Jon and Kate Plus 8 official Thread, Part 2!!

[madge]

I haven't seen this episode with the dogs. I'd thought about giving up JK8 for lent ... but clearly, I'm going to have to watch this one to see what all the fuss is about!

13 hours later ... I can report that the puppy episode was big talk at the Kentucky Kids Consignment Sale today. Similar comments to what I've seen here. This episode has really struck a nerve!

 

[TotalSnowWhite]

13 hours later ... I can report that the puppy episode was big talk at the Kentucky Kids Consignment Sale today. Similar comments to what I've seen here. This episode has really struck a nerve!

Madgie-Moo!!! How was the sale? Did you see your stuff walking out the front door??? I love that sight!

I'm not a dog person. That must be the difference. I don't think the episode, again I've seen the last half and change, was that big of a deal. Interested to see what you think after you watch it.

 

[barkley]

I wonder if the ex-boss will take any legal action. If his account is true, and he does, Beth, Kate and Jon could be in trouble for the book.

That wasn't a bad read, actually. A lot of the linked articles aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on, but aside from a few obvious hiccups (the lady who said the kids were exploited...but only once they pulled out of her speaking engagement), it wasn't entirely biased.

Everyone always asks where the Gosselin's friends, family, etc. are, but I wonder where the credible investigative reporters are. All of these exposes are from no-name internet "reporters" and small town papers. Anyone and their PennMommy can post things online, throw in a few local names and claim they're true, but I'm pretty skeptical of a "publication" without public trust and reputation.

so did they actualy name the boss or the company in the book? if so i imagine the man COULD sue.

i always thought the whole asertion that jon was fired because of insurance was questionable. i figured if that was truely the case, with all the community support the family had (at least in the begining) there would have been a huge public outcry (i know if i knew of a buisness owner that did this i'de stop using their services and encourage others to do the same).

 

[madge]

Madgie-Moo!!! How was the sale? Did you see your stuff walking out the front door??? I love that sight!

I didn't, but have seen tonight's settlement report .. I think I did ok. I'm about $75 off from where I'd like to be overall for the sale, and have 2 more days to go. We'll see!

I'm not a dog person. That must be the difference. I don't think the episode, again I've seen the last half and change, was that big of a deal. Interested to see what you think after you watch it.

I've got it set to tape on Saturday night.

The people that I was listening to today had strong opinions about the kind of dog chosen, how they named them, how Kate spoke to the kids (you're not welcome) and just Kate in general. The buzz was not good.

With that said, tickets for the event on March 8 are going quick. According to the church's website, all available seating in the auditorium/sanctuary is taken for both services. You can still get passes for the overflow tent.

 

[allison443]

I'm more of a debater than a JK8er.

That rhymes!!

 

[bigmerle1966]

I wonder if the ex-boss will take any legal action. If his account is true, and he does, Beth, Kate and Jon could be in trouble for the book.

Actually I am wondering the opposite. Wondering if Jon could take legal action against the ex-boss for discussing that.

I know where I work no one is allowed to comment AT ALL on why someone was let go. If someone calls for a reference the only thing our company is allowed to do is say yes or no to whether they worked there and if they can be hired back. And no one but the HR department is supposed to talk to someone calling for a reference.

Now I am not sure of the laws and rules about that, going to ask my boss, who has HR experience about it tomorrow.

 

[tinkgurl]

I'm more of a debater than a JK8er.

Where's the tag fairy when we need one?!

 

[TotalSnowWhite]

That rhymes!!

You missed this one:

...I'm pretty skeptical of a "publication" without public trust and reputation.

Not a perfect rhyme, but I try...

Actually I am wondering the opposite. Wondering if Jon could take legal action against the ex-boss for discussing that.

I know where I work no one is allowed to comment AT ALL on why someone was let go. If someone calls for a reference the only thing our company is allowed to do is say yes or no to whether they worked there and if they can be hired back. And no one but the HR department is supposed to talk to someone calling for a reference.

Now I am not sure of the laws and rules about that, going to ask my boss, who has HR experience about it tomorrow.

Good point. I didn't even think of that. I don't remember if they called out the boss by name, but I think they mentioned the company or left some very large hints. I'd have to reread that part.

I didn't realize it was a GWoPper who wrote the article, though. That does put a spin on things, so to speak.

Where's the tag fairy when we need one?!

I would get that tag, especially since everyone knows about my K8 shrine.

 

[barkley]

Actually I am wondering the opposite. Wondering if Jon could take legal action against the ex-boss for discussing that.

