's never seemed to me that Jon & Kate liked each other terribly much. Some couples bicker a lot but it is good-natured in tone. Or they argue but they make up and seem closer. J&K just seem like they have a lot of contempt for one another on a fundamental level that never goes away. She yells at him and belittles him; he rolls his eyes at whatever she says. I read somewhere that contempt was the best predictor of a marriage failing and I see a lot of it in their interactions.
> 
> I don't know what is really going on with them, of course, but it certainly wouldn't surprize me to hear that they've been faking it (for some combination of the kids and the cameras) for a long while now. It's a sad situation all around.


Well said. That's more or less what I've been trying to get at in my recent posts, but I wasn't able to express it that well.


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

sushikitten said:


> Yes, you may see them if you pay VERY close attention, but they never say anything about them or read them...


I think they are careful to not talk about their specific religion, but Kate does talk about praying a lot, and before her tummy tuck, she and Jon were hugging and praying on camera. Also, they sometimes wear t-shirts that look A&F-ish, but are really bible verses.



sushikitten said:


> The last season ended with them moving into a new house. Things were "normal" for them as far as I could tell. I think the cheating allegations started right after that.


The one thing that I remember about the season finale was that Jon bought a shower head at Bed Bath & Beyond and didn't use a coupon, and they showed a 5-minute clip of her chewing him out because he couldn't find the receipt to take the shower head back and re-purchase it with the coupon.

Overall, she's too controlling for my laid-back nature, but I still think that they are both really great parents to their kids.


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

evaporated said:


> I still think that they are both really great parents to their kids.


Yeah. Inviting the cameras and media circus into their lives really nail that point home. NOT! Those kids must deal with so much stuff at school. Exploiting your children does NOT make for good parents.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Here's a question: What happens when these kids reach adulthood? Do they simply fade into the woodwork and become average citizens, or do they become paparazzi fodder like the Olson twins?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Here's a question: What happens when these kids reach adulthood? Do they simply fade into the woodwork and become average citizens, or do they become paparazzi fodder like the Olson twins?


The Olson twins aren't just paparazzi fodder. They're also billionaires. They've continued to be in show biz long after they had the option to get out.

They're on a reality show. They'll do whatever it is that most other people who are on a reality show do five or ten years after the show is over.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> The Olson twins aren't just paparazzi fodder. They're also billionaires. They've continued to be in show biz long after they had the option to get out.
> 
> They're on a reality show. They'll do whatever it is that most other people who are on a reality show do five or ten years after the show is over.


I realize that the Olson twins aren't just trading on their Full House gig. But there's something about child stars that attracts the entertainment press when they come of age. It will be interesting to see what happens, especially if this show goes for a couple more years and the family becomes fairly wealthy and the kids' individual personalities start to emerge more.


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

NatasNJ said:


> Yeah. Inviting the cameras and media circus into their lives really nail that point home. NOT! Those kids must deal with so much stuff at school. Exploiting your children does NOT make for good parents.


I agree with you to an extent. But they've hit the lottery. There comes a breaking point when I would allow cameras in my home to follow my mundane life for 3 days per week if they gave me $50,000 *per episode*. Do you know how much it would cost to put 8 kids through college in 13 years? A FARK load.

They may be making some bad decisions with regard to their kids, but let's face it. Those kids are loved, safe, healthy, and presumably happy. I'd say to have 8 kids, that's a pretty impressive feat for 2 pretty ordinary people of originally little means.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> View of the show from Kate's brother.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5042669n


Interesting. I have probably seen half of the episodes in the past week or so, and I didn't pick up on her missing because I was watching episodes out of order., They seem to have very strong feelings about this, and I think they are right on the money with most of them.

I think there probably will need to be some legislation, ultimately, to protect children on reality shows, like they ended up doing with the Jackie Coogan law to protect young actors.

I suspect Jon and Kate will not be talking to her brother much at all any more, after they get wind of that, but to me it seems like they were coming from a place of real concern.


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

evaporated said:


> I agree with you to an extent. But they've hit the lottery. There comes a breaking point when I would allow cameras in my home to follow my mundane life for 3 days per week if they gave me $50,000 *per episode*. Do you know how much it would cost to put 8 kids through college in 13 years? A FARK load.
> 
> They may be making some bad decisions with regard to their kids, but let's face it. Those kids are loved, safe, healthy, and presumably happy. I'd say to have 8 kids, that's a pretty impressive feat for 2 pretty ordinary people of originally little means.


Lets see how these kids cope in the world when they get older. Hopefully fine but my guess is this massive introduction to fame and starhood tends to end bad for most people. Or at least most have trying times.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

marksman said:


> Interesting. I have probably seen half of the episodes in the past week or so, and I didn't pick up on her missing because I was watching episodes out of order., They seem to have very strong feelings about this, and I think they are right on the money with most of them.
> 
> I think there probably will need to be some legislation, ultimately, to protect children on reality shows, like they ended up doing with the Jackie Coogan law to protect young actors.
> 
> I suspect Jon and Kate will not be talking to her brother much at all any more, after they get wind of that, but to me it seems like they were coming from a place of real concern.


Depending on what you choose to believe the reason you don't see them anymore is that TLC wanted to pay them since they were on the show so much and Kate flat out refused to let them be paid. She said only her and the kids get paid for the show.

I am sure it is hard to separate who is there for the kids and who is there for the money but Jodi was always there from the beginning so it was hard to see them being there for the money. Jodi blogged about the incident in the past not sure if it has been taken down but that was the jist of what I remembered from the blog.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

evaporated said:


> Do you know how much it would cost to put 8 kids through college in 13 years? A FARK load.


Something tells me they don't have to worry about how to pay for those kids to go to college. When I was in school, they loved when twins and triplets applied...those kids would get thrown money at them to attend. I guess there is some sort of positive stigma of having multiples attend a school. When the time comes, I bet schools will be falling all over themselves to get those sextuplets to attend there school.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

There's been a lot of talk about college costs. Are we just assuming that sending the kids to college is a priority here because that's what WE would want to do, or is that something that J&K have actually talked about? (I haven't seen all the eps so I may have missed it.) Seems like it's possible that is just not a priority in this family. Neither John nor Kate has a college degree. And every time I watch it strikes me that I don't see many books in the house or anybody reading to the kids.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ruth said:


> There's been a lot of talk about college costs. Are we just assuming that sending the kids to college is a priority here because that's what WE would want to do, or is that something that J&K have actually talked about? (I haven't seen all the eps so I may have missed it.) Seems like it's possible that is just not a priority in this family. Neither John nor Kate has a college degree. And every time I watch it strikes me that I don't see many books in the house or anybody reading to the kids.


Kate was a nurse. She doesn't have a college degree?

Reading to the kids is boring TV.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

aindik said:


> Kate was a nurse. She doesn't have a college degree?
> 
> Reading to the kids is boring TV.


I googled it and apparently she has some sort of nursing degree that does not require an undergraduate degree. (I was surprised as well, didn't think that was possible.) My source is weak though.

Good point on the reading as boring TV. Well, it would be if they all sat still and listened, but what are the chances of that?  You'd think family movie night would be boring too but they made a show out of that.

You're totally right though that we have no idea what happens when the cameras aren't there. But still, we do see a lot of daily-life stuff and views of the rooms in the house and lots of bikes, toys, etc. and I just haven't seen a lot of books in the house. (I did see two of the little ones fighting over a book once, so there's at least one!) Of course, many people go to college who aren't readers, so it may not be super relevant at all.

I just think it's possible we might be projecting our priorities onto them with the college thing. It's also possible that they are just way too busy to think that far ahead!!!


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

DeeDee said:


> Something tells me they don't have to worry about how to pay for those kids to go to college. When I was in school, they loved when twins and triplets applied...those kids would get thrown money at them to attend. I guess there is some sort of positive stigma of having multiples attend a school. When the time comes, I bet schools will be falling all over themselves to get those sextuplets to attend there school.


Really? That surprises me some.

If I ran the college I wouldn't let someone in for just that reason.

There is a DREW University, btw. I still need a sweatshirt from them.


----------



## Alpinemaps (Jul 26, 2004)

I watched part of the premiere the other day, but had to delete it after about 20 minutes. I've watched the show for awhile, and now I'm just watching for the 'train wreck' aspect (I'll admit it).

What got me was were Kate said 'why are [the paparazzi] following me? Why don't they go follow that mom over there?'

Because, Kate - that mom over there isn't making a national television show. Just coming off as 'not getting it' really irritates me.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Alpinemaps said:


> I watched part of the premiere the other day, but had to delete it after about 20 minutes. I've watched the show for awhile, and now I'm just watching for the 'train wreck' aspect (I'll admit it).
> 
> What got me was were Kate said 'why are [the paparazzi] following me? Why don't they go follow that mom over there?'
> 
> Because, Kate - that mom over there isn't making a national television show. Just coming off as 'not getting it' really irritates me.


I agree. It's lines like that make me gag, and it's lines like that that make me think she really isn't as angry ("look at me, I'm really really angry") as she says she is during the interviews.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

Ruth said:


> I googled it and apparently she has some sort of nursing degree that does not require an undergraduate degree. (I was surprised as well, didn't think that was possible.) My source is weak though.





Poogie said:


> Most likely an Licensed Praactical Nurse (LPN). Also known aa a Licesned Vocational Nurse (LVN) in some states. They only require one year of education and their scope of care and responsibility is less than that of an RN.


Probably not a nursing degree, just a diploma and a nursing license. You can get an RN license through a training program just like you can a LPN or LVN license, it just takes a little longer. No bachelor's degree (BSN) needed. (In Virginia, that is. I'm not sure about other states.)


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The Pennsylvania Department of Labor said that it is looking into whether the hit reality show "Jon & Kate Plus 8" is complying with child labor laws.

http://www.wgal.com/entertainment/19601967/detail.html

Not much more info than that at the link


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

There is a thread for the premiere specifically - please confine your comments on it to that one. Thanks.


----------



## evaporated (Nov 20, 2007)

DeeDee said:


> Something tells me they don't have to worry about how to pay for those kids to go to college. When I was in school, they loved when twins and triplets applied...those kids would get thrown money at them to attend. I guess there is some sort of positive stigma of having multiples attend a school. When the time comes, I bet schools will be falling all over themselves to get those sextuplets to attend there school.


I think with the advances in medicine and fertility treatments, mulitples are a lot more common now than when you and I were in college, and that it's not that easy to get accepted with scholarships on a novelty basis anymore.

That being said, sextuplets *is *probaby still a novelty that universities may want!


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

Looks like they'll be getting competition

http://growingyourbaby.com/2009/01/27/masche-sextuplets-to-star-in-raising-sextuplets/


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

Havana Brown said:


> Looks like they'll be getting competition
> 
> http://growingyourbaby.com/2009/01/27/masche-sextuplets-to-star-in-raising-sextuplets/


Can you say "divorce"?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

evaporated said:


> I think with the advances in medicine and fertility treatments, mulitples are a lot more common now than when you and I were in college, and that it's not that easy to get accepted with scholarships on a novelty basis anymore.
> 
> That being said, sextuplets *is *probaby still a novelty that universities may want!


Just doing a little quick research.. This one site http://www3.telus.net/tyee/multiples/sextuplets.html says like 177 sets of sextuplets in the world.

Since 1989 there has been an average of 1.125 sets born each year. I guess that means like 10 or 11 sets have been born.

What is weird on that list is there are supposedly 6 sets of sextuplets in the US born in 2004, which is 5 other sets along with the Gosselins. What was going on in 2003-2004 to make so many sextuplets that year. 

