Jill and Jessa Duggar Special Sunday Dec 13 - Merge

[luv2laugh]

There's NO way the Duggars are going back on air. They'd face too much backlash and I can't see sponsors supporting that family. Whoever is a fan, get ready because this is their GOODBYE!!!! I can't wait to see the look on the faces of Jill & Derick and Jessa & Ben when they have to face the music and gets real jobs! 

[EmCatlyn]

4 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

There's NO way the Duggars are going back on air. They'd face too much backlash and I can't see sponsors supporting that family. Whoever is a fan, get ready because this is their GOODBYE!!!! I can't wait to see the look on the faces of Jill & Derick and Jessa & Ben when they have to face the music and gets real jobs! 

Haven't you noticed?

The Duggars are back on the air.  Two more specials to go, and if the ratings continue this good, they will be back again.

I wish it were not so, but it is.  They may never have a show where JB and Michelle are the center of this remarkable family, but they are back.

[Arrowoftruth]

This is about halfway ot but since we were talking about the seewald and dillards having to get actual jobs but... I'm the only employee at my job. My co-worker/friend quit recently and our employee was begging her to stay until the christmas break till he could find someone to replace her promising a pay raise and Christmas Bonus(he told her this privately n she told me later on). She didn't want to lose her new job so she didn't stay obviously. Now its been two weeks since she's left and no mention of a pay raise or bonus to me and I've been doing the jobs of two people without break. I am ready to leave this job but have been trying to get another one lined up. I'm supposed to get my paycheck tomorrow and am wondering if I do get a Christmas bonus, would it be in this check or is it more common to be given the day before the office closes on holidays?

 

[Kittikatz]

8 hours ago, OnceUponATime said:

I disagree. I find most babies really damn alien ugly. The younger they are, the uglier usually. I bite my tongue when visiting people's babies so I don't say what I think. I refuse to tell someone that I think their baby is cute when I don't, so if I must comment on the baby's looks, it's usually about an outfit.
 

I'm not planning on having any babies so I guess I don't have to worry about abandoning them to the local crows and pigeons (because wolves don't seem to live around here). I don't think I've ever told anyone before that I find babies ugly.

At risk of being run over by a hit-stroller, I have to say I'm with you on this. To me, babies are the furthest thing from cute - they all look like terrifying aliens intent on leaking bodily fluids from every available orrifice . I don't think I have ever told a friend that their baby was cute or not cute. Protocol for Kittikatz meeting an infant is usually  something along the lines of telling the parent(s) congratulations, and that it looks to be growing well, or is in possession of a lot of hair, or wearing a nice outfit, followed by a quick pet of the child's hair (in the direction of hair growth so as not to risk causing it any upset) and a "good baby" directed toward the infant, cue smile and slide away ... Non specific things that focus on positives while making my discomfort with said baby apparent - all in a valliant effort to avoid being made to hold the dread baby. 

IMO children start to get cute and interesting when they are old enough to be a little independent and do things in the real world. Kindergarten age and up often seem cute to me.... Of course, I have zero intentions of ever bringing a baby into the world, so my opinion isnt likely to wind up scaring an innocent chilld.  Cat babies all the way!

[pnwgypsy]

Made it through 550 posts & can't take it anymore.

Jill's first talking head was so incredibly painful to watch. It was a combination of someone who's not well spoken speaking about a traumatic event. Awful.

At one point jinger says something to the effect of "once our faces weren't on magazines anymore, we could go out in public without people talking to us..." interesting.

For the girls who were (likely) molested I feel that in talking about the second scandal they are really, in a way, talking about what happened to them too. They aren't able to truly separate the 2 because they haven't processed what happened to them.

Also feel like the girls have danced around acknowledging they were victims so much they've got no where else to go. It's on the tips of your tongues girls. The healing starts there.

I also feel the lack of personalities shouldn't be surprising. They were raised as drones for Gothard, I mean, Jesus. They don't know how to be themselves.

