The problem with a ninth season...

some

SPOILER SPACE

just in case

Though I don't know if anything below constitues a spoiler.

It means they have to contrive to keep Ross and Rachel apart for another year. And after doing that, they may not be able to convincingly contrive to get them back together.

Yes, I think they intend to end with Ross and Rachel together. It's the reason for Ross being the father of Rachel's baby. (Was the rumor Jennifer was trying to get pregnant untrue?)

The Vegas wedding convinced me that Ross and Rachel still love each other, even though both are strongly in denial. But that doesn't mean that they have to get together.

But now there's a baby. And unless the parents cannot stand the site of each other, or one is abusive or unfaithful, they should get and stay together for the child. They can work out anything else.

Yes, I am old fashioned in many regaurds. And I make no apologies for it.

For the Joey and Rachel supporters, if it hadn't been for the baby, I don't think I would have had as much of a problem with the relationship. I expect the additional season means they drag this story out a bit longer before ending it.

"Todd" wrote in message news:[email]...

Why do they need to have a convincing story line to keep them apart and then get them back together? The whole Ross & Rachel thing has been unconvincing. One minute he loves her but she doesn't love him. Then, shock horror, it's the other way round, over and over again. But then again it's a TV comedy program and doesn't have to base it's self in total reality.

"Todd":

Well, there are a few episodes left this season. And a season finale as well as a 200th episode coming up. If they hadn't done it already with Monica and Chandler there would have been the possibility of a secret relationship, thus it needn't to be shown much on the show too. Personally I'd like an always argueing but loving couple.

Maybe, but many will disagree.

No! No, don't do it just for the kid.

Christoph

Christoph P�per wrote in message news:...

When you say "just for the kid" you really minimize the importance of a child growing up in the same household with her/his two loving biological parents. Once you bring a child into the mix, the health and happiness of the child must be the most improtant thing in your life. Your own needs and desires must come second. While anecdotal evidence will show there are other situations which will work, there is no substitute for children growing up in a home with a traditional nuclear family, where all the children are biologically related to both parents, who love each other and are committed to staying together. It is the parents' responsibility to make this happen.

Scott

"Scott Letteney":

Why do you think it's important that it's the biological parents who raise the kid? I know people who grew up at their grandparents', one who was raised by his aunt and uncle and some who had only one of their parents, they're all quite normal. And there's adoption, too. On the other hand there're completely messed up people who grew up with their genetical parents. The point is, as long as the people who raise you are loving you (and each other) and have a minimum knowledge of education there's not much that could go wrong.

And you think parents who don't love each other and thus are argueing a lot of the time are good for their offspring's health and happiness? Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a traditional family, I myself grew up in one, but there're situations where another combination, although the previous may be possible, are better for the kid(s). Just getting [someone] pregnant doesn't qualify you as a good parent.

Christoph

"Christoph P�per" wrote in message news:a7hvuf$2bvm$[email]...

I think this is true up to a point. Certainly if one or the other of the parents is unfit, or abusive, or horribly irresponsible, the children are much better off elsewhere. If they can't be in the same room without throwing things, the parents should be apart. If they really don't like each other at all, they should be apart.

As of right now, Ross and Rachel are very close friends, they have voluntarily stayed in close contact for a long time since their breakup and they frequently relapse into moments of wishing to be together which could be easily nurtured. While there are certainly circumstances under which this child might prefer a broken home, RIGHT NOW the best prognosis for her is to be with two people who are her parents and are genuinely committed to caring for her and loving her. If Ross becomes a drunk, if post-partum depression horribly affects Rachel and she refuses medication, if one or the other goes to jail, if they go back to the level of intense bitterness we saw at the beginning of season four - then, it may be best for Ruth to live in an unconventional family. If what she has right now is what she's going to have, it looks like an excellent situation and should be preserved.

"abrahammy" wrote in message news:...

This is exactly my point. Thank you.

Christoph, you can't ignore part of my post and think you have made a valid opposing argument. What I said was the BEST thing for a child is to grow up in a home with a "traditional nuclear family, where all the children are biologically related to both parents, who love each other and are committed to staying together." Let us define that as a "traditional family" for this discussion. Assume there is a continuum of quality family lives for children, with living on the street with no family as the worst possible situation, the best possible situation is the traditional family. There are other combinations that might work out alright, and there might be problems with the traidiktonal family. As I said in my prior post, you can make anecdotal evidence work to argue any point. Everyone knows someone in jail who had two loving parents. Everyone knows someone with an unusual family sitiuation who is well rounded and successful. Despite these anecdotes, the BEST situation is to have a home where all the children are biologically related to both parents, who love each other and are committed to staying together. Again, once a child is in the mix, it is the responsibility of the parents to make the best life they can for their child. It is irresponsible, selfish, and immature for a parent to think of him or herself first and hope it works out ok for the child.