It does mean though that those other 5 sets, I guess if surviving, would be competing with them for college attention at the same time.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

This conversation has taken a weird turn. Are you guys all assuming they will be going to school as a unit? What if they don't _want_ to attend college as the "Gosselin sextuplets"? Seems like it would be nice for them if they could each separately choose what school they wanted to attend based on, I don't know, their individual preferences and interests. Instead of having to do everything together to preserve their novelty value even once they are grown.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I don't understand why people say they are 'whoreing out their kids'. They're doing what they think is best to support their family. The average cost of raising a child until they are 17 is between $125,000 and $250,000. That's a total of between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000 for this family. Those numbers are based on raising 2 children, with 8 I'm sure it is much much higher. I'm guessing that with both of the parents working, they were making less than $80,000/year. That would not even be enough to cover the cost of the kids in a year.

The kids don't do any work. They seem to have a hard enough time doing the intros "on this episode of jon and kate plus 8". Getting small children who aren't actors to do many takes of something seems impossible to me. The separation story may be fabricated from TLC, just like with what has happened to American Chopper since they left Discovery. Coincidentally there is a cross-over episode this week on AC.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

Ruth said:


> I googled it and apparently she has some sort of nursing degree that does not require an undergraduate degree. (I was surprised as well, didn't think that was possible.) My source is weak though.


It isn't uncommon my SIL has an RN that she got without a BS. She got it through a program connected to one of the local teaching hospitals. I'm pretty sure it took less that 4 years, but was "all nursing all the time", none of that pesky Liberal Arts stuff


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

WhiskeyTango said:


> The kids don't do any work. They seem to have a hard enough time doing the intros "on this episode of jon and kate plus 8". Getting small children who aren't actors to do many takes of something seems impossible to me. The separation story may be fabricated from TLC, just like with what has happened to American Chopper since they left Discovery. Coincidentally there is a cross-over episode this week on AC.


I don't get it, are they building 8 bikes for the kids? Because if you are to believe J&K the only reason they are doing the show is FOR THE KIDS! So if Jr and Sr and making bikes for the kids then I am fine with the cross promotion but if J&K are getting more free handouts then this is a disgrace. Don't they have enough already? It was kinda cute to see them getting things when it first started, but now it is ridiculous with the amount of money they have to be getting handouts.

Why can't I get away from the train wreck?!?!


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

Anybody remember the Loud family?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

flyers088 said:


> I don't get it, are they building 8 bikes for the kids? Because if you are to believe J&K the only reason they are doing the show is FOR THE KIDS! So if Jr and Sr and making bikes for the kids then I am fine with the cross promotion but if J&K are getting more free handouts then this is a disgrace. Don't they have enough already? It was kinda cute to see them getting things when it first started, but now it is ridiculous with the amount of money they have to be getting handouts.
> 
> Why can't I get away from the train wreck?!?!


From what I can tell the bike is for Jon. Not sure how they are going to tie all that together though. All I remember is Jon asking Senior if he could switch places and come work in the shop and they could go live with Kate and the kids. Senior said "No Thanks!". 

I think it'll be fun. I doubt it's a "handout" in the conventional sense. I think TLC is probably picking up the tab for both shows and I'm guessing Jon will never actually ride it beyond the first day. It'll likely end up in the OCC showroom with a lot of the other customs.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

bareyb said:


> From what I can tell the bike is for Jon. Not sure how they are going to tie all that together though. All I remember is Jon asking Senior if he could switch places and come work in the shop and they could go live with Kate and the kids. Senior said "No Thanks!".
> 
> I think it'll be fun. I doubt it's a "handout" in the conventional sense. I think TLC is probably picking up the tab for both shows and I'm guessing Jon will never actually ride it beyond the first day. It'll likely end up in the OCC showroom with a lot of the other customs.


So how does this benefit the kids?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

flyers088 said:


> So how does this benefit the kids?


I'm sure from TLC's point of view it helps "their ratings" and brings in another demographic who may stick with the show. You know... the demographic that likes to see "family squabbles" on TV. American Chopper practically invented it.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Jon and Kate or I'm a Celebrity... tonight. So many choices!


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

flyers088 said:


> Jon and Kate or I'm a Celebrity... tonight. So many choices!


So what won out?


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

Havana Brown said:


> So what won out?


After 15 minutes of either of these shows, probably a bullet to the head!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

marksman said:


> Since 1989 there has been an average of 1.125 sets born each year. I guess that means like 10 or 11 sets have been born.


Someone needs to work on their math skillz.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I don't understand why people say they are 'whoreing out their kids'. They're doing what they think is best to support their family. The average cost of raising a child until they are 17 is between $125,000 and $250,000. That's a total of between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000 for this family. Those numbers are based on raising 2 children, with 8 I'm sure it is much much higher. I'm guessing that with both of the parents working, they were making less than $80,000/year. That would not even be enough to cover the cost of the kids in a year.


You can raise children a helluva lot cheaper than that. I have a co-worker that has nine kids. He is the only one that works. He pulls in about $60,000 / year and they do just fine. They don't eat out alot. And they don't have cable Tv and Netflix and DSL and all of the other LUXURIES that we have come to regard as necessities. But they are pretty happy.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Watched Jon get his new chopper on the 1-1/2 hour American Chopper last night and you could sense the anger between Jon and Kate even on a show that's not their own. 

They both tossed several verbal pot shots at each other during the show...sad to see.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Alfer said:


> Watched Jon get his new chopper on the 1-1/2 hour American Chopper last night and you could sense the anger between Jon and Kate even on a show that's not their own.
> 
> They both tossed several verbal pot shots at each other during the show...sad to see.


Really? I didn't see it that way at all. They seemed just "normal" to me. You know, normal for _them_. I was actually encouraged by it. There seems to be a LOT less anger about it and Jon was even able to to joke about their situation a little bit. He said "it's nice to be around a bunch of guys for a change. Most of my friends are women. But I guess everybody already knows that already". I thought that was pretty funny and didn't indicate that things were TOO bad at home with Kate. I think those two are going to be just fine.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

bareyb said:


> Really? I didn't see it that way at all. They seemed just "normal" to me. You know, normal for _them_. I was actually encouraged by it. There seems to be a LOT less anger about it and Jon was even able to to joke about their situation a little bit. He said "it's nice to be around a bunch of guys for a change. Most of my friends are women. But I guess everybody already knows that already". I thought that was pretty funny and didn't indicate that things were TOO bad at home with Kate. I think those two are going to be just fine.


Does anybody know when the show was shot? They seem to be showing things out of order.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

flyers088 said:


> Does anybody know when the show was shot? They seem to be showing things out of order.


Since Jon made a reference to the "scandal" I assume this episode took place AFTER the tabloid stories came out.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

bareyb said:


> Since Jon made a reference to the "scandal" I assume this episode took place AFTER the tabloid stories came out.


Yes but there seems to be a real difference between Kate's B-day and trip with Cara episodes (March/April) and the little ones B day party (May). Also they did not seem very civil in the 100th episode.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

flyers088 said:


> Yes but there seems to be a real difference between Kate's B-day and trip with Cara episodes (March/April) and the little ones B day party (May). Also they did not seem very civil in the 100th episode.


She went to San Diego with Cara? Darn, I thought it was Maddy but I have said before I can't tell the kids apart except for Aaden.

In last week's episode (the one with Emeril), am I mistaken or are the sextuplets still (at age 5) eating at the table in high chairs with bibs and sippy cups? I am not a parent but isn't 5 too old for high chairs (they were high chairs not booster seats), bibs and sippy cups? Aren't kids in regular chairs and using regular cups and no bibs by age 5? Are the sextuplets still catching up at their age?

Or was I watching a rerun, seemed like the new season though.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

TeighVaux said:


> She went to San Diego with Cara? Darn, I thought it was Maddy but I have said before I can't tell the kids apart except for Aaden.
> 
> In last week's episode (the one with Emeril), am I mistaken or are the sextuplets still (at age 5) eating at the table in high chairs with bibs and sippy cups? I am not a parent but isn't 5 too old for high chairs (they were high chairs not booster seats), bibs and sippy cups? Aren't kids in regular chairs and using regular cups and no bibs by age 5? Are the sextuplets still catching up at their age?
> 
> Or was I watching a rerun, seemed like the new season though.


No I can't tell them apart. It was Mady.

I never noticed the high chair, but I did notice the bibs and sippy cups.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TeighVaux said:


> She went to San Diego with Cara? Darn, I thought it was Maddy but I have said before I can't tell the kids apart except for Aaden.
> 
> In last week's episode (the one with Emeril), am I mistaken or are the sextuplets still (at age 5) eating at the table in high chairs with bibs and sippy cups? I am not a parent but isn't 5 too old for high chairs (they were high chairs not booster seats), bibs and sippy cups? Aren't kids in regular chairs and using regular cups and no bibs by age 5? Are the sextuplets still catching up at their age?
> 
> Or was I watching a rerun, seemed like the new season though.


Our six year old hasn't used a high chair or bib for several years (probably since she was 3). But we do still use sippy cups on occasion. They're just much less messy.

As for the bibs and high chair, I'm sure it's more for Kate's sanity than anything. Kids are messy and have a very short attention span. With one, it's fairly easy to stay on top of them and keep them in their seat, leaning over their plate, etc. With six, you'd have to plan on at least one major spill at every meal, you'd have to expect that at any given time, a kid would be getting out of his/her chair (causing the others to get out as well). So having spill-proof cups, bibs to protect their clothes, and high-chairs to strap the kids in is probably the only way to have an effective meal.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Kate denies Mady water, but gets a bottle for herself. What a great mom!

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/06/jon-kate-plus-eight-happy-anniversary-you-fools.html


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Apparently Jon & Kate are making some big announcement on the show this coming Monday:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jon___kate_announcement_6



> *TLC: Jon & Kate announcing a major decision Monday*
> 
> By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer Frazier Moore, Ap Television Writer - Fri Jun 19, 7:07 am ET
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I wonder what it could be.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I say if they're smart they'll say the show is over effective immediately.


----------



## bobquin (Apr 5, 2004)

Alfer said:


> I say if they're smart they'll say the show is over effective immediately.


Not likely, as I've read that they've already committed to another 40 episodes next season.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Wasn't it announced or something that they just filed for divorce?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Kate's pregnant


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

MikeMar said:


> Wasn't it announced or something that they...


I don't know if that's true, but you may want to put it in spoiler tags.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> Kate's pregnant


That wouldn't be a "major decision". Now, the decision could be related to her being pregnant, hehe.

Greg


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

Alfer said:


> I say if they're smart they'll say the show is over effective immediately.


This is what I'm hoping. I really don't care about these people but there is something just inherently awkward in the way that this real couple with real (albeit "hyper-real") problems is dissinegrating in front of their children and in front of the camera. I've seen a lot of families struggle with marital problems and it's very devastating and very personal. Hopefully they announce the early cancellation of their show and start moving on.

I don't see how it can go on either way. Would the show really continue if they decide to divorce? _Awkwaaaaard_.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Yeah if they were really trying to do what was in the best interest of their children they would call this off now.

The problem is they are stuck now. I don't get the impression they have a lot of money saved, so how would they continue to make money.

It could be that, but I think that is one of the less likely options.

It could be that Jon and Kate are getting a divorce, but something tells me that won't happen either... because that makes everything weird and would pretty much be the end of the show anyways.

I think it will be something like they have recommitted to each other and their marriage and taking care of their family. yawn yawn yawn.

It could happen, but I would be shocked if Kate actually agreed to end the show.

Most likely is that Kate is going to announce she is going to get a normal adult haircut.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

This Jon and Kate + Eight remind me so much of the Loud family.

The split up of a family on TV, I never missed that train rack either.

Voted the 100 Best TV Shows of All-TIME.......will Jon and Kate + Eight be the same?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1651341_1659188_1652049,00.html


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

That comment about the decision that will give them some peace is weird. It could mean canceling the show, and it could mean divorce.

If they can't cancel out of their contract, then that goes both ways, the production company can't cancel on them. Like I said in another thread, then we'll have Jon + 4 and Kate + 4. We get to watch them do the weekly visitation and snipe at who pays what? Show will die all on its own.

