TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . RESIZER . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through June 06, 2010

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: Other Reality Shows ARCHIVES: Archives for 2007~2010 WrapUps: Archives for 2010 - 3: Jon & Kate Plus 8: Archive through June 06, 2010 users admin

Author Message
Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 10:54 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Just for grins, I googled "Kate regrets being mean to Jon," and came up with a wealth of hits, and several different instances where she admits and regrets her sharp tongue. It's even in her book apparently. But this references the interview on the Today show I'm recalling. Yeah, Yeah, I know, she didn't mean it and it was just a media ploy.

LOS ANGELES, Cailf. -- Jon and Kate Gosselin have waged a heated battle of words since they split last year, and now the reality mom says she regrets some of things she's said about her ex.

"I learned that in the heat of the moment I have a sharp tongue, and looking back there are probably a lot of people that I love that I probably spoke to inappropriately," Kate told Meredith Vieira during the second part of her "Today" show interview, which aired Wednesday morning.

"Those are the people that are beside you to support you and love you," Kate continued, getting momentarily emotional. "I've really learned to watch what I say."

Kate, who -- among her barbs at her ex -- once told Jon, "stop breathing so loud" during an episode of "Jon & Kate Plus 8," added, "I think everybody in life says things at time that they regret, so there are things I probably do [regret telling Jon.]"

In Kate's new book, "I Just Want You to Know," she elaborates on her "sharp tongue," writing, "Much of what I said to Jon was unwarranted. I could have guarded my tongue better."


http://omg.yahoo.com/news/kate-gosselin-regrets-her-sharp-tongue-with-jon/39172

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 10:57 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Frankly, I think the reason that this show gets so much criticism versus others, is that Kate is kind of a lightning rod. For whatever reasons (and some of them are probably on point), she invokes a negative reaction from people, so they don't like that she has her kids on tv. People tend to be more forgiving of people they like, and less tolerant of people they don't. Face it, Kate is not the warm, fuzzy kind - the kind of person you immediately warm up to and think of as a friend.

I just see her as incredibly reserved and guarded, but I can see how that comes across as cold and witchy.

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:07 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texannie a private message Print Post    
Holly, my point was that other people with children have reality shows and no one seems to begrudge them. There are other people who also complain about the press being intrusive. Yes, it might be their job, but one could equally argue that if it bothers them so much and is so intrusive in their lives (as I have heard other celebrities complain) that perhaps they should find another line of business just as people have suggested kate do. this is her job, along with writing books, being a correspondent for ET. I don't begrudge anyone trying to make a living for their family. I am not sure why some seem to begrudge kate.

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:12 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texannie a private message Print Post    
Frankly, I think the reason that this show gets so much criticism versus others, is that Kate is kind of a lightning rod. For whatever reasons (and some of them are probably on point), she invokes a negative reaction from people, so they don't like that she has her kids on tv. People tend to be more forgiving of people they like, and less tolerant of people they don't. Face it, Kate is not the warm, fuzzy kind - the kind of person you immediately warm up to and think of as a friend.

kar, i think you are spot on!

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:13 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ophiliasgrandma a private message Print Post    
Karuuna, I'm a 'people' and I don't have a negative reaction to Kate. In fact, I quite like her.

Lurknomore
Member

07-07-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:14 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lurknomore a private message Print Post    
Kar IMHO it's not as much that it's not credible coming from Kate, but it's that she is ONLY saying it to the MEDIA, and has made it clear that she isn't saying it to Jon. If she was really sorry then why say it to Meredith Viera, but refuse to go to PRIVATE counseling and try to work out at least a better situation with your ex and family?

Seems to me it's not US she should be saying this to. And I don't mind someone not being warm and fuzzy, and honestly I respect when a person is direct in their words. But there's a big difference in my eyes from being blunt to being hurtful, degrading and mean-spirited, which is how Kate ALWAYS came across to me, even back when they were allegedly happy. I'm sure if I look back there are posts from me wondering how Jon can sit there and take it.