[luxfilia]

13 minutes ago, Kittikatz said:

At risk of being run over by a hit-stroller, I have to say I'm with you on this. To me, babies are the furthest thing from cute - they all look like terrifying aliens intent on leaking bodily fluids from every available orrifice . I don't think I have ever told a friend that their baby was cute or not cute. Protocol for Kittikatz meeting an infant is usually  something along the lines of telling the parent(s) congratulations, and that it looks to be growing well, or is in possession of a lot of hair, or wearing a nice outfit, followed by a quick pet of the child's hair (in the direction of hair growth so as not to risk causing it any upset) and a "good baby" directed toward the infant, cue smile and slide away ... Non specific things that focus on positives while making my discomfort with said baby apparent - all in a valliant effort to avoid being made to hold the dread baby. 

IMO children start to get cute and interesting when they are old enough to be a little independent and do things in the real world. Kindergarten age and up often seem cute to me.... Of course, I have zero intentions of ever bringing a baby into the world, so my opinion isnt likely to wind up scaring an innocent chilld.  Cat babies all the way!

Before reading your last sentence, I figured you liked cats when you said you're sure to "pet" the child's hair in the direction of hair growth. Haha. I have to get 13-18 three-year-olds to sleep every day at nap time at my job, and I gotta say, children are nothing like cats. Scratches/head rubs given in OPPOSITE direction of hair growth are where it's at. ;D

[Cerealgirl]

So, what exactly ARE the Dillies going to do about the violence......pray it away? The plan is to give people hope by telling them about the new and improved Jeebus? I truly do not understand this. 

I can understand building, medical help and such, but what are THEY going to do about violence in a Central American country, about which, I admittedly know nothing. 

Hang around for scandal fallout or take their chances with drug lords. And they went with the drug lords. Something else for Josh to think about in timeout.

[HarryPotterFan]

6 minutes ago, luxfilia said:

Before reading your last sentence, I figured you liked cats when you said you're sure to "pet" the child's hair in the direction of hair growth. Haha. I have to get 13-18 three-year-olds to sleep every day at nap time at my job, and I gotta say, children are nothing like cats. Scratches/head rubs given in OPPOSITE direction of hair growth are where it's at. ;D

I had a summer job being a camp counselor for that age when I was 18. It was so exhausting. And entertaining. And chaotic.

But for those of you that prefer furbabies to human babies, sometimes little kids pretend to be cats or dogs or other animals. I don't know where I'm going with that, but it can be entertaining. And weird when a kid goes from pretending to be a cat to pretending to be a dead cat and then all the other kids start poking her...Good times. Lol.

[Kittikatz]

15 minutes ago, luxfilia said:

Before reading your last sentence, I figured you liked cats when you said you're sure to "pet" the child's hair in the direction of hair growth. Haha. I have to get 13-18 three-year-olds to sleep every day at nap time at my job, and I gotta say, children are nothing like cats. Scratches/head rubs given in OPPOSITE direction of hair growth are where it's at. ;D

Doh! Leave it to me to fail at petting a human infant - I just dread upsetting one and having it hiss or (worse) growl at me! 

[Srilaura]

On December 15, 2015 at 6:34 PM, SpoonfulOSugar said:

IANAL, but it appears you are quoting federal statutes.  The pertinent laws are the state laws of Arkansas.  I don't believe their exemptions are as broad.

True. Federal FOIA only applies to federal government documents. Arkansas has one of the strongest state FOIA laws. 

[isarhenne]

A few things that came to my mind when I watched the special:

1. Joseph and JD seemed weirdly attractive for talking more on camera and JD not keeping sweet at all and not even crying, muahahaha, you go JD!

2. Josiah didn't have much screen time ( around 20 seconds in total?). Why didn't they let him talk more?

3. Ben makes my skin crawl...he always has, but this time even more

4. The episode was all about Josh without him being there. The other episodes where about Go(thar)d without him being there, I guess. It's all about men who are not physically present...and women talking about them...creepy creepy creepy

5. It seemed like Josh's cheating on Anna is worse for them than the molesting. I can't even...

6. I liked that Michelle and JB didn't speak and boys and girls got 50:50 talking time, thank you TLC

[HarryPotterFan]

20 minutes ago, Kittikatz said:

Doh! Leave it to me to fail at petting a human infant - I just dread upsetting one and having it hiss or (worse) growl at me! 