I thought they recommitted in the Hawaii show - hopefully we won't have to go through another wedding vow renewal.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

I'm hoping they decide on some counseling - if ever a couple needed it, it's them. And I would hope any couple considering divorce would seek counseling first.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Does J & K + 8 have the same writers as American Chopper? Last season ended fine with both families. The new season starts with the family suddenly in turmoil with members splitting. Then they have a cross over episode. Something just seems off to me.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Consensus seems to be that they are announcing a divorce tonight.

Kate loves doing the show, and Jon hates it.

We'll see.

I have to say I'm interested in this couple - I've never cared one whit about any celebrity marriage or divorce or anything before - this one sucked me in. Maybe it's because I watched the show for so long....

It seems so easy to fix their problems - turn the cameras off and get back to where they were. People WILL lose interest eventually. But, if it's true that Kate is unwilling to do that, then she is the b*tch others say she is. Becaue, that family and marriage should be more important that fame.

But, none of us can know until we are put into that position - hoow seductive it must be.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

dthmj said:


> I'm hoping they decide on some counseling - if ever a couple needed it, it's them. And I would hope any couple considering divorce would seek counseling first.


Ah so the announcement is a spin-off?

Jon and Kate + TheRapist?


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

justapixel said:


> Consensus seems to be that they are announcing a divorce tonight.
> 
> Kate loves doing the show, and Jon hates it.
> 
> ...


I say they'll announce a separation tonight. They can milk that longer for their show than a divorce. They'll save the divorce for a "big announcement" later on.

Yeah, the common sense thing is to stop doing the show and get some marriage counseling. But with these two, that ain't happening.

Maybe Jon will get a spin-off show to follow his escapades in New York.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

justapixel said:


> But, none of us can know until we are put into that position - hoow seductive it must be.


Yeah but we can know to what extremes we might go to protect a marriage and one's children.

They always struck me as an odd couple anywheres. I am sure they loved each other i guess, but they are one of those couples that just seem ill-fitted and it is hard to say that they really love each other.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

tivoboyjr said:


> Maybe Jon will get a spin-off show to follow his escapades in New York.


Don't count on it...he doesn't like being in the limelight at all. I don't think he would want his newly single life broadcasted for us to see.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

justapixel said:


> But, none of us can know until we are put into that position - hoow seductive it must be.


I agree. It really seems as if "Fame" can be so destructive and yet it is so sought after by so many. I think it's one of those things that people wish they had and then when they finally get what they want they realize it's only making them miserable. In many cases it seems to ruin their lives.

They don't call it "the reality show curse" for nothing. Bad things seem to happen to couples/families/people who go on these shows. They make lots of money, but their personal lives get ruined. It's like signing a deal with the devil. I hope Jon and Kate aren't getting divorced. It just seems so wrong with all those kids involved, but I tend to think that's where it's going... Jon seems like he's just "done" with it all. I still have hope, but I think you guys are right... Very sad. I care about them for some reason too.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

DeeDee said:


> Don't count on it...he doesn't like being in the limelight at all. I don't think he would want his newly single life broadcasted for us to see.


But he's got to pay to support his eight kids, (ex) wife, girlfriend(s) and maintain a certain lifestyle (wasn't he reported to be looking for a place to live in a Trump property in NYC?). That takes money. If someone offers him a show, I'll bet you he takes it. If he really is opposed to being in the limelight, he wouldn't have done the Jon & Kate show.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

people.com says that divorce papers were filed today.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286254,00.html?cnn=yes


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

justapixel said:


> But, if it's true that Kate is unwilling to do that, then she is the b*tch others say she is. Becaue, that family and marriage should be more important that fame.
> 
> But, none of us can know until we are put into that position - hoow seductive it must be.


I don't think it's about the fame. I think it's about the lifestyle they've become accustomed to due to the money they're making from the show. I'll bet she'd be happy to forego the fame, but she's not willing to go back to struggling financially when TLC is willing to pay them well over $1 million a year to keep doing the show.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think it's about the fame. I think it's about the lifestyle they've become accustomed to due to the money they're making from the show. I'll bet she'd be happy to forego the fame, but she's not willing to go back to struggling financially when TLC is willing to pay them well over $1 million a year to keep doing the show.


If that were true than higher income couples would have a higher divorce rate than lower income couples. That's not the case. It's the opposite. Multiple birth couples DO have a higher divorce rate though. That's true. Getting married too young also contributes to divorce and that's true here too. At least for Jon. Being famous puts an incredible strain on relationships. Especially when your relationship is the thing that is famous. That almost never ends well...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bareyb said:


> If that were true than higher income couples would have a higher divorce rate than lower income couples. That's not the case. It's the opposite. Multiple birth couples DO have a higher divorce rate though. That's true. Getting married too young also contributes to divorce and that's true here too. At least for Jon. Being famous puts an incredible strain on relationships. Especially when your relationship is the thing that is famous. That almost never ends well...


The question wasn't why they are they getting divorced. It was why they won't quit the show.

Some people have said "for the fame." DevdogAZ says it's not the fame, so much as the money. I agree with him. They don't want to be famous. They just want to be rich.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

The show comes on at 8 here. Will this be one of those shows like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars where the west coast viewers can read the result on line even before it airs?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

TeighVaux said:


> The show comes on at 8 here. Will this be one of those shows like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars where the west coast viewers can read the result on line even before it airs?


we can vote on this??


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Wilhite said:


> people.com says that divorce papers were filed today.
> 
> http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286254,00.html?cnn=yes


No doubt the grounds were that kate is an insufferable ***** and Jon is a wimp.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

aindik said:


> The question wasn't why they are they getting divorced. It was why they won't quit the show.
> 
> Some people have said "for the fame." DevdogAZ says it's not the fame, so much as the money. I agree with him. They don't want to be famous. They just want to be rich.


Ah. Okay. Under that scenario, I agree.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

TeighVaux said:


> The show comes on at 8 here. Will this be one of those shows like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars where the west coast viewers can read the result on line even before it airs?


That's odd. It comes on at 6:00 p.m. here which is not that far from you...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Yep. It's on right now... They haven't said anything definitive yet. If they do I'll post it in spoiler tags.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Yes. Since I don't get the channel. But in case others don't, spoilerize.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

jlb said:


> Yes. Since I don't get the channel. But in case others don't, spoilerize.


Well I just found out we are going out to dinner so I guess I'll have to wait until I get back to find out what happens... Fingers crossed, but I'm not optimistic...


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

When did Kate get a 'boob' job?


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Kate wants fame. They both want to be rich.

Even if Jon only appears from time to time, I'm sure he's going to get a chunk of the money - enough to live a nice lifestyle. After all, its his family in the show. They'll make 4 million dollars this year on the show - even if Jon only takes a million he'll do just fine, considering they'll have to share the proceeds of the previous seasons.

Maybe I'm fascinated because to me it seems simple. They already have big bucks. Turn the cameras off,cancel the show, put your family life back together. They didn't start out wanting or thinking they'd be famouss or get this kind of money. They should be able to get back to their original values. But, they can't, and it's the classic story of fame corrupting people. Normally we don't get to see that - that's why, I think for me, this show is so interesting. 

If you saw it from the beginning, as I did, you could see how and why they started out and the values they had and they help they needed. You could see that they were a loving couple - yes, Kate was the dominate one even then but Jon is a weak man and will always be attracted to dominate women. But, they were loving.

And now, they've come to this. Affairs, treating your partner like crap and all for fame.

So sad.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

flyers088 said:


> When did Kate get a 'boob' job?


They're real and they're spectacular!


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

I think people are too quick to judge them for doing the show to start with... They had 8 babies and someone came knocking with an idea to do a family - oriented show. Why not? Everyone faults them for that but you know what, when someone presents a way to PROVIDE FOR YOUR FAMILY like that, you take it.

HOWEVER, I think they should stop now. I don't watch the show but read about them enough, and I think it's gonna be extremely tacky to continue the show with the parents divorcing. Maybe the kids having cameras around for that won't be abnormal since they've always been around, I don't know... But it just seems wrong to continue at this point. maybe they don't have enough money bankrolled to quit and still be able to provide for them, or maybe they're just THAT ridiculous. 

Do you think that NOT continuing the show would actually be more of a "disruption" to the kids? They cameras have been in their house since they were born I think to quit that the same day daddy moves out might do more harm then good, lol. I still think they should have canceled the show and removed themselves from the limelight. That said, they seemed to indicated that this has been coming for years so maybe they've always liked each other but knew privately that it wasn't gonna work.


----------



## wooh (Feb 20, 2006)

I'm less disturbed by


Spoiler



the divorce announcement


than by the fact that they were parked in a handicap spot at the restaurant for mother's day. How on earth did they get a handicap tag?


----------



## ncsercs (May 5, 2001)

He left her for Octomom - better working conditions.....


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

So that's that I guess. Bummer. 
I'll probably continue to watch in hopes they can put it back together. I think Jon needs to grow up and "get over it". If he doesn't want to be Mr. Mom they can certainly afford to hire a Nanny. Maybe once he's out of the house he'll realize what he's done. I hope so. 

Maybe I'm an incurable optimist but I think there's still hope. Unless Jon gets a "girlfriend" for real. Then all bets are off. Did they ever find out for sure if either of them has actually cheated on the other? I have been assuming that was all tabloid fiction... If they really have, then I'm a whole lot less optimistic.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Dominance is not the same as abuse and disrespect. Kate can suck it.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Man, visitation's gonna be a *****.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

wooh said:


> I'm less disturbed by
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I was hoping they just parked there to unload/reload because it was raining.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

sushikitten said:


> I was hoping they just parked there to unload/reload because it was raining.


Still not a good reason...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Man, visitation's gonna be a *****.


The way they worked it was, the house "belongs" to the kids. Whoever has the kids on a given day lives in the house that day, and the other one lives elsewhere.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

tivoboyjr said:


> But he's got to pay to support his eight kids, (ex) wife, girlfriend(s) and maintain a certain lifestyle (wasn't he reported to be looking for a place to live in a Trump property in NYC?). That takes money. If someone offers him a show, I'll bet you he takes it. If he really is opposed to being in the limelight, he wouldn't have done the Jon & Kate show.


Yes, but he said that doing the show was what Kate wanted and that he just went along for the ride. He didn't have enough of a backbone to stand up to her.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Two incredibly selfish people. Especially Jon.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

jones07 said:


> They're real and they're spectacular!


What is Kate's middle name......Doris?......Mulva?


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

JFriday said:


> Two incredibly selfish people. Especially Jon.


 I do think Jon is very selfish. Listening to him so far it's all about him and how he needs this.. or he needs that. The motorcycle episode made me want to punch him in the face 4 or 5 times.

Kate was always Kate.. he knew that from before the show.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Maybe she'll start dating Flava Flav.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> The way they worked it was, the house "belongs" to the kids. Whoever has the kids on a given day lives in the house that day, and the other one lives elsewhere.


Wow, I guess with that many kids, that's probably the only way it would really work, but that basically means that both Jon and Kate have to get their own place where they can go when they aren't with the kids. That means three separate residences rather than just two, although two small ones might be less trouble than one larger one that would have to be big enough to house all the kids when they visit.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Wow, I guess with that many kids, that's probably the only way it would really work, but that basically means that both Jon and Kate have to get their own place where they can go when they aren't with the kids. That means three separate residences rather than just two, although two small ones might be less trouble than one larger one that would have to be big enough to house all the kids when they visit.


Sensibly, they should have a single extra residence for whomever was not with the kids. But what does common sense have to do with either of these self centered whack jobs?


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)




----------



## bobquin (Apr 5, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> But what does common sense have to do with either of these self centered whack jobs?


I'm just curious....how does the decision to NOT uproot the kids and take them out of their new home qualify as "self-centered?"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Last night on Conan O'Brien, he did a joke about what their big announcement was going to be, and it was in the form of a fake commercial for the show. It was called "Jon & Kate + 5" and showed a minivan driving away while three kids sat on the curb, having been abandoned.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

bobquin said:


> I'm just curious....how does the decision to NOT uproot the kids and take them out of their new home qualify as "self-centered?"