Ok, this is my once a day max check in on this <66> thread. Clearly though many of us will simply have to agree to disagree IMHO, because I don't think either viewpoint will change. To be fair though, I think BOTH Jon and Kate now communicate through the media and via the general public's opinion when they should just be dealing privately with each other for the sake of the kids IMHO. Jon seems to just be doing it aimlessly, whereas Kate seems to do it for public sympathy and spin. That's how I see it and I don't respect it.

Last, I still don't see where Kate apologized TO Jon. And IMHO that is the only way it's a real apology. And I recall him laughing when some reporter asked him and he said something like, "well she isn't saying anything like that to me." That is why I felt it doesn't count...and still don't. K...have fun. <66>

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:17 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
OG, I should have said "some" people. :-)

Lurknomore
Member

07-07-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:21 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lurknomore a private message Print Post    
Forgot to comment on this show vs others w/kids. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of ANY shows with kids on them (cept the new Bret Michael's ones cause I fell in love with his his wonderful children). But I think what annoys me with this bunch is how they have turned the show into their live's. It's how they do things, why they do things. It's not longer about showing us them living their lives, but rather creating show and have them living via that. Hope that makes sense.

Of the other shows mentioned, the only one I watched some of is 9 by Design, and while they move way too much, I liked that they were all just living their normal lives, not doing stuff for the cameras. Ditto the new Bret Michael's show.

I don't enjoy staged situations which in turn create kids that then come to expect endless freebies and trips and so on. I just don't think it's in the best interest of the kid's to be raised in such an unnatural way. I can't speak to the other shows as I don't know them. I tried to watch the Duggars to see what they were about and nearly went into a diabetic coma from them lol. I couldn't finish the show and was bored to tears.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:26 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Well, of course there isn't a video of her apologizing to Jon, that should be private if she had done it. She shouldn't apologize on camera TO Jon. But I never said that she apologized TO Jon. I said she apologized/regretted her behavior toward Jon; and she has done it on camera, on video and in her book. This is what I said:

Kate has apologized several times for the way she treated Jon. I think she does recognize that she was in part complicit in their breakup.

So the information I posted does support my original point. It shows she is reflecting back on her behavior, working on her issues, and trying to become a better person, as a result of the break up of her marriage. That has nothing to do with whether she refused counseling during the marriage. She is changing NOW, because of the painfulness of divorce. It's very common.

Kate is going on interviews and talking about these things because it furthers her career, her book sales and her television shows, which is the sole source of income for her and her children. I don't fault her for that.

Jon, on the other hand, has no gainful employment other than selling photo ops of his children with his new squeeze. To me, that is a more salicious "use" of his children then honestly putting back together the tv show.

Lurknomore
Member

07-07-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:34 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lurknomore a private message Print Post    
Ok just one more post..maybe I'll skip tomorrow to pace myself lol.

I only have one response to that Kar. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!

Just because Jon has been awful in his choices, doesn't make Kate better in hers. As for the "sole income" stuff, legal papers show that Jon is still paying 22 thousand a month for child support (no clue where he is getting it--then again maybe that's the reason for those tacky pics etc). But she keeps saying she is the sole support and clearly folks are believing it. Which proves my point that just because she says it doesn't make it true!!! How are the kids starving to death and how must she work as she says she MUST if Jon is still paying 22k a month??

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:36 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
His money is coming from the divorce settlement (that's been made clear in several articles too), and the photo op money he gets from inviting them to take photos of his kids with his new squeeze. What money he has will run out soon, since he does not have a job per se, other than selling pics of his kids.

IMO, Kate is wise to plan that he will not be making those payments for very long, because he won't. Then we'll see Jon hauled off to court for daddy delinquency. Mark my words. :-)

Lurknomore
Member

07-07-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:37 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lurknomore a private message Print Post    
But how is Kate the "sole support" of the kids if Jon is paying 22 thousand per month to support them??

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Because it's the money they earned together from the show that he's using to pay support now. The *show* was the sole support, and now Kate is.

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:50 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Brenda1966 a private message Print Post    
I think lightening rod is a good description! If there is a single person out there who has changed their mind about Kate or Jon based on our discussions here I'd be surprised. These discussions are akin to religion and politics. Fun to debate, but rarely ever sway anyone's mind.