Don't worry, they probably won't bite 

[luv2laugh]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Haven't you noticed?

The Duggars are back on the air.  Two more specials to go, and if the ratings continue this good, they will be back again.

I wish it were not so, but it is.  They may never have a show where JB and Michelle are the center of this remarkable family, but they are back.

How are they going to get sponsors to support? Have you noticed the "commercials?" They will be gone after this special for good.

[GiggleOfGirls]

11 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

How are they going to get sponsors to support? Have you noticed the "commercials?" They will be gone after this special for good.

There were sponsors advertising during the first special in some areas. In others there were only TLC promos, but sadly there are still some companies willing to work with TLC and advertise on a Duggar show. Lowe's, in particular....

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are about them being gone. Sadly, a good number of people watched the first special and sponsors are going to look at the ratings when deciding whether or not to reconsider their position of not advertising during Duggar shows. 

[OnceUponATime]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Haven't you noticed?

The Duggars are back on the air.  Two more specials to go, and if the ratings continue this good, they will be back again.

I wish it were not so, but it is.  They may never have a show where JB and Michelle are the center of this remarkable family, but they are back.

But have you noticed how the 1st special was put together? It was not focused on Jill and Jessa. It was 100% about Josh. I don't remember a single jill or jessa scene where the scandals weren't pulled into it. You can only drive a bus over someone for so long before there is nothing to see anymore. And even that was dull/sleep inducing.

What could they possibly film (except more scandals!) that would actually be interesting? Sure kids breaking free, swapping gender rolls, swapping parents with an atheist family etc would be interesting, but the chances of that happening are extremely low.
TLC has to realize the only reason people are watching is for the scandals right? that once that's over it is over
 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, luv2laugh said:

How are they going to get sponsors to support? Have you noticed the "commercials?" They will be gone after this special for good.

I got the impression that with the ratings/audience share they might still get sponsors for the later shows, especially since it looks as if there will be a lot of interest in what Anna has to say and that is supposed to be coming up.

It may be that they "will be gone," especially as they are boring except for the scandal, but I don't think we should count on it.  They are not gone yet.  They are very much on TV this month.

TLC has been very clever with its strategy to market the specials in order to attract maximum audience.  I don't know if they will succeed in persuading advertisers to come back.  

[EmCatlyn]

28 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

But have you noticed how the 1st special was put together? It was not focused on Jill and Jessa. It was 100% about Josh. I don't remember a single jill or jessa scene where the scandals weren't pulled into it. You can only drive a bus over someone for so long before there is nothing to see anymore. And even that was dull/sleep inducing.

What could they possibly film (except more scandals!) that would actually be interesting? Sure kids breaking free, swapping gender rolls, swapping parents with an atheist family etc would be interesting, but the chances of that happening are extremely low.
TLC has to realize the only reason people are watching is for the scandals right? that once that's over it is over
 

Like you and luv2laugh, I am optimistic that the Duggars are on the way out.  But I think it is premature to say that they are "gone" when there are two more specials and the advertisers might come back for either or both.  You are right that the "draw" of the special was the family's reaction to Joshgate's 1 and 2.  And the show was definitely edited so that every scene had "the shadow of Josh" over it. 

I just feel that it may not be over yet.  I could see them filming Josh's homecoming, for example.  I hope I am wrong, but I remember how we were all sure the Duggars were done, and along come the specials.    

[Redandbluenights]

On 12/14/2015 at 1:28 PM, Elegant Mess said:

I recall others posting in earlier threads that he has significant webbing between his fingers.

Just for the record. Folks had brought up Marfan's, but Ehlers Danlos Syndrome is entirely possible too. It tends to come along with pale skin, and the vascular type shares MANY facial features with Derick. I have EDS myself (but not the kind that has remarkable facial features)- and with his father's early death... I could totally see him having EFS, which is scary BC it's got a 50% transmission to your children and vascular type is terminal. If he passes that into 19+ kids, holy hell... That's horrible. Somehow I can't imagine any of these people dealing with any real advertiser- like a disabled child. They all seem to think prayer keeps them perfect with simple easy lives.   