I wasn't referring to this specific event, just the whole thing. Every thing I see about them discusses just how it impacts the adults and very little about the kids. In this case, I tend to agree that this is the right thing for the kids.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Sensibly, they should have a single extra residence for whomever was not with the kids. But what does common sense have to do with either of these self centered whack jobs?


I wouldn't want to share a residence with my ex-wife.

Z


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

After watching the show last night, it's clear to me that the divorce is Jon's idea. He was the one saying he was "excited" to be starting a new life, hoping for job offers, saying he's only He's only 32 after all, and saddled with too much responsibility....

What a jerk.

She was the one using survivor language - we'll get through this and come out the other side, she'd hold it together and put up with Jon (and supposedly girlfriends) for the kids on holidays; she's the one devastated at the thought of having to leave the kids during Jon's turn, and that she didn't want to be alone. She said she wasn't sure that Jon fully understood the consequences his decision would have on the kids.

And, she's right, he doesn't.

I can just see him living the life - snowboarding, buying fast cars, having a series of 23 year old girlfriends and leaving those kids behind. I hope I'm wrong.

So sad for the kids.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> I was hoping they just parked there to unload/reload because it was raining.


The restaurant was closed - they were the only ones there. Maybe they were told to park there.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

justapixel said:


> After watching the show last night, it's clear to me that the divorce is Jon's idea. He was the one saying he was "excited" to be starting a new life, hoping for job offers, saying he's only He's only 32 after all, and saddled with too much responsibility....
> 
> What a jerk.
> 
> ...


And she mourned the end of the marraige for a whole 4 hours. Wow what a trooper.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

DeeDee said:


> Yes, but he said that doing the show was what Kate wanted and that he just went along for the ride. He didn't have enough of a backbone to stand up to her.


He said he was too passive and let Kate make all the decisions, and that this (presumably meaning the divorce) was his decision and he was proud of himself.

He wasn't only talking about his passivity in doing the show - he was talking about the whole of the marriage - including the fact that he didn't want more children after the twins but went ahead with IVF anyway.


----------



## rjay717 (Nov 18, 2005)

John: "At this point I have to do what's best for me..........................................................and the kids." That was very telling.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

JFriday said:


> And she mourned the end of the marraige for a whole 4 hours. Wow what a trooper.


She said she lost it and screamed and cried for four hours. She's pretty clearly still mourning.

What is the acceptable length to cry and lie in bed to show you are mourning, anyway?

I'm sure if it was Jon the wimp it'd be a month.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I just thought it was funny that she said she woke up and she was fine. 

I felt sorry for Jon until last night. Everything he said could have ended with "and new P*$$*".


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

justapixel said:


> He wasn't only talking about his passivity in doing the show - he was talking about the whole of the marriage - including the fact that he didn't want more children after the twins but went ahead with IVF anyway.


They didn't do IVF.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

aindik said:


> They didn't do IVF.


Okay, whatever it's called when they use fertility drugs and a turkey baster. I'm not up on my trying to get pregnant terminology.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Throughout the show I have taken a rather strong dislike to Kate (at least with respect to the marriage). I think she treats Jon horribly, constantly putting him down and rolling her eyes at him and treating him like a child. I don't like the disrespect she displays. 

But last night she definitely came across as the more sympathetic of the two, by far. 

But honestly I can't tell if that's reality or not. Maybe she's just savvy/manipulative enough to say the "right" things to the camera and make it sound like she's the wronged party, whereas Jon doesn't have those skills. Or maybe Jon simply was more honest/forthcoming about his mixed feelings and it came across as selfish. After all, my guess is that there probably is some part of Kate that is relieved to be out of the marriage since it had gotten so unpleasant, and to make her own path without Jon. Just because we didn't hear her articulate that on camera doesn't mean she doesn't feel that way too. 

Or maybe the producers gave her a sympathy edit so that we saw her saying the "right" things -- it certainly wouldn't surprize me if she will be the main adult appearing on the show and Jon's days with the kids simply won't get much airtime, and if so I'm sure TLC wants to present her in as sympathetic a way as possible. 

Or maybe she just really is more sympathetic in this situation. 

This being a TV show, of course we'll never know.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

JFriday said:


> I felt sorry for Jon until last night. Everything he said could have ended with "and new P*$$*".


I'm getting old, it took me a sec to figure that out.  But, yeah, that's exactly right.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

justapixel said:


> Okay, whatever it's called when they use fertility drugs and a turkey baster. I'm not up on my trying to get pregnant terminology.


Lucky for you, you didn't have a need to familiarize yourself with that terminology during your life.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

aindik said:


> Lucky for you, you didn't have a need to familiarize yourself with that terminology during your life.


Yes, it is fortunate and I'm very sympathetic to those who do. Having children is the greatest joy a person can have and that's why it's so puzzling to me that Jon seems to be giving it up so easily. For, as JFriday says, some strange.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

justapixel said:


> After watching the show last night, it's clear to me that the divorce is Jon's idea. He was the one saying he was "excited" to be starting a new life, hoping for job offers, saying he's only He's only 32 after all, and saddled with too much responsibility....
> 
> What a jerk.
> 
> ...


I could not possibly disagree more. She is a fraud and has been since day one. The only thing she cares about is her and she's proven that time and again. Jon hung in there as long as possible but how many times do you need to be embarrassed on national tv before you say "enough is enough". My wife, who had been a huge fan of the show and of Kate, agrees with this. I don't blame Jon a bit and in fact, hope he finds someone who actually cares about him because Kate never did.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

stujac said:


> I could not possibly disagree more. She is a fraud and has been since day one. The only thing she cares about is her and she's proven that time and again. Jon hung in there as long as possible but how many times do you need to be embarrassed on national tv before you say "enough is enough". My wife, who had been a huge fan of the show and of Kate, agrees with this. I don't blame Jon a bit and in fact, hope he finds someone who actually cares about him because Kate never did.


Wow. If you watch the show over the years, jon get's his quips in quite often. And he is always talking about himself way more than the kids.

He chose to be with her. I don't think she was any different before they were married and now.

Sure, she can be that way too, but she doesn't act the victim all the time like Jon.

How can you say, from watching clips on a tv show, how she felt about him?

I think she is a workaholic to the point of looking like she doesn't care about the kids, but I think she's doing it so they don't have to worry down the line.... and the fame doesnt hurt.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

justapixel said:


> Yes, it is fortunate and I'm very sympathetic to those who do. Having children is the greatest joy a person can have and that's why it's so puzzling to me that Jon seems to be giving it up so easily. For, as JFriday says, some strange.


He's not giving up his children. Ending your marriage is not the same as ending your parenthood -- especially when you are going to continue to actually live in the house with your kids (at some times).

My parents are divorced and they are still my parents. And they both love me very much. The fact that they were terribly suited as a couple doesn't mean they gave up on _me_. I love them and want them to be happy, and I'm thrilled that they are both happily re-married now.

It would not have made them more or better parents to be miserable and fighting all the same time, but living in the same house together. I would never have wanted them to do that if it made them unhappy.


----------



## bobquin (Apr 5, 2004)

NJChris said:


> How can you say, from watching clips on a tv show, how she felt about him?


This. I'm floored by how many J&K relationship subject matter experts there are in this thread!

It's a TV show, folks. One that is heavily edited to attract and maintain viewers. Do you really think you're being shown the "whole picture" here?


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Ruth said:


> It would not have made them more or better parents to be miserable and fighting all the same time, but living in the same house together. I would never have wanted them to do that if it made them unhappy.


What if your parents were able to control themselves and live together in peace? Even if they were ill-suited to each other?

Are you saying you wouldn't have wanted your parents to stay married?

Kids are kids for a short period of time. I believe that while they are young, parents should control their desire for strange or the fact that your spouse's breathing annoys you and stay together for the kids.

I do, in fact, believe that people have the ability to control their temper and if they don't really like each other at a specific point in time, they don't have to scream and yell and make kids miserable.

It's a novel concept in today's society, I know. People actually doing something unselfishly for others and controlling their behavior.

Parents who loved each other once can do it again, but in a different way. Studies have shown that people who honor their committment and stick through the rough patches end up very happy in later years.

You make your own misery on this world.

And, in fact, I believe that a lot of what is wrong with this country and with young people today stems from all the divorces and parents' selfish whims. I think the old values of fidelity and sacrifice are lost and that means that many kids are growing up with only one parent, feeling abandoned often. They have skewed values because of it and studies show they also have difficulties sustaining relationships (like Jon)

It's nice that your parents managed to get along and not scar you but that surely isn't the case of the majority and it does hurt kids as I see daily in my job.

When did we, as a country, decide that our emotions and the way we feel were more important than what we do? Was it the 60s?

I believe you are what you do, not what you feel. Parents can live together even being mismatched, if they choose to do so. It's better for the children they created together and nobody will ever convince me it isn't. In a mere 13 years, that couple's children will be grown and gone. Jon will only be 44, still plenty young enough to get laid and snowboard, if that's what he still wants. What they should do is stay together - Kate needs to learn to control her sniping and Jon needs to learn to stand up for himself so they have balance. Instead, they gave up and that will hurt the kids more than anybody.

If in 13 years they still dislike each other they can divorce - knowing they did the best they could to raise their children and give them the best start in life.

I also know my treatese will fall on deaf ears. So many people are a product of divorce today they don't know any different and think it's normal.

And, I guess now it is.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

bobquin said:


> This. I'm floored by how many J&K relationship subject matter experts there are in this thread!
> 
> It's a TV show, folks. One that is heavily edited to attract and maintain viewers. Do you really think you're being shown the "whole picture" here?


Have you BEEN on this forum?

Of course we are giving opinions on what we saw on TV. Just like we give opinons on what is posted in blogs, in online articles, etc.

It's TiVoCommunity! Sheesh!


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Looks like the show is on hiatus.

http://tv.yahoo.com/jon-kate-plus-8/show/42651/news/urn:newsml:tv.tvguide.com:20090623:1007197__ER:1


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

JFriday said:


> Looks like the show is on hiatus.
> 
> http://tv.yahoo.com/jon-kate-plus-8/show/42651/news/urn:newsml:tv.tvguide.com:20090623:1007197__ER:1


That same article quotes Jon as saying that Kate was the one that filed and Kate's quote confirms.



> "Over the course of this weekend, Jon's activities have left me no choice but to file legal procedures in order to protect myself and our children," Kate said in a statement.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

That's probably why Jon wanted the crooked houses in the woods, that's where they will live when not with the kids. 

Some where in a bar in Pennsylvania you can hear "hey baby want to come check out my cool pirate themed house".


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Last night on Conan O'Brien, he did a joke about what their big announcement was going to be, and it was in the form of a fake commercial for the show. It was called "Jon & Kate + 5" and showed a minivan driving away while three kids sat on the curb, having been abandoned.


my absolute favorite line was from joel mchale on The Soup last year:

after showing a typical clip of a berated and deflated jon taking it from kate:

"look for the spinoff coming soon: Jon minus 9"

and a pic of jon surfing and smiling.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Wilhite said:


> That same article quotes Jon as saying that Kate was the one that filed and Kate's quote confirms.


Gotta love the cryptic statements with no support that makes one look worse than the other.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

bruinfan said:


> "look for the spinoff coming soon: Jon minus 9"
> 
> and a pic of jon surfing and smiling.


Priceless :up:


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

justapixel said:


> What if your parents were able to control themselves and live together in peace? Even if they were ill-suited to each other?


They couldn't. They often could not control themselves or co-exist peacefully, even to sit through my high school graduation without fighting.



> Are you saying you wouldn't have wanted your parents to stay married?


That is precisely what I am saying. They made each other miserable, and that made me miserable too. I am thrilled that they were both able to find spouses who make them happy.