(If you drive down the street with your eyes closed you might not hit another car; if you keep your eyes open you probably won't hit another car. Even though the other way might work, isn't it best to keep your eyes open?)

Scott

"Scott Letteney":

No real disagreement here, although it's a Disney attitude.

As long as that doesn't mean Ross and Rachel have to marry or something just because they're having a child together, although they don't love each other, we kind of agree. After all they moved in together, isn't that enough for the moment?

Christoph

Christoph P�per wrote in message news:...

There is nothing wrong with trying to attain the ideal.

It certainly is better that having Rachel live with Joey. As long as they commit to being together, perhaps actual marriage is not vital, but again,it would be the ideal. (I would disagree that they don't love each other. I know they said they don't, but their history runs deep. Besides they have more going for them in terms of being able to predict a long lasting relationship than the vast majority of people who get married. Now they have a baby together, which will only solidify their bonds.)

Scott

[email] (Todd) wrote in message news:...

If they are going to get r/r together, the writers have to do a very good job that this time their relationship will last. I think this is important. Otherwise fans will be left wondering with the what if scenario. Ross should not feel insecure and Rachel can't be Princess Bitch. They shouldn't be hurling insults or drawing on each other's faces either. :-)

Ganesan

[email] (NARAG) wrote in message news:...

maybe the reason they are as you put it "hurling insuls" at each other is because of the fact that they are not a sutible couple. I think that Ross and Rachel are NOT going to get together. Yes I know they have been a big part of the show and blah blah but I also think they had their chance. Rachel doesn't act like a bitch when her and Ross are together. I think she acts open and honest with him and trys to communicate her needs in the relationship. I don't think that there is anything which will change Ross. When he finally dated Rachel he messed it up big-time. Yes I know they were on a break, but did he think for one second that Rachel would just say. "Oh yes Ross honey I understand we were on a break and you could have slept with Phoebe for all I care" No!!!!!!!!!!! Put yourself in that postition and see how you would have reacted if you considered Rachel a "princess bitch" in that situation. Also Ross drew on Rachel's face first. Not the other way around. I think it was plyayful banter between friends.

"Caitrion": Minor season 8 spoiler below, safe if seen 724 & 812.

They will, once again, final try. The ultimate question is: "Will it last this time?"

Nothing except writers who like the character he used to be.

Everyone has the inner urge to destroy what makes one happy. Gonna light my wallet. :)

Well maybe we need them to come together and then Rachel cheating on Ross. Hey, wouldn't that have been THE cliffhanger if they hadn't had to threw Joey and the baby in?

At that time, mid-season 2, everybody believed R&R belonged together. Forever. Ross became Mental Geller afterwards, oh wait, the jealousy thing was the first evidence.

And was nice enough to let her draw on his.

Christoph

"Todd" wrote in message news:[email]...

Abuse or infidelity, yes, I can see you point. But just because 'the parents cannot stand the site of each other' ??? I should leave my husband if he designs a crap website ??

Lauren

"Lauren" wrote in message news:...

I disaggree with this statement about how they should work it out for the baby. There are three people involved in this. I don't think in order for the baby to grow up in a stable household the parents need to be together. Considering the fact that all six "friends" are always together there is no reason for Ross and Rachel to be together for the baby. If Rachel lost this baby (god-forbid) would you still say that Ross and Rachel should get together. In my opinion the baby cannot bring then together if they do not want to get together. In the same respect I dont' think that Rachel and Ross are in denial about their "true feelings" and blah blah. I think that Vegas was a drunk mistake and I think that it shows no meaning for "real feelings" I don't think that the baby won't grow up happy and around stable and around loving people if Ross and Rachel don't get together. Yes they should think of their child but there are children that grow up perfectly fine if they have single parents, adopted parents, divorced parents, foster parents, gay and lesbein parents etc. Are you being discriminative againist those type of parents. If they are loving parents it shouldn't matter if there are one or two parents or if there are sixty-four parents. If Rachel thinks she can raise the baby only we should believe it too. I also think that all six "friends" will always be around this baby loving it and helping raise it.

Please don't get me started