I know where I work no one is allowed to comment AT ALL on why someone was let go. If someone calls for a reference the only thing our company is allowed to do is say yes or no to whether they worked there and if they can be hired back. And no one but the HR department is supposed to talk to someone calling for a reference.

Now I am not sure of the laws and rules about that, going to ask my boss, who has HR experience about it tomorrow.

i think the h/r laws vary state to state, and in pennsylvania (is'nt that where they live?) unemployment claims might be public records (the article said something about supporting documents and unemployment upholding the termination so i'm guessing jon applied and got denied).

the whole thing makes me wonder about the short term job jon had with the govenor's office when the kids were realy young. if he put on his job app. that he was terminated for the insurance issue when in reality it was for a side job and it was'nt checked out and verified in the hiring process but discovered at a later date it could have easily led to his not leaving there of his own choice (as i believe j&k have always said) but being terminated for falsifying a job application (and we will never know about this cuz gov. h/r will never tell why someone is terminated-they always defer to weather a person is or is not "eligible to rehire" ). this comes to my mind cuz dh and i had a gov. co-worker who like jon worked in the i.t. division-he badmouthed a former employer who had terminated him for very good cause (that would have made his application never see the light of day if a higher up in our agency who wanted to hire him had'nt misled h/r into believing he had checked with the former employer to push his hiring through ) the former employer heard the guy got hired and contacted h/r with the info. on the termination and threatened to make it public (it was legal) that they guy falsified his job application (technicaly a "government document"). h/r and legal counsel for the agency had a coniption cuz if it ever became public knowledge then every bit of paperwork the guy ever did could be called into question (if you're proven to have falsified one gov. doc it can discredit every unfalsified/valid doc. or i.t. record you've ever touched). h/r did a very quiet termination.

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

The hair does not help.... She looked much better when it was a lot shorter.

I agree. I recently watch the "Jon and Kate plus 8 Hit the Road" episode... again, and I think her hair was perfect then.

 

[newtodis]

Thanks for the link to the article. Gave me something to read this morning. I've been up since 5 since we leave for Disney tonight and I just couldn't lay in bed flopping around anymore not sleeping....I can only watch so much late night tv!

Alright....off to make some muffins and cupcakes to put in the van for the trip! Hopefully I'll have time to catch up or I'll have a lot of reading by the time I get back!

 

[Dr_Finkelstein]

There is a new article on the Gosselins. It reveals some interesting things, one of which is that Jon has been lying about why he was fired from his job when Kate was pregnant with the sextuplets. It seems he wasn't fired for insurance reasons as they stated, but for doing unauthorized side jobs. It's an interesting read.

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/32592531.html

Here is the link to the original article.
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/jon_and_kate_gosselin/page1

I agree with a PP, that 'article' was just another cobbled together piece from GWoP blogs. All rumour and innuendo.

We only seem to get the old series over here on Discovery - none of the more recent ones from TLC - I feel like I'm missing so much!!!!!

Di x

 

[DreaGirl]

I agree with a PP, that 'article' was just another cobbled together piece from GWoP blogs. All rumour and innuendo.

We only seem to get the old series over here on Discovery - none of the more recent ones from TLC - I feel like I'm missing so much!!!!!

Di x

I'm not sure that a publication would be able to publish rumors and innuendos. I'm sure that J&K could sue if everything in the article didn't have some facts backing it up.

 

[newtodis]

I am trying to make today move a little quicker so my vacation can start. I decided to try and google the guy's name (Jon's former boss) just to see what I could find out about him.

Here's what I found:

David C. Rothermel, license no. PE-052783-E of Lebanon, Lebanon County, was ordered to pay a civil penalty of twelve hundred ($1200.00) and have a public reprimand placed on Respondent's permanent Board record and received a 30-day stayed suspension provided he completes a Board approved Ethics class within six (6) months of the Board’ adoption of the Order, because Rothermel failed to act for his client in professional matters other than as a faithful agent or trustee and attempted to injure falsely or maliciously, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects or business of anyone. (11-17-04)

From: http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bpoa/lib...r_2004_pr-state_business_licensing_boards.pdf The quote is from Page 8/8.

I can't really find much else though...ok back to looking for something else to do this morning. I wish some of these people would come out of the woodwork to share some stories - good or bad at this point. I know I (and lots of us) have said that so many times but I can't believe there's not some network at this point that's not trying to dig up some dirt on them. It's weird that Dr Phil would have them on even in the beginning - he always talks about all the research the staff does before the show. You would think if a person has problems like others have mentioned Kate having, she wouldn't have just developed them in the past couple of years and they should have been realized at that point...something's just not fitting with me about them these days.

And I have to say she was very "Hollywood" when she went to pick up the dogs! She said something about someone should have told her not to wear heels???? Seriously, where did you think you were getting the dogs from - the mall???