> Kids are kids for a short period of time. I believe that while they are young, parents should control their desire for strange or the fact that your spouse's breathing annoys you and stay together for the kids.
> 
> I do, in fact, believe that people have the ability to control their temper and if they don't really like each other at a specific point in time, they don't have to scream and yell and make kids miserable.
> 
> It's a novel concept in today's society, I know. People actually doing something unselfishly for others and controlling their behavior.


Why is it unselfish to make yourself miserable? How does being unhappy help your kids? How does living a lie set a good example for children?

I believe that happy, well-adjusted, fulfilled people make the best parents. I would never have wanted my parents to make themselves and each other miserable and pretend it wasn't so. And I would never have wanted to bear responsibility for that.



> And, in fact, I believe that a lot of what is wrong with this country and with young people today stems from all the divorces and parents' selfish whims. I think the old values of fidelity and sacrifice are lost and that means that many kids are growing up with only one parent, feeling abandoned often. They have skewed values because of it and studies show they also have difficulties sustaining relationships (like Jon)


I'm all messed up and I'm what's wrong with America? Umm, thanks, I think.



> It's nice that your parents managed to get along and not scar you but that surely isn't the case of the majority and it does hurt kids as I see daily in my job.


I think you're missing my point. They didn't get along, and the main reason it wasn't scarring is because they didn't try to live in the same house, therefore sparing me from being exposed to their conflict all the time.



> I believe you are what you do, not what you feel. Parents can live together even being mismatched, if they choose to do so. It's better for the children they created together and nobody will ever convince me it isn't.


It was better for my parents, and for me. What they did was spare me from constant conflict in the home. Which I appreciate to this day. Who are you to say it wasn't better that way? You don't know me or my parents. I believe it was better based on my actually being there.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Ruth said:


> I believe it was better based on my actually being there.


I'm guessing just as many kids would have been better off had their parents stayed together. You can find exceptions to any rule, but I'd think most kids are more hurt by divorce than helped by it. Especially young kids. My kids would never be the same if my wife and I got divorced. They just simply wouldn't. Especially my son. I believe this based on my actually being here.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bareyb said:


> I'm guessing just as many kids would have been better off had their parents stayed together. You can find exceptions to any rule, but I'd think most kids are more hurt by divorce than helped by it. Especially young kids. My kids would never be the same if my wife and I got divorced. They just simply wouldn't. Especially my son. I believe this based on my actually being here.


Can we assume that you and your wife don't hate each other or fight all the time?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

aindik said:


> Can we assume that you and your wife don't hate each other or fight all the time?


No. 

Just kidding. We have our moments but we are still best friends. I'm not judging anyone who gets divorced with kids. You do what you have to do. On the other hand, in cases such as J&K I think with some counseling and little less "TV" they might have a shot at getting their lives back together again. I have friends who have gotten divorced simply because they were going through a hard time. If they had stuck it out, I think they could have worked it out. But at the time, the only avenue they could see was to leave. It doesn't help that many of their divorced "single" friends were egging them on to split. I doubt any of them will ever get married again. Then again, I do hang with an "older" crowd. I do see this trend changing though. People seem to be taking the whole marriage and family thing more seriously than they were back in the 70's when most of my friends parents were getting divorced.


----------



## hapdrastic (Mar 31, 2006)

justapixel said:


> If in 13 years they still dislike each other they can divorce - knowing they did the best they could to raise their children and give them the best start in life.


I have to disagree with this. My parents divorced when I was around the age of the little kids on this show, and I turned out just fine. I have a friend who's parents did as you suggested and waited to divorce when their youngest turned 18, and it absolutely devastated her, and caused her severe emotional problems, that took years to resolve. You make a blanket assumption that it is "better" to have these two people in your life in the traditional way, and that isn't necessarily the case. Each situation is different.

Back on topic: I find this show depressing to watch now


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

bareyb said:


> I'm guessing just as many kids would have been better off had their parents stayed together. You can find exceptions to any rule, but I'd think most kids are more hurt by divorce than helped by it. Especially young kids. My kids would never be the same if my wife and I got divorced. They just simply wouldn't. Especially my son. I believe this based on my actually being here.


Oh, I'm not saying divorce is _always_ better. I would never say such a thing, as it couldn't possibly be true. But neither can it be true that it's _never_ the best thing. It was JAP's statement that it's worse for the kids 100% of the time that I was responding to.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I can't believe people are blaming Jon for this. Jon's fault in all this is for not standing up for himself for the past 9-10 years and letting her run over him all that time until he just broke. Once he broke it was over. It is not really fair as he did not give her much chance to change her behavior, but let us be honest, she was not going to change her controlling ways.

I did just hear the ratings for the episode. 10.6 million. Sopranos finale was like 11 million (I know premium cable versus basic.. )



She has to take the bulk of the responsibility for this, and I was sickened how she kept trying to paint herself as the victim. Even after the whole mess she could not stop taking shots at Jon every chance she could get... she has been horrible to him in a public setting pretty much non-stop. There are not many levels of worse treatment to bestow on someone else.

Jon should have left a long time ago or demanded she stop her behavior, but that is his part in this. Sure it was his call in separating. He could not stand her for another second, and did not want to expose the kids to their toxic relationship for another day. It is not good for your children to grow up watching their mother berate and steamroll their father perpetually.

I am sure Kate will have no problem finding someone else as the divorced single mother of 8. Seriously though, they should have called off the show if they actually cared about the kids. Kate's victim act is so ridiculous. She has to blame Jon for everything constantly, and then use her tired and inaccurate response she is doing it for the kids in every circumstance.

I will caveat what I said about Jon with one thing, is if he did actually cheat on Kate he has to bear the burden of that. That would have been wrong and a contributing factor. It may or may not have been something he did out of passive-aggressive spite because of the way she treated him, but that makes it no less wrong. If he did cheat, he should not have done it, and instead should have gotten seperated then, instead of pursuing an extra marital affair.

I have never even been able to see a glimmer where I thought the two of them were ever in any proximity to love. Their relationship has come across weird the entire time they have been on television and even some of the old video clips from before the show do not seem like there was a lot of love there. The reality is they should not have gotten married in the first place.

To me the best circumstance would have been for them to suck it up and stop filming the show and stay married and raise the kids. I just think Jon could literally not tolerate another minute under her thumb, and she simply does not strike me as the type of person who could under go the level of significant change in herself that would be required to actually make that path viable.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

It's hard for me to take sides because I don't like either one of them. Both Jon and Kate seem very selfish.

I feel very sorry for the kids. It doesn't seem like J&K have really tried to work this out, and they owe it to their kids to do that. (And yes, I realize I'm making judgments about them based on what I see on TV and what I've read online, but hey, they put themselves out there so that's they way it goes.) If they really loved their kids so much, it seems that they would get counseling, maybe do a trial separation but continue counseling, and put the friggin' TV show on hold while all of this is going on. It seems like the money they get has become the number one priority - along with the attention for Kate, which she seems to love.

Yes, it may be that these two just can't be together anymore, but to me they owe it to their kids to put a little more effort into the marriage.


----------



## nellee (May 26, 2002)

I would love to see a show that interviews all the production staff that has followed the family around all these years.

We are only seeing a tiny glimpse of whats going on in their lives. There's reports that say that TLC has had a tough time gathering enough footage to present a show due to whats going on with Jon and Kate. 

People would definitely pay big bucks to hear what the production staff says and the behind the scenes footages.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Maybe if they really cared about the kids they would really try to work this out? Maybe they did and we don't know? Maybe this is a secret plan of the parents to boost ratings? Possible with these two...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

daveak said:


> Maybe if they really cared about the kids they would really try to work this out? Maybe they did and we don't know? Maybe this is a secret plan of the parents to boost ratings? Possible with these two...


Can you imagine the ratings it would get if they were able to slowly work out their differences and reconcile on TV? That's one I haven't seen done yet.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

justapixel said:


> She was the one using survivor language - we'll get through this and come out the other side, she'd hold it together and put up with Jon (and supposedly girlfriends) for the kids on holidays; she's the one devastated at the thought of having to leave the kids during Jon's turn, and that she didn't want to be alone. She said she wasn't sure that Jon fully understood the consequences his decision would have on the kids.


Survivor language? I saw it as whiny victim chatter after years of being an obnoxious person.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Jesda said:


> Survivor language? I saw it as whiny victim chatter after years of being an obnoxious person.


Agreed. I just can't find any sympathy for her anymore. She has pushed the marriage to this point and then seems shocked when Jon is tired of her act. Just to see her manipulate the play house situation shows she has learned nothing about how to work with another person.


----------



## Dreaday (Sep 21, 2006)

I wanted to be on Jon's side, but he was so emotionless during the whole interview in the last episode. If he had shed like one tear (and maybe removed those mid-life crisis earrings), then I would have been all about him. But Kate seemed to be the most saddened by it all!

Plus Jon...I know you're only 32, but that does not mean that you're not still a dad! That made me angry...as if he's saying his single life can begin now. Well, that doesn't mean that you don't have 8 kids anymore!


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Why should he be sad? He probably feels a great sense of relief and freedom at this point. Not freedom from his kids but freedom from the tyranny that has dominated his life for the last 9 years. He allowed it to happen to him, no doubt, but I doubt most people in that situation and getting out of it would be sad.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Yeah-it's sorta like getting out of prison.


----------



## Dreaday (Sep 21, 2006)

I thought he'd at least be sad for his kids...that's all really. They're the victims in the situation.


----------



## bobquin (Apr 5, 2004)

In Touch Weekly has published photos of Kate allegedly spanking one of the sextuplets. Let the frenzy begin...oh wait, it already has.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/2009/06/in_touch_exclusivekate_gosseli.php


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

Dreaday said:


> Plus Jon...I know you're only 32, but that does not mean that you're not still a dad! That made me angry...as if he's saying his single life can begin now. Well, that doesn't mean that you don't have 8 kids anymore!


It means he can get some strange and nothing more.

As much as I don't think Jon is the smartest bulb of the bunch his wife is a money whore and is selling out her children for the dollar.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

bareyb said:


> Can you imagine the ratings it would get if they were able to slowly work out their differences and reconcile on TV? That's one I haven't seen done yet.


The Sopranos? (Tony left the house for a while, right?)

heh..


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

mattack said:


> The Sopranos? (Tony left the house for a while, right?)
> 
> heh..


I meant on a reality show, but yeah. Like that.  I wonder if people would be as interested as they are in watching the marriage implode? I'd think more people would want to see it work out. At least based on the responses here. I'm with the rest of the folks who said, if the show turns into a "snuff film" for the Gosselin's relationship, I don't know how long I'll keep watching.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

Wasn't it TLC that called for the six week hiatus for the show until the producers can regroup and see how to reposition the show? I think Kate was fine with continuing. I think the show can never be the same, first because the new revelations throws away the premise of the earlier shows. Also it is just ugly watching a family implode. That is a whole different show than watching the ten of them go on product placement field trips which is where it had been.

I think Kate and Jon were caught off guard that the paparazzi or tabloid press would even care that Jon had a girl on the side (and I think Kate knew but didn't care as long as he showed up for filming for the mealticket show.) It used to just be some family show set in PA on TLC. I could see where Jon might get careless and not think it would become the tabloid story of the year.

As far as the question of whether it is better for parents to stay together or divorce, hard to say. Whatever decision is made, the kids will never know how their lives might have been (better or worse) had the parents made the opposite decision.

From what I have seen with divorcing parents with minor kids, about half the time it is as ugly with the parents divorced as it was with them together. They just fight over money, kids, custody, control in a different setting. To say nothing of the financial devastation that usually takes a decade to dig out of.


----------



## MaryT (Dec 3, 2001)

I used to watch this show but stopped when I realized they were both in this for the money, freebies, and whatever they could get out of it.

Seems that Kate often had speaking engagements at churches in which 'love offerings' were given to her. I saw the schedules and linked to those churches announcing to their members about said love offerings. I was appalled.

