(Spoiler for 807)
I was hoping from the promo that this could be the breakout show for Joey and Rachel to develop a sincere relationship, but tonight's show hardly provided any depth to the characters and the living situation. Joey really didn't give any reasons why he wanted Rachel to stay, and Rachel didn't give any reasons why she wanted to stay. It just sort of happened.
It was an ok episode, not bad but not great either. What did you guys think?
Anonymous wrote in message news:[email]...
Do you mean "sincere" or "romantic"? This episode pretty much cemented how much their friendship has grown from the first episode.
Joey = The same reason he proposed to Pheobe and Rachel when he found out they were pregnant. He loves his friends and wants to help them out as much as he can.
Rachel = more obscure, but for me, I think Rachel would love to have help and a male figure for her child, and Joey is a "safer" choice than Ross would be (who thought they were going to marry each other, but she objected) for so many reasons.
Lewis.
"Lewis Nguyen" wrote in message news:tXIG7.28226$[email]...
much
objected)
I wouldn't want Joey around my children unless he changed his "player" ways and became more responsible. Example: always borrows money from Chandler
Sofya wrote in message news:9sh781$3fi$[email]...
how
out
help
ways
Well, he has the soap job, so he doesn't need to borrow money anymore (he's probably the most paid of the six Friends).
Lewis.
Lewis Nguyen wrote in message news:KPVG7.30290$[email]...
show
situation.
and
of
Ross
(he's
You know how Rachel said that when Joey brings a girl back to the apartment to *score* that the baby would be loud and inturupt them. I was a little disturbed by this comment! Wouldn't Rachel be more concerned that her child would hear them having sex!! I wish that they wouldn't make Rachel so dumb. I really like her character!!!! :)
Ah, nothing wrong with a baby hearing people having sex! Heck it is just a baby!! They don't even know what it is. I am sure my parents did it when I was a baby and it left no lasting damage.
However just thinking about it makes me sick. ;-)
"Trigger" wrote in message news:MR%G7.17161$[email]...
apartment
child
dumb.
"Trigger" wrote in message news:...
I don't think Rachel is planning on spending the rest of her life raising her child in that apartment. Besides, in its first few months or the first whole year, the baby isn't going to be influenced by Joey's womanising ways.
Priya
The first two years of a child's life are the most influential! They learn the most in those first 2 years so I'm VERY surprised that Rachel would decide to stay. I think she doesn't want to hurt Joey's feelings. But she is NOT thinking about the GOOD of the BABY!
Sofya
"p r i y a" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
for
cemented
stay,
sort
found
out as
have
"player"
Chandler
apartment
little
child
dumb.
Sofya wrote in message news:9sjn1r$5n0$[email]...
There's no proof to suggest that, unless you're a fan of psychoanalytic theory (which I'm not). For instance, babies and young children cope with their paretns' divorce better than teenagers.
Not really. People in this age go through the most similar routes.
Lewis.
In article , "Sofya" wrote:
I'm sorry. I seem to be missing something here. How on earth could staying in Rachel's current apartment situation be bad for the baby? Should she move to Connecticut?
In article ,
Whoops! Of course I meant to write Murphy bed. - Mark
"Sofya" wrote in message news:...
I have a two year old. So I can tell you can there's isn't much of a chance that Rachel's baby would know what Joey is doing with his dates. The baby won't have a clue till he's one year and after that too, he isn't that smart to figure out about dating and sex. It'll just that think that Joey has a lot of 'new' friends. :)
But yes, Rachel can't stay there for long. There isn't enough room for the baby to move around after it starts to crawl. I had to move to a bigger apartment when my son was just five months.
Priya
Spoiler
In article , [email] (p r i y a) writes:
Sure, the baby doesn't understand any of this - NOW. How do you know s/he won't remember such things as a teenager and THEN be adversly affected?
JamesS1889 wrote in message news:[email]...
Why would Joey sleeping with women adversely affect the kid as a teenager? I guess parents better not have sex again.