[InThePrayerCloset]

2 hours ago, Redandbluenights said:

Just for the record. Folks had brought up Marfan's, but Ehlers Danlos Syndrome is entirely possible too. It tends to come along with pale skin, and the vascular type shares MANY facial features with Derick. I have EDS myself (but not the kind that has remarkable facial features)- and with his father's early death... I could totally see him having EFS, which is scary BC it's got a 50% transmission to your children and vascular type is terminal. If he passes that into 19+ kids, holy hell... That's horrible. Somehow I can't imagine any of these people dealing with any real advertiser- like a disabled child. They all seem to think prayer keeps them perfect with simple easy lives.   

I in no way want to diminish you're experience with EDS. I'm genuinely curious - why do i get lots of zebra's when i google image Ehlers Danlos Syndrome?? My results are 80% zebras... and i'm confused... Is it an animal emblem of the disease? Like Neurontin uses porcupines for chronic pain? Or is my google just fucking with me?

Totally agree with your comments regardless of what specific genetic issue (if any) is going on with d.

[nastyhobbitses]

2 hours ago, Redandbluenights said:

Just for the record. Folks had brought up Marfan's, but Ehlers Danlos Syndrome is entirely possible too. It tends to come along with pale skin, and the vascular type shares MANY facial features with Derick. I have EDS myself (but not the kind that has remarkable facial features)- and with his father's early death... I could totally see him having EFS, which is scary BC it's got a 50% transmission to your children and vascular type is terminal. If he passes that into 19+ kids, holy hell... That's horrible. Somehow I can't imagine any of these people dealing with any real advertiser- like a disabled child. They all seem to think prayer keeps them perfect with simple easy lives.   

As I've said before, I think that if Israel was disabled, they'd milk that shit for all it's worth. They'd have a big Yay We Didn't Abort You self-congratulation speaking tour. Josie got to be the "We're so great for not leaving our not-completely-perfect baby on a hillside to die" mascot, and she, as far as we know, is pretty much fine apart from possible epilepsy. If Israel had a major genetic issue or disability, they'd jump on that as part of their redemption/We're So Godly/please give us money tour.

[actuallyjessica]

Anyone else shocked that Jill was being filmed in pants?

There's so much NIKE in the picture where they're sitting down. I mean, you can see Derick's knees because he's in shorts. Jill's in pants.... HEATHENS.

[Taters]

14 hours ago, Georgiana said:

Really, babies are like pez dispensers: they have huge heads and little bodies

[freethemall]

1 hour ago, actuallyjessica said:

Anyone else shocked that Jill was being filmed in pants?

There's so much NIKE in the picture where they're sitting down. I mean, you can see Derick's knees because he's in shorts. Jill's in pants.... HEATHENS.

Very true! I just thought she was in some dowdy nightgown.

I liked how Derrick tried to feed her waffle and she waved it away

[halcionne]

23 minutes ago, freethemall said:

Very true! I just thought she was in some dowdy nightgown.

I liked how Derrick tried to feed her waffle and she waved it away

She was in a dowdy nightgown, plus leggings, because modesty! 

[OnceUponATime]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Like you and luv2laugh, I am optimistic that the Duggars are on the way out.  But I think it is premature to say that they are "gone" when there are two more specials and the advertisers might come back for either or both.  You are right that the "draw" of the special was the family's reaction to Joshgate's 1 and 2.  And the show was definitely edited so that every scene had "the shadow of Josh" over it. 

I just feel that it may not be over yet.  I could see them filming Josh's homecoming, for example.  I hope I am wrong, but I remember how we were all sure the Duggars were done, and along come the specials.    

That is true. I could see the occasional special being filmed/aired but I cannot for the life of me see how they could go back to a full series.

That said here is an idea for TLC/the duggars. Gather all the unemployed 18+ spawn and follow them around doing a week/month working at different jobs. Think Dirty Jobs but with a wider range of jobs. I would probably watch a tv show that concentrates on what real jobs really entail: teacher/banker/csr/plumber/bricklayer/PA/lawyer/chef/waitress/engineer/miner... even if it was starring the Duggar children. They could milk that for years! Hell it could even put the Learning back into TLC