This was when Kate had the #1 show on TLC (last summer). She was still taking people's hard earned money.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

So with all the reports of $75,000 a week, does that mean that Kate gets $75K weekly AND Jon gets $75K weekly, or the "family" gets $75K per week?

Either way, that's a lot of dough to sacrifice if they lose the show. But then there will be book deals, and the eventual made-for-TV movies depicting Kate's side of the story, and one depicting Jon's side of the story. 

I wonder who they would want to depict them? 

Jon could ask for John Stamos to play him, and Kate might request Jessica Alba to play her. The kids could be played by the cast of another 'reality' show, "The Littlest Groom".

And the Octomom could be their arch-nemesis.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

"The Littlest Groom"? I'm afraid to ask...


----------



## Martyp (Jan 6, 2004)

Well I always wondered what was up at the end of every show when they where on the couch and she would always lean away from Jon


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

Jon is engaged?
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=102484&cat=2

Jon Gosselin has reportedly proposed to his new girlfriend Hailey Glassman only weeks after his wife Kate Gosselin filed for divorce. Gosselin, 32, allegedly proposed to Glassman, 22, with a $180K ring.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

Havana Brown said:


> Jon is engaged?
> http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=102484&cat=2
> 
> Jon Gosselin has reportedly proposed to his new girlfriend Hailey Glassman only weeks after his wife Kate Gosselin filed for divorce. Gosselin, 32, allegedly proposed to Glassman, 22, with a $180K ring.


I can't believe this is actually true!


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Havana Brown said:


> Jon is engaged?
> http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=102484&cat=2
> 
> Jon Gosselin has reportedly proposed to his new girlfriend Hailey Glassman only weeks after his wife Kate Gosselin filed for divorce. Gosselin, 32, allegedly proposed to Glassman, 22, with a $180K ring.


No he's not. Still douchie tho. http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b134203_jon_gosselin_talks_hailey_glassman.html


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

So I guess they're not "just friends" after all... Jon's an idiot.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

Ment said:


> No he's not. Still douchie tho. http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b134203_jon_gosselin_talks_hailey_glassman.html


I've been hearing on the radio also that he's engaged.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

Havana Brown said:


> I've been hearing on the radio also that he's engaged.


Do you believe everything you hear on the radio?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Havana Brown said:


> I've been hearing on the radio also that he's engaged.


The radio gets their "news" from the same sources as the first link you posted. Doesn't make it any more accurate.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Who the heck would date a soon to be broke, front page tabloids guy with eight kids?


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

cheesesteak said:


> Who the heck would date a soon to be broke, front page tabloids guy with eight kids?


A young party girl wanting to experience her 15 minutes?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Ok so Jon is dating a new girl (STAR reporter) now and dumping the Hailey chick?

http://www.starmagazine.com/reporter_kate_major_dating_jon_gosselin/news/15867

I'm so confused!


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Alfer said:


> Ok so Jon is dating a new girl (STAR reporter) now and dumping the Hailey chick?
> 
> http://www.starmagazine.com/reporter_kate_major_dating_jon_gosselin/news/15867
> 
> I'm so confused!


Jon says Kate Major is lying and trying to take advantage of his celebrity. http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...osselin-says-reporter-lied-kate-major-resigns Plus she quit her job after her announcement.. why? Conflict of interest..embarrassment to Star Magazine..or she lied? Who knows at this point.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I just saw on TMZ Jon hanging out with Michael Lohan, Lindsay's father. Jon apparently wants to get the kids into modeling/acting. Michael did a real great job with Lindsay. 

I liked this show but the more I see of them and the crap they are doing outside of what is on the show, the less I like them both. It went from a family that was happy and loving to white trash doing whatever they can to make money.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I just saw on TMZ Jon hanging out with Michael Lohan, Lindsay's father. Jon apparently wants to get the kids into modeling/acting. Michael did a real great job with Lindsay.
> 
> I liked this show but the more I see of them and the crap they are doing outside of what is on the show, the less I like them both. It went from a family that was happy and loving to white trash doing whatever they can to make money.


I've never even watched this show and I hate Jon now. Hopefully he won't subscribe to the Joe Jackson school of management when he's pimping his kids out. Go get my belt!


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I just saw on TMZ Jon hanging out with Michael Lohan, Lindsay's father. Jon apparently wants to get the kids into modeling/acting. Michael did a real great job with Lindsay.


 I happen to stop at a friend's who had this on when that "story" came up. TMZ just said he probably is because he had dinner with Lohan. They had no quote or comments about it, just made it up.

TMZ has to be one of the worst shows out there.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

More drama: Kate denies romantic relationship with her head of security and still wears her wedding ring 'for the children'. http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b138554_hush_20_original_kate_gosselin_finally.html

Kate Major says Jon was two-timing her with Hailey Glassman http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b138624_kate_20_vs_jon_gosselin_he_needs_man_up.html

I don't watch the show from week to week. I assume that TLC focuses the show on the children's activities with each separate parent and most of the tabloid type stuff never makes it onto the show. Maybe fall sweeps?


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Ment said:


> I don't watch the show from week to week. I assume that TLC focuses the show on the children's activities with each separate parent and most of the tabloid type stuff never makes it onto the show. Maybe fall sweeps?


Yea, the tabloid stuff rarely makes it. They continually refer to the divorce as 'the situation' or other terms like that. I think they mentioned separation once.


----------



## jami (Dec 18, 2003)




----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Looks like their ratings are going the way of their marriage. They are down from a high of around 10mil earlier this season, back to just over 3mil (what they averaged in previous seasons).


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Looks like their ratings are going the way of their marriage. They are down from a high of around 10mil earlier this season, back to just over 3mil (what they averaged in previous seasons).


All that means is that there was a huge spike in viewership after the big Tabloid blowout. Now the spike has passed and viewership is back to what it was before. No biggie.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

bareyb said:


> All that means is that there was a huge spike in viewership after the big Tabloid blowout. Now the spike has passed and viewership is back to what it was before. No biggie.


True, but it will be interesting to see if that drop continues as we move forward with Jon centric episodes and Kate centric episodes. I believe their first show back from hiatus was around 4.2 million viewers, and the latest episode was just over 3 million. So some people did stick around after the initial boost but are now leaving. It's just not the same type of show it used to be.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

WhiskeyTango said:


> True, but it will be interesting to see if that drop continues as we move forward with Jon centric episodes and Kate centric episodes. I believe their first show back from hiatus was around 4.2 million viewers, and the latest episode was just over 3 million. So some people did stick around after the initial boost but are now leaving. It's just not the same type of show it used to be.


I'm actually a new viewer who only heard about the show because of the Tabloid stuff going around. Curiosity mainly. I've now changed my SP to "First Run Only" and I'll probably stick with it for awhile. It's on my "b list" though...


----------



## TheLaminator (May 23, 2007)

Same here.



bareyb said:


> I'm actually a new viewer who only heard about the show because of the Tabloid stuff going around. Curiosity mainly. I've now changed my SP to "First Run Only" and I'll probably stick with it for awhile. It's on my "b list" though...


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

They should just dump Jon and keep Kate. She's much more interesting to watch and seems to be trying to grow as a person.

Jon is just a miserable, self-centered a-hole. A lot of what he says, doesn't even make sense. It's like he can't put together two thoughts.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

NJChris said:


> They should just dump Jon and keep Kate. She's much more interesting to watch and seems to be trying to grow as a person.
> 
> Jon is just a miserable, self-centered a-hole. A lot of what he says, doesn't even make sense. It's like he can't put together two thoughts.


I'm a Kate fan too but to be fair to John, he DID do all the grunt work in the marriage and Kate rarely acknowledged him for anything. Now she's finding out how much he really did as she will have to do all that stuff herself. Either that or hire a "Handy Man" to take care of all the "man stuff". Come to think of it, Jon is easily replaced... 

I'd still like to see him on the show though. I think it adds another element and I do enjoy seeing him with the kids. He's a lousy husband, but I still think he's a good "Dad" as far as that goes.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

bareyb said:


> I'd still like to see him on the show though. I think it adds another element and I do enjoy seeing him with the kids. He's a lousy husband, but I still think he's a good "Dad" as far as that goes.


You can't be a great Dad if you are a lousy husband. If your a lousy husband, then you're not there half the time being a Dad.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

bengalfreak said:


> You can't be a great Dad if you are a lousy husband. If your a lousy husband, then you're not there half the time being a Dad.


I agree with this. People try to act like they are mutually exclusive in this day and age, but they really aren't. I guess that is the PC route for some. It isn't easy to be a one woman guy, but the best fathers/husbands are loyal to their wives and children. Not just one or the other.

That isn't saying all marriages work or should work, but being a great parent means you are there 7 days a week. Not just great 4 days a week. I would be heartbroken if I ever got divorced because I would miss out on so much when I didn't have my children.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

bengalfreak said:


> You can't be a great Dad if you are a lousy husband. If your a lousy husband, then you're not there half the time being a Dad.





whitson77 said:


> I agree with this. People try to act like they are mutually exclusive in this day and age, but they really aren't. I guess that is the PC route for some. It isn't easy to be a one woman guy, but the best fathers/husbands are loyal to their wives and children. Not just one or the other.
> 
> That isn't saying all marriages work or should work, but being a great parent means you are there 7 days a week. Not just great 4 days a week. I would be heartbroken if I ever got divorced because I would miss out on so much when I didn't have my children.


Meh. I think you can be both. I'm happily married though, so what do I know? 

Having said that it does beg the question. Since more than half of all marriages end in divorce are you guys saying that divorced Dads, by nature of being divorced are "bad Fathers"? Im sure their ex-wives would tell you they were all "lousy husbands" or they wouldn't have divorced them. I'm guessing you'd get an argument from most of the divorced guys around here.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

whitson77 said:


> I agree with this. People try to act like they are mutually exclusive in this day and age, but they really aren't. I guess that is the PC route for some. It isn't easy to be a one woman guy, but the best fathers/husbands are loyal to their wives and children. Not just one or the other.
> 
> That isn't saying all marriages work or should work, but being a great parent means you are there 7 days a week. Not just great 4 days a week. I would be heartbroken if I ever got divorced because I would miss out on so much when I didn't have my children.


some people don't have a choice, and it blows my mind that you think circumstance can prevent someone from being a great parent.

Great parenting is a function of the heart, not the calendar.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> some people don't have a choice, and it blows my mind that you think circumstance can prevent someone from being a great parent.
> 
> Great parenting is a function of the heart, not the calendar.


This. Just said better than I could have.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> some people don't have a choice, and it blows my mind that you think circumstance can prevent someone from being a great parent.
> 
> Great parenting is a function of the heart, not the calendar.


I disagree. And I never said that someone who is unallowed to be in the same house is a bad father. I think that the great ones are always there though or are available. For example, a parent divorces and the father takes a job out of the city. You are honestly saying that father is great when he isn't even near his child because he loves them? I disagree. You have to be there for them. Great parenting doesn't occur over the phone or 1 weekend a month, no matter how big your heart is.

There are fathers/mothers who go through a divorce who try to split time and do the absolute best they can and soak up all the time with their children. To them I tip my cap. I should have allowed more leniency in my prior post. But I do think it is much harder to be a great father when you can't be there (because of the divorce) for some crucial moments through no fault of your own.

And there are plenty of fathers who are around their children all the time, but couldn't care less about them and are all wrapped up in themselves. So you are quite right that being around doesn't make you great. But loving them and not being around often, doesn't make you great either IMO.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

whitson77 said:


> I disagree. And I never said that someone who is unallowed to be in the same house is a bad father. I think that the great ones are always there though or are available. For example, a parent divorces and the father takes a job out of the city. You are honestly saying that father is great when he isn't even near his child because he loves them? I disagree. You have to be there for them. Great parenting doesn't occur over the phone or 1 weekend a month, no matter how big your heart is.