And are we to expect Rachel not to be with men after the baby's born?
images
beneficial,
They are also likely not the most important reasons you are who you are.
Lewis.
"Lewis Nguyen" wrote in message news:eRIH7.35721$[email]...
s/he
I
I think that Ross should move in with Rachel in a new apartament.
Joey is not a male figure i would like near any baby.
Don't forget baby's first words! Don't want Rachel's baby to say "breasts" or "babyyy" or "ohhh" as a first word!! lol
Sofya
In article "Sofya" writes:
"gurgle, gurgle,
coo, coo,
How _YOU_ doin?"
In article , "Lewis Nguyen" writes:
Joey's not a parent, and he's certainly not this kid's parent.
I don't know, really, but I think it's a lot more complicated than this. It's the attitude, sex being such a casual thing to Joey. None of that rubs off on the kid in the first year of her life, sure. But suppose she grows up and learns that she started out life in the midst of a lothario's bachelor pad? Suppose Rachel has actually become sensible in her 40's or 50's and realizes that sleeping around is not a good idea (a revolutionary concept for this group, I know - even Joey in his 50's probably won't pick up on it), and wishes to teach her child such wisdom, but good ole' Uncle Joey is an ever present reminder of a competing wisdom.
I'm no parent, so I'm kind of talking off the top of my head here, but isn't there something to this?
Please remember there is a difference between "being with men" and "sleeping around". It would be a bit awkward at the moment, but in general I have never said there was anything wrong with Rachel dating. But "dating" does not have to include the bedroom, ya know.
Just for the record, I don't think it is a very good idea for *anyone* to be "falling into bed" with *anyone* that they haven't made a lifetime commitment to. On that score, of course, there's no way this kid will grow up in anything remotely like an ideal environment, no matter where Rachel decides to live.
But on a relative scale, I'd rate Ross way above Joey. Joey might abstain ... what am I saying ... be discrete for awhile, but the minute things start to get comfortable, he'll see it as a green light to return to business as usual. Ross on the other hand, can't really seem to get it on - as it were - with anyone but Rachel anyway, and this baby thing may move him even more in that direction, so he'd be a lot more responsible.
"JamesS1889" wrote in message news:[email]...
"sleeping
never
have
Rachel will suddenly have to stop being selfish and think about her baby first, not only about what *she* wants all the time. She definitely has a rude awakening coming.
Laurie
Jamess1889, This is a little bit off the topic, but I just checked out your web site. I go to ISU and am working on my Master's in Nursing, I want to be a Nurse Practitioner when I grow up. I currently work at Riley in Indy. It is such a small world! Nice to know there some FRIENDS fans in my part of the country! Cathy
To those people who say Joey would be a bad influence on the child:
Have you guys already forgotten TOW Truth About London from last year, where Rachel basically spent the whole show giving ideas for tricks to Ben, and saying curse words around him? It sure seems like Joey could do far less harm than that in a few hours to me.
It all basically depends on how they develop Joey's character. He can either grow into the role of being a parental figure, and steadily drop out of his immature, bachelor ways, or he can stay the same.
I still can't believe people who have seen TOW The Stain still think Joey would be some kind of a selfish ass for having Rachel stay. It has become clear this season that Ross and Joey are starting to compete a little bit for the baby's attention, and maybe both have hidden affections for Rachel through the baby. I really don't think the whole intenion of the episode was to make Rachel stay with Joey, just to then have him disappear for the rest of the pregnancy while Ross moves in on her.
The episode was designed to show the friendship that has been formed since Joey and Rachel became roommates, and only R&R fans with blinders on will not notice that. I think it would be a very sweet ending to have Ross much, much more involved in helping raise Rachel's child, while Rachel stays in Joey's apartment as very close friends, and heck, maybe even share an innocent kiss or two of affection.
I would be satisfied with something along the lines of that. Remember, a show doesn't have to have complete closure to be good. Sometimes, the best endings are the ones that leaves things up in the air for you to finish out in your own fantasy.