I agree Lurk, I don't trust the picture Kate paints. She isn't saying she's worried her child support payments will stop coming, she talks like she doesn't receive them at all, like she's not getting one red cent to pay for the kids, but we know that's not true as of now. She's wise to work and save money and support herself, but to carry on like there is no income right now is not accurate IMO when she is receiving child support.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 12:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
As I recall, her comments about "no income" and "children starving" were a response to Jon raiding their joint account - money which the court ordered that he took illegally (presumably to pay for his expensive car and NY apt) and had to return.

I have not heard her say those things since then. But the truth is, she is the only one earning sustainable income for the children right now.

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 12:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texannie a private message Print Post    
Of the other shows mentioned, the only one I watched some of is 9 by Design, and while they move way too much, I liked that they were all just living their normal lives, not doing stuff for the cameras. Ditto the new Bret Michael's show.

I don't enjoy staged situations which in turn create kids that then come to expect endless freebies and trips and so on. I just don't think it's in the best interest of the kid's to be raised in such an unnatural way



i agree, i am not a fan of the 'staged' stuff but is that the family's fault or the production company?

Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 12:48 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
The money Jon was using to pay his child support, according to his last attorney was the money Jon took out of their joint account and then was court ordered to return.. it was put in escrow (meaning Jon couldn't get his hands on it to just use it) and from that account, the court mandated child support payments were made.

I wouldn't bet one red cent that when it is up to Jon to earn and pay child support that he'll pay, or pay in full or pay on time. Just ask whoever held the lease on Jon's Manhattan apartment.. he was booted out for non payment. Just ask several of his attorneys if he ever paid in full their fees. I think Hailey has said he owes her money too.

So the image of Jon paying child support isn't accurate at all to this point. And Kate would be a fool to count on anything from him. If he pays, bonus!

No point in commenting on much that is said here since there are so many statements of things that none of us can possibly know, whole scenarios opined and then taken as truth.

Hukdonreality
Member

09-29-2003

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 1:08 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hukdonreality a private message Print Post    
Paying child support and being ordered to pay child support are two different things. Who actually knows whether Jon has made the payments he was ordered to?

Glenn
Member

07-05-2003

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 2:07 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Glenn a private message Print Post    
It appears Jon was an IT analyst prior to being offered money in exchange for putting his marriage with Kate and the lives of his young children for the world to assess. I really dont' think the pay scale for an IT analyst in Pennsylvania is $22,000 a month but it is remarkably close to the amount that the two of them were paid per episode by TLC according to Jon.

I think Jon could be a bit spoiled to having a camera crew film for three days a week versus going into an office and producing results maybe 5 days a week for a much less amount of money. Where a 30 something male goes after a few years of the easy life(in some ways) indicates his maturity or lack of it, in my opinion.

I wish there had been some man willing to venture into a relationship with Kate after the divorce. It would be interesting to see the spin on the success or failure of that attempt. If it was not a success and Kate found herself in another relationship, would it be perceived as a new squeeze. I find it very sexist to refer to any woman interested in Jon as a squeeze.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 2:14 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Glenn, well if there weren't reports out there about her lusting after stardom and hating kids before she hooked up with Jon, then there wouldn't be any rationale for criticizing the relationship. I find it a little hard to have faith that she has had some sudden epiphany that Jon is a 'real catch' and she can't wait to be part-time mom to eight.

And given that he has had multiple (up to six now?) relationships with women her age (much younger than him), all of which have ended badly (one in which he even filed a false police report against), it's a bit naive to think she's interested in Jon for anything more than his fame; and that he is interested in her for anything more than, uh, her good looks. :-) If it walks like a duck....and uh, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.. and all that stuff.

Glenn
Member

07-05-2003

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 3:16 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Glenn a private message Print Post    
kar, you are so right, it does have a lot to do with perspective.

I have seen people walk like a duck but I knew they weren't ducks. I do suspect if they had more fiber in their diets they may have not been so duck-like in their ambulation.

On one level past behavior is a predictor of the future and on another level it is a example of past choices. Kind of indicates where you fall on the optimist or pessimist scale......half full or half empty and all that stuff.