 

[MichelleVW]

I'm not sure that a publication would be able to publish rumors and innuendos. I'm sure that J&K could sue if everything in the article didn't have some facts backing it up.

What about those publications in the grocery check out line? I'm sure they don't have alot of facts backing them up.

If that article had any facts they would have printed them...it was all the same rumors over and over.

 

[longstangetrip]

What makes information credible? If it's negative it seems to always be "rumor or innuendo." If you ever saw a journalistic report in the before referenced magazine/newspaper(?) or The Reading Eagle about them being truly philanthropic, putting their family's interests first or their community's, would it still be rumor and innuendo?

This blog has an interesting division. I don't think it's between "lovers and haters" of the family, but between defenders of Kate and those who just don't see what there is to defend/analyze. To me, she is what I see and the way whe makes other people feel, and it's not very kind. I don't know their hearts, but Jon and Kate's actions speak pretty loudly in my opinion. Earlier a pp said they "WERE SURE" these kids aren't beaten, what if someone said they "WERE SURE" these kids are beaten. How would the response be then? None of us can make either statement definitively .

 

[TotalSnowWhite]

What makes information credible? If it's negative it seems to always be "rumor or innuendo." If you ever saw a journalistic report in the before referenced magazine/newspaper(?) or The Reading Eagle about them being truly philanthropic, putting their family's interests first or their community's, would it still be rumor and innuendo?

This blog has an interesting division. I don't think it's between "lovers and haters" of the family, but between defenders of Kate and those who just don't see what there is to defend/analyze. To me, she is what I see and the way whe makes other people feel, and it's not very kind. I don't know their hearts, but Jon and Kate's actions speak pretty loudly in my opinion. Earlier a pp said they "WERE SURE" these kids aren't beaten, what if someone said they "WERE SURE" these kids are beaten. How would the response be then? None of us can make either statement definitively .

Here's a pretty decent list of what makes information credible. I had to devote an entire year of school to credibility and journalistic integrity. These are from a PR blog...

1. If facts are offered, is a source cited? If so, is the source a trustworthy one?

2. Is the information presented without being unnecessarily sensationalized?

3. Does the information appear to have been thoroughly researched?

4. If opinions are offered, are they clearly labeled as such or are they portrayed as fact?

5. If reading a blog or other online news source, does the content read like an emotional diatribe, or does it read like a well-thought-out, well-researched outline of facts? Emotional attachment to what is being written clouds the objectivity of the writer.

6. Consider the source. For example, if you are reading a partisan political blog on either side of the aisle, consider the agenda behind what is being written.

 

[momrek06]

When do your kids stop being your kids and start becoming your meal ticket? hmmm....


“Katezilla”


friends and neighbors got a letter containing the Gosselins’ account number with the electric company, in case anyone felt moved to pay the couple’s bill.


$1.13 million house on 24 acres in Lower Heidelberg Township. That new house has 24 acres of land!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just some interesting excerpts from the article!!!


Kate was on Dr. Phil last week discussing the Octomom...she mentioned that she had 50 family and friends help her weekly with the newborns....where are those 50 today....there never seems to be anyone at their home but them???

 

[OhMari]

Kate was on Dr. Phil last week discussing the Octomom...she mentioned that she had 50 family and friends help her weekly with the newborns....where are those 50 today....there never seems to be anyone at their home but them???

I remember in an interview, Jon and Kate said the appreciated all the help, but one nite, both had fed all the kids. And the same thing the next evening. They said they found that they were able to handle the night time feedings and didn't need all the help anymore. A comment was made how they loved all the help, but it was nice not having people tromping through the door all hours of the day anymore and they were finally getting their life back.
I'm betting, this is when all the hurt feelings started with friends and family. They just cut everyone off with taking care of the kids. They still had that one lady come in and fold the laundry and I think Beth and her dd still came over and put the clothes away.

 

[momrek06]

I remember in an interview, Jon and Kate said the appreciated all the help, but one nite, both had fed all the kids. And the same thing the next evening. They said they found that they were able to handle the night time feedings and didn't need all the help anymore. A comment was made how they loved all the help, but it was nice not having people tromping through the door all hours of the day anymore and they were finally getting their life back.
I'm betting, this is when all the hurt feelings started with friends and family. They just cut everyone off with taking care of the kids. They still had that one lady come in and fold the laundry and I think Beth and her dd still came over and put the clothes away.

So these 50 or so that came to help, when they so needed the help and help they did not pay were now considered tromping in and they wanted their lives back?? Almost like these 50+ helpers took their lives and their privacy.....