You do the best you can within the contraints you are given. It's just not that simple in the real world for a lot of people. People have to make really difficult choices sometimes, and accept circumstances that aren't ideal.

Suppose Dad can't find a job in the same town where Mom lives. Suppose his choice is to move, or to be an unemployed, homeless guy who can't pay any child support. Does staying in town, destitute, with no place for the kids to stay, and contributing nothing financially really make him a better father?

Or suppose it's Mom who moves -- to be a good father must Dad quit his job, sell his house, and move across the country, in this economy, not knowing what will happen to him? Suppose Mom moves around a lot -- must he follow her, no matter where she goes, in order to be a good father? What if he can't afford to move?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

whitson77 said:


> I disagree. And I never said that someone who is unallowed to be in the same house is a bad father. I think that the great ones are always there though or are available. For example, a parent divorces and the father takes a job out of the city. You are honestly saying that father is great when he isn't even near his child because he loves them?


No - I'm saying that circumstantial availability, on it's own, is not enough data to cast that strong of a judgement.



> I disagree. You have to be there for them. Great parenting doesn't occur over the phone or 1 weekend a month, no matter how big your heart is.


again - it's not a calendar thing. being a great parent is raising a child who knows you love them, and giving them the tools to live well. As you said, some parent's can fail at this given 7 days a week...conversely, it is not impossible to accomplish it in less.



> There are fathers/mothers who go through a divorce who try to split time and do the absolute best they can and soak up all the time with their children. To them I tip my cap. I should have allowed more leniency in my prior post. But I do think it is much harder to be a great father when you can't be there (because of the divorce) for some crucial moments through no fault of your own.


Harder, of course. Not impossible, though...which is what your first post so heavily dictated.

FTR - I am the custodial parent of my daughter and miss "crucial" things only twice a week. Just as many people miss crucial things while they are at work all day.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Ruth said:


> You do the best you can within the contraints you are given. It's just not that simple in the real world for a lot of people. People have to make really difficult choices sometimes, and accept circumstances that aren't ideal.
> 
> Suppose Dad can't find a job in the same town where Mom lives. Suppose his choice is to move, or to be an unemployed, homeless guy who can't pay any child support. Does staying in town, destitute, with no place for the kids to stay, and contributing nothing financially really make him a better father?
> 
> Or suppose it's Mom who moves -- to be a good father must Dad quit his job, sell his house, and move across the country, in this economy, not knowing what will happen to him? Suppose Mom moves around a lot -- must he follow her, no matter where she goes, in order to be a good father? What if he can't afford to move?


You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and you can raise your kid however you choose.

Would I follow my wife across the country if we got divorced? Absolutely, not a moments thought about it. I would take less, and I would make do with less. I would still contribute. I could find a job, and it might be a lot harder on me, but I believe your child needs you more than a phone call. They need you actively involved with them. Love is a huge part of the equation, but I personally find it unacceptable that spending actual time with my child is not that big of a deal as long as I am sending them a good check. That's not love. I work, but I spend hours a day with my kids. And if I was divorced I would doubly make sure that I spent lots of time with them and interacted with them and talked about their lives when I have them. Kids grow up fast enough. My career is secondary to my family and I don't have that backwards. I woud miss out on reading to them, teaching them, and knowing them! That would tear a hole in my heart to be across the country for most of their young life. The best part of my day is the time I spend with my children. I'll make any and every sacrifice to be an active part of being there while they grow up.

There are many facets to being a good parent IMO. Providing, nurturing, teaching, loving, loyalty to spouse, discipline, and being actively involved in your child's life is the best way to make sure they have all the tools to live well. If you think you can do all that a month a summer from across the country more power to you. It isn't for me and what I expect from myself as a father. It's my opinion and I mean no offense to anyone.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

whitson77 said:


> You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and you can raise your kid however you choose.
> 
> Would I follow my wife across the country if we got divorced? Absolutely, not a moments thought about it. I would take less, and I would make do with less. I would still contribute. I could find a job, and it might be a lot harder on me, but I believe your child needs you more than a phone call. They need you actively involved with them. Love is a huge part of the equation, but I personally find it unacceptable that spending actual time with my child is not that big of a deal as long as I am sending them a good check. That's not love. I work, but I spend hours a day with my kids. And if I was divorced I would doubly make sure that I spent lots of time with them and interacted with them and talked about their lives when I have them. Kids grow up fast enough. My career is secondary to my family and I don't have that backwards. I woud miss out on reading to them, teaching them, and knowing them! That would tear a hole in my heart to be across the country for most of their young life. The best part of my day is the time I spend with my children. I'll make any and every sacrifice to be an active part of being there while they grow up.
> 
> There are many facets to being a good parent IMO. Providing, nurturing, teaching, loving, loyalty to spouse, discipline, and being actively involved in your child's life is the best way to make sure they have all the tools to live well. If you think you can do all that a month a summer from across the country more power to you. It isn't for me and what I expect from myself as a father. It's my opinion and I mean no offense to anyone.


You have a lovely vision and sound like a great dad with great priorities and I'm not offended at all.

I just think you're operating from a set of assumptions about your options that simply don't apply to everyone. Maybe you do have the skill set and financial resources where you could pick up and move and you're confident you could get a job (of some sort) that would allow you to support yourself and your kids, at some level, in any location, at any time. If you do that's great! Maybe it's not as perfect as your job now and you make that sacrifice to be with your kids. Again, great.

But not everyone has the options you have. You're lucky. (I'm lucky too, and I'm greatful.) Some people are at the level where they are worried about thier kids' basic survival -- food, shelter, clothing, medical care -- and they don't have the luxury of moving beyond that. Maybe it's not that they are worried about their "career" but simply that they know they need to do whatever they can to make sure their kids get fed each day.

You must know that many people, right now, cannot get jobs at all, no matter how hard they try. There are newspaper articles all the time about formerly comfortable middle class people who are unemployed now and living in residence hotels or tent cities and getting food from food banks and can't even find work as a janitor or Wal-Mart greeter.

And there are people living hand to mouth where they simply don't have the cash or the credit to move and pay a security deposit on a new place. Moving has real costs and not everyone can pay them.

There is also horrible options you're lucky you don't face. Suppose your child has a life-threatening illness, and you are the one who has health insurance covering the child. Your ex moves away, and she can't get a job with benefits. You're looking, but you haven't found a job with benefits in the new location either. Isn't it possible that a better parenting decision is to protect the child's health, to keep the child alive, even if it means the parent-child relationship suffers for a while? Is it better for the child to go without medication he needs to stay alive but have his Daddy there to read him books at night until he dies?

What concerns me is that it seems like you're not allowing for the possibility that there are people who are hanging on by a thread and just don't have the luxury of picking up and moving and finding a job and a place to live. Or parents with very difficult circumstances you are lucky enough not to face. You are calling these people bad parents.

Isn't it possible that they are just poor, or just unlucky? That they love their kids every bit as much as you love yours, but it's simply not possible for them to do the things that you would do and know that their kids will still be OK? That they are making hard choices out of love? I just think you are painting with way too broad a brush.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

whitson77 said:


> You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and you can raise your kid however you choose.
> 
> Would I follow my wife across the country if we got divorced? Absolutely, not a moments thought about it. I would take less, and I would make do with less. I would still contribute. I could find a job, and it might be a lot harder on me, but I believe your child needs you more than a phone call. They need you actively involved with them. Love is a huge part of the equation, but I personally find it unacceptable that spending actual time with my child is not that big of a deal as long as I am sending them a good check. That's not love. I work, but I spend hours a day with my kids. And if I was divorced I would doubly make sure that I spent lots of time with them and interacted with them and talked about their lives when I have them. Kids grow up fast enough. My career is secondary to my family and I don't have that backwards. I woud miss out on reading to them, teaching them, and knowing them! That would tear a hole in my heart to be across the country for most of their young life. The best part of my day is the time I spend with my children. I'll make any and every sacrifice to be an active part of being there while they grow up.
> 
> There are many facets to being a good parent IMO. Providing, nurturing, teaching, loving, loyalty to spouse, discipline, and being actively involved in your child's life is the best way to make sure they have all the tools to live well. If you think you can do all that a month a summer from across the country more power to you. It isn't for me and what I expect from myself as a father. It's my opinion and I mean no offense to anyone.


While I think you have the right idea, I think that you are making some MASSIVE assumptions. YOU could find a job where your wife moved, but what if she moved someplace where someone else could not? What if you could not feasibly move for whatever reason? There are always times when sometimes doing the hard thing is the best thing. I think what your saying is true in the majority of the cases, but there are always exceptions.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Ruth said:


> Suppose your child has a life-threatening illness, and you are the one who has health insurance covering the child. Your ex moves away, and she can't get a job with benefits. You're looking, but you haven't found a job with benefits in the new location either. Isn't it possible that a better parenting decision is to protect the child's health, to keep the child alive, even if it means the parent-child relationship suffers for a while? Is it better for the child to go without medication he needs to stay alive but have his Daddy there to read him books at night until he dies?
> 
> What concerns me is that it seems like you're not allowing for the possibility that there are people who are hanging on by a thread and just don't have the luxury of picking up and moving and finding a job and a place to live. Or parents with very difficult circumstances you are lucky enough not to face. You are calling these people bad parents.
> 
> Isn't it possible that they are just poor, or just unlucky? That they love their kids every bit as much as you love yours, but it's simply not possible for them to do the things that you would do and know that their kids will still be OK? That they are making hard choices out of love? I just think you are painting with way too broad a brush.


Of course, reading to your child while they die is frankly crazy. In that case, you would have to stay put and provide health care for your child. I didn't call them bad parents. I just said they weren't great IMO. I feel terrible for those parents that have to work two jobs, and get to spend little precious time with their child. There are certainly those that bust their asses to provide financially and are desperate to provide a better life for their child. I get it. But once again, I think being a great parent entails so much, and even though that parent is doing their absolute best I can't call them a great parent. They are a great provider, but if you see and spend a few minutes a day with your child and the rest of the day you are saving lives and walking on water that doesn't = being a great parent in my eyes. And I'm not saying I love my kids more than them. But to me so many factors are very important when it comes to being a good parent. A child needs guidance and a support system and that is very hard to provide if you aren't around.

For emphasis, I am not calling anyone a bad parent. But I am saying if you aren't spending a lot of time with you child, I don't think you are great dad or mom...even if you are doing your best.

I respect your opinion and I get what you are saying, I just disagree with it.

And Frylock is right, I'm sure there would be exceptions where I would have to stay here if my wife moved. Ruth's medical example for one. But I would make it my life's work to find a job by her where I could still provide insurance and support for us to get by if that was the case. And I wouldn't consider myself a great dad and be very disappointed in myself for not being the kind of dad I want them to have.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Tonight on ABC's "Primetime: Family Secrets." 

Jon hates Kate x8


----------



## lexsar (Dec 16, 2003)

JFriday said:


> Tonight on ABC's "Primetime: Family Secrets."
> 
> Jon hates Kate x8


HA!


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

JFriday said:


> Tonight on ABC's "Primetime: Family Secrets."
> 
> Jon hates Kate x8


I watched it last night. Jon finally said everything I have been thinking about Kate all along. Interesting to hear his take on the bodyguard. Really seems like a man wanting to do the right thing by his kids.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> I watched it last night. Jon finally said everything I have been thinking about Kate all along. Interesting to hear his take on the bodyguard. Really seems like a man wanting to do the right thing by his kids.


I'm not sure that airing your dirty laundry on national TV is doing the right thing for your kids. As much as she comes across as a *****, he comes across as an idiot.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

For those that are still watching... show to be renamed
Kate Plus Eight ... starting November 2nd


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

cheerdude said:


> For those that are still watching... show to be renamed
> Kate Plus Eight ... starting November 2nd


Seriously? I actually thought they should do that since Jon is rarely in any episodes anymore and when he is, its not for long and he doesn't do much. I'm about to give up on the show though. I actually FF'd through most of last nights show. The continuity is throwing me off. Jon had the twins for their LAST week of school, but the beach trip I thought was at the beginning of school when Jon had the twins again and Kate took the boys to the battleship? Oh well, I really don't care anymore.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

It's kinda weird now I agree. Anyone know how it's doing in the ratings? My wife thinks Kate got a "boob job" recently. Other than that, it's about as interesting as watching paint dry these days. That and it's kind of sad...