Lusting after stardom has brought some great entertainment to the screens and hating kids is not a crime if a person does not go about bringing physical injury to them. What makes a person think this squeeze wants to be a partime mom to 8 that already have a mom. Jon is a catch if he assists her in gaining media attention and she doesn't have to give him a percentage of the income if it pans out for her.

I don't know how young the women are that Jon is dating, but he needs to do some math. Jon was 22 years and 6 months old when his twins were born. His twins are age 9 years, 6 months when Jon turned 33. As long as Jon doesn't date anyone younger than 21, he can claim he is considering his kids by dating someone closer in age to them that he is to his children. Depends on your perspective if you want to believe it or not.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 3:59 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Ellen is 23, so not far off. :-)

My point is that Jon has done nothing to indicate that he HAS changed his patterns of choosing women that are inappropriate for him.

Dating someone only BECAUSE you are lusting after stardom and not because you are fascinated and allured by them, is fraud. Especially when children are involved, who could become quite attached to someone who has proclaimed repeatedly that she hates children.

The photos clearly show her carrying the children, and interacting with them, and of course that means that they will become attached (just as they are attached to the camera crew) and will suffer yet another loss when she moves along.

It doesn't take being an optimist or a pessimist. It takes only a realist and a compassionate for children to see that a month of dating someone so young, with such dubious history, and then *introducing* her to the children and having them establish a relationship with her that is also fragile and not long-lasting is a self-serving behavior; and not by any stretch of the imagination "considering" them. Not at all.

Glenn
Member

07-05-2003

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 5:22 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Glenn a private message Print Post    
Well, the optimist part of me is thinking that this gold digger of stardom who is not fascinated or allured by Jon may become the victim of her repeated proclamation of her hatred of children. It would even make a good script for a television show.

Carrying children and interacting with them is a double edged sword. You can become just as attached as the youngsters become with the attention. This squeeze may be learning that she really doesn't hate children.

One level of compassion for children could be that you don't shield them from the uncertainties of life. Should we only give them pets that have longer life spans than the child themselves. How much grief are we setting them up for when we get them this cute puppy that more than likely will pass before the child reaches puberty. It seems to me that loss is very much a part of life and it happens when it starts and is usually beyond our control.

Yes, Jon is not shielding his children from loss and he apparently has not changed his pattern of choosing women if this Ellen person that is only 23 likes to keep a firm grip on the source of his gametes.

If Kate sent Jon packing, how does that factor into the theory of protecting the children from loss. How considerate was Kate of the children making this decision.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 5:30 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Children suffer plenty of losses in life, without exposing them to unnecessary ones. These children have already suffered great loss; there is no need to put them thru the revolving losses of your own relationships. And indeed, the literature shows that children reexperience the losses of broken families constantly and repeatedly as they move from the custody of one parent to another. Not only that, they experience thoses losses in different ways at different ages. It is already an unending cycle of loss. I cannot understand how anyone could see adding transient adults to experience yet more losses as a good thing, and it is generally accepted psychologically that it is not a good idea to introduce new partners to your children until the relationship is well established. Jon would know that if he were seeking professional help. :-)

I don't buy the comparison to a puppy. A commitment to a puppy is generally a long range thing, but in this case I guess Jon's relationships don't last any longer than the two dogs the Gosselins already adopted and dumped when they divorced. Yes, the children have experienced loss a plenty. Losses are much more difficult when the parents make these decisions willy nilly without much thought and without including the children in the decision making. It only teaches the children to feel more hopeless, not how to cope, unfortunately.

In addition, children have less coping skills than adults, when it comes to adapting to new adults, with whom they have to compete for their father's attention as well. All these difficulties are much harder for them than they are for adults. Heck, he only has them a limited amount of time - he can't devote that small amount of time to them solely? That would also be best for the children.

But best for the children, and acting maturely do not appear to be part of Jon's repertoire right now.

As for Kate sending Jon packing, as I recall, she did not want the divorce. Granted she should have agreed to counseling, but I do not think it is accurate to say "she sent him packing."

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 6:03 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Brenda1966 a private message Print Post    
Where are all these pictures and stories of Jon and his new lady friend? I read US magazine and am feeling sorely disappointed that I am not up on the latest Jon news as I should be!