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

flyers088 said:


> I watched it last night. Jon finally said everything I have been thinking about Kate all along. Interesting to hear his take on the bodyguard. Really seems like a man wanting to do the right thing by his kids.


:up::up: what he said.

I think Kate is a self-serving person grabbing at the brass ring. She was always a nasty, invalidating, condescending, P whipping beyotch IMO. I felt sorry for Jon and I'm glad he's out.

I think Kate will do her best to destroy him and his relationship with the kids. I won't watch again, and do not wish Kate any TV talk show. (what would she talk about? How to castrate a man??) Yeccchhh.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

bareyb said:


> It's kinda weird now I agree. Anyone know how it's doing in the ratings? My wife thinks Kate got a "boob job" recently. Other than that, it's about as interesting as watching paint dry these days. That and it's kind of sad...


I heard yesterday that the "divorce" show had about 10M viewers and the most recent show was down around 1.7M.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I don't watch this show, but have come to know of these dysfuntional characters through CNN, of all places! ??? 
I don't get it ... do parents ignore their own kids while watching these two narcissists who happen to have a large brood of exploited children? 
Oh, I can just see the trainwreck tabloids/entertainment TV shows following around the kids as they enter their teens and 20s as screwed up "celebs". _Ugh!_


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

getreal said:


> I don't get it ... do parents ignore their own kids while watching these two narcissists who happen to have a large brood of exploited children?


Is there something different about this show, in this regard, than every other show on TV that people with kids watch?


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

getreal said:


> I don't watch this show, but have come to know of these dysfuntional characters through CNN, of all places! ???
> I don't get it ... do parents ignore their own kids while watching these two narcissists who happen to have a large brood of exploited children?
> Oh, I can just see the trainwreck tabloids/entertainment TV shows following around the kids as they enter their teens and 20s as screwed up "celebs". _Ugh!_


Do you ignore your kids while watching CNN?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)




----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I guess Jon doesn't know how to use spell check or how to spell his own name?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

aindik said:


> I guess Jon doesn't know how to use spell check or how to spell his own name?


I think that's how his name is spelled. Odd, yes, but everyone makes up spellings for names nowadays.

Greg


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

gchance said:


> I think that's how his name is spelled. Odd, yes, but everyone makes up spellings for names nowadays.
> 
> Greg


If his name starts with "John," why is (was) the show called "Jon & Kate"?

(He also spelled "Penalty" wrong.)


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

aindik said:


> If his name starts with "John," why is (was) the show called "Jon & Kate"?
> 
> (He also spelled "Penalty" wrong.)


Very true. It was probably printed by some assistant. It looks like a Photoshop job but the photo was taken onsite by Extra TV.

Greg


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

aindik said:


> If his name starts with "John," why is (was) the show called "Jon & Kate"?
> 
> (He also spelled "Penalty" wrong.)


Jon is just another shorted form of Johnathan. My uncle's name is Johnathan, but he goes by Jay.

According tot he divorce papers, his name is Johnathan.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

His name is actually Jonathan. No H befoe the n. therefore Jon makes perfect sense.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

TLC should change the name of the show to Jon and Kate + Eight Lawyers. Things will only get nastier.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

nataylor said:


> According tot he divorce papers, his name is Johnathan.





JFriday said:


> His name is actually Jonathan. No H befoe the n. therefore Jon makes perfect sense.


Which is how it's spelled in the divorce papers. It's how most people named Jonathan spell it.

The sign, OTOH, puts an H after the O, and replaces the second A with another O.
Normal: JONATHAN
Sign: JOHNATHON


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

JFriday said:


> Do you ignore your kids while watching CNN?


If I had kids, then my answer to that might mean something. But at this point, I have no kids.

_That I know of._


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

The saga continues. Note to self: Open your own bank account as soon as you separate.

John wiped out the joint bank account.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

mcb08 said:


> The saga continues. Note to self: Open your own bank account as soon as you separate.
> 
> John wiped out the joint bank account.


What a jerk.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Wow. What an ******.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Maybe you're only hearing one side of the story.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

He is a pri**
And Kate must be dying from embarrassment 
that the world now knows she was married to someone as ignorant as he is.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

You know what?
I just read the story ^
I can not believe this woman actually left that type of money with him having access to it.
I am going to risk insulting all the respectable attorneys here but,
This got really ugly exactly at the same moment the attorneys stepped in.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> Maybe you're only hearing one side of the story.


+1. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't have any $$ from her new book stashed away. If she put that money in an account that he had access to, I can't feel sorry for her.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

He is real dumb, he could have come off as a sympathetic one had he played his cards right. She treated him like crap, but he showed himself to be such an idiot he's making her look good.

I heard on the radio that there is a court order not to withdraw the money from that account. Don't know how true it is.


----------



## Meowkitkat1 (Sep 20, 2004)

It seems strange that she says that she has no money and that if the show stops she will not be able to support the kids. What about the book deal and speaking engagements? 

There is more to this whole situation than is being depicted. I don't think either side is telling the truth. She treated Jon badly during the marriage, he was a wuss for taking it. They made lots of money but where is it? She has book and speaking deals - where is that money? Jon wanted to stop the show a couple of years ago she did not so it went on. There is an unequal balance of power between them and now the house is crumbling. What is really true and what is exagerated?


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

pdhenry said:


> Maybe you're only hearing one side of the story.


I saw her on the Today show and she made herself look like the victim.  She was all demure and quiet, nothing like her real self on the show. Now she's trying to make him look like the bad guy. Sorry Kate, you're still a b*tch.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Jon was saying there was over 10 bank accounts; all under her control except the one that he took the money from. She has almost a million in an account that she got for the book deal.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

During divorces, isn't it ill-advised to withdraw funds from a joint account? It makes you look bad No matter what you feel entitled to, let the judge decide.

Sad to say, when I left my ex, he told friends and family that I took funds from the joint account. I didn't take a single dime. I'm not suggesting Kate made it up - the story just made me think about how people will lie about each other.

I actually believe he did take the money and that makes him a jerk, in my opinion. Kate may have a lot of money in other places; she did refer to this account as being "liquid". It's just wrong to help oneself to the "spoils of war" when the war has just begun.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

stujac said:


> Jon was saying there was over 10 bank accounts; all under her control except the one that he took the money from. She has almost a million in an account that she got for the book deal.


I was thinking there would be more money in other accounts - maybe trust funds or such for the kids. He is showing on national tv tonight I think, the bank statement to prove. He took out 22,000. Not 220,000.

Personally they are both crap and wanting some more of their 15 minutes. I feel sorry for the kids when they grow up and have to hear all that mom and dad did.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

jilter said:


> I can not believe this woman actually left that type of money with him having access to it.
> I am going to risk insulting all the respectable attorneys here but,
> This got really ugly exactly at the same moment the attorneys stepped in.





wendiness1 said:


> During divorces, isn't it ill-advised to withdraw funds from a joint account? It makes you look bad No matter what you feel entitled to, let the judge decide


When I divorced Alpha we had similar joint access to a variety of asset accounts. She made certain that language to prevent me from moving the monies around was put out as soon as possible. I held my end of the bargain and made no large expenditures and ensuring that we had relatively free access to our cash accounts. Imagine my surprise when I went to the ATM to get some cash and over $100K was missing... Her answer was that she wanted to make sure that *I* wouldn't do the same thing. My attorney and her attorney both agreed that I should just let it go. Did not impact her ability to get spousal support or skip out on kicking in for the taxes we owed either. :::grumble:::


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I'm sure the production company covered their assets by hiring the best lawyers (e.g., Momjian) for the one person who wanted to continue the reality show. The lawyers woulda had Kate move and hide as much money as possible BEFORE ever filing anything. You do the sneaky stuff before you "show your hand" by going to court or filing for divorce.

From that time on, their media consultants have milked every emotion and tried to position Kate (who wants money and fame) as a viable product, and they have all worked in concert to destroy Jon. And Jon, thrilled to be away from the witch, sure fell right into their trap and was complicit in making himself look bad!! <g>

Let's not get confused and think that just because this isn't on-air, that it isn't scripted! It's written, scripted, lawyered, and publicized for the glory of TLC and the production company and advertisers.

We are all such suckers for planted stories.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

someone posted a video on fb of an interview of Jon on Nancy Grace. People were raving how he deserved her (NG) lashing out at him. I couldn't stand her, I thought it was terrible behaviour. Then again, I've never watched her before.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Havana Brown said:


> someone posted a video on fb of an interview of Jon on Nancy Grace. People were raving how he deserved her (NG) lashing out at him. I couldn't stand her, I thought it was terrible behaviour. Then again, I've never watched her before.


That's the way she always is with everyone. It's her schtick.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Havana Brown said:


> someone posted a video on fb of an interview of Jon on Nancy Grace. People were raving how he deserved her (NG) lashing out at him. I couldn't stand her, I thought it was terrible behaviour. Then again, I've never watched her before.


Yikes. How uncomfortable was that? Here's a link if anyone is interested.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

I heard on the radio this morning that they were filming Kate being a waitress in Raleigh, NC for some kind of show on TLC coming up.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Havana Brown said:


> I heard on the radio this morning that they were filming Kate being a waitress in Raleigh, NC for some kind of show on TLC coming up.


Its called "Being Tiger's 12th"


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Havana Brown said:


> I heard on the radio this morning that they were filming Kate being a waitress in Raleigh, NC for some kind of show on TLC coming up.


The company that produces Jon and Kate Plus 8 is located in Raleigh and Carrboro, NC. That is why she spends a lot of time in NC. Remember the week they spent at Wilmington?


----------



## ncsercs (May 5, 2001)

andyw715 said:


> Its called "Being Tiger's 12th"


That's fitting considering she's a shark in her own right.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Gosselin Kids ruining Christmas for everyone they come in contact with:

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/gosselin-kids-no-longer-believe-in-santa/32482


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

didnt realize he was working in my area still. kinda sad but reinforces that he's human

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=513844

Robeson Township police said Monday that they have decided not to file any charges after investigating an incident in which Jon Gosselin fired a warning shot to keep a photographer off his property last week

Since last month, Gosselin has been working as the maitre d' three to four nights a week at the Black Dog Cafe in Stouchsburg


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Jay Leno said last night that even after pointing a gun at the photographer, the photographer still refused to take his picture.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

andyw715 said:


> Jay Leno said last night that even after pointing a gun at the photographer, the photographer still refused to take his picture.


 That's mean... I saw John on TV the other day and sure enough he's working as a waiter. Says he can't get a job because he is too well known. He was in High Tech wasn't he? I'd think he could get a job if he were good at his craft. Or some offshoot...


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

Who is going to give a high tech job to someone that demonstrated over and over, on television, that they are a doormat. Its not a trait valued by employers.


----------



## alauppe (Jun 24, 2006)

i'm with you bengalfreak. I can't believe he has ever had a job after the first episode...


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

http://www.pennlive.com/entertainme...sselin_tgi_fridays.html#incart_river_home_pop

Jon Gosselin is in the kitchen. The one-time reality personality on "Jon and Kate Plus 8" has resurfaced, and this time around, the father of eight is working at T.G.I. Friday's in Lancaster County, according to TMZ.

The celebrity news site said Gosselin has been working for about one month at the restaurant. The site shared a photo of Gosselin with two of his Friday's co-workers.

Apparently, Gosselin, who had worked at one point as a maître'd at the now-closed Black Dog Café in Womelsdorf, Berks County, received training at Friday's, TMZ reported.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)




----------