"Anonymous" wrote in message
I'm afraid I missed most of the Joey/Rachel angle in this story. This week I got to see all about that damned maid. But I think this post is Johnsonspeak for "Look, you don't have to give me exactly what I want, just don't, don't wreck my illusions, OK?" :-)
"abrahammy" wrote in message news:...
Well, like I said in the previous post, you've got major blinders on. True, the storyline was the shortest of the three in the episode, but c'mon, if you honestly missed something in the nursery scene, then it's a lost cause.
That's right, piss away on my dreams. You're not the first one, and you won't be the last one either.
And are you sure that "illusion" is the word you should be terming? The dictionary says an illusion is 1.)An erroneous perception of reality. 2.)An erroneous concept or belief. 3.)The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief. 4.)Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.
I know you're slightly kidding, but tell me what's so illusionary about that ending I posed? The writers obviously intend to keep Rachel in Joey's apartment through the pregnancy, so why is it such a farfetched notion to you that Ross will be a deeply commited father at the end of the show, while Rachel continues to live with Joey, with maybe something happening between them? Was the "Ross as the committed father" part what you were referring to as illusion? :-)
Are you still under the illusion that Ross and Rachel are head over heels in love with each other? They sure haven't given any indication through 7 episodes that Ross and Rachel are even close to being in that place, and in order for a rebirth in love to be believeable, they will need at least several episodes to develop something yet again.
The most telling sign to me that this was an important episode in the grand scheme of things was that it was directed by Kevin Bright, who only comes out to direct the big ones like the season finales and premieres.
Something to think about at least...
Season 8 Spoiler space
Mostly likely, Claire missed those scenes cos her husband flipped the channel to watch survivor. Not cos she's got R&R blinders on.
Priya
"p r i y a" wrote in message news:[email]...
week
That is precisely why I did not see the Joey/Rachel story. Johnson is getting plain out of line now. Blinders... pot...kettle...
In article , "abrahammy" wrote:
Claire, why don't you tape one channel while watching the other?
Tennant
spoiler space
"abrahammy" wrote in message news:...
If anything you have to feel sorry for the maid. Poor thing was working for Monica.
Priya
Anonymous wrote in message news:[email]...
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
Yeah maybe Rachel would have been a bad influence back then, but she is maturing a lot! In my opinion she is the most mature friend now (as of ep 806). And anyways, Rachel is the baby's mother so she has to be around the baby (there should be no confussion there), but she should decide who she wants to raise her child around. I just don't think that Joey is the best option.
spoiler
In article , [email] (Anonymous) writes:
I don't know about anybody else, but I never said Rachel would be a great influence on the child either. But she is the one with the responsibility. If she corrupts the child on her own, fair enough. That doesn't make Joey a good influence.
True. And the same goes for Rachel.
I don't remember saying anything about Joey being selfish. I assume his wanting to help out to be sincere. It's just that I don't feel he's got what it takes.
I wouldn't put it past them, and I do not have blinders on. R&R fans already have to "settle" for what has been a less than satisfying relationship so far, and realistically it's not suddenly going to become ideal. I completely understand why R&R might never end up being married (for real, that is). I wish it could be, and I don't understand why it couldn't have been, but the last thing I want is some fairy tale ending. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889
[email] (JamesS1889) wrote in message news:...
Rachel isn't planning on living the rest of her life in that apartment. She would have to move sooner or later. She opted for 'later'. Even if she stayed with Joey for a few years, the kid won't remember anything when he is a teenager to be affected by.
If anything, Rachel will benefit from staying with Joey in the beginning. He must have tons of experience with babies cos of all his neices and nephews.
Priya
In article , [email] (p r i y a) writes:
I didn't say she was. But I bet "Uncle Joey" would continue to be a part of the kid's life. They'll probably still all be hanging out together. And how do you know she won't remember anything to be affected by?
Just let Rachel leave the baby with Joey for the day, and watch him take his new found "babe magnet" out for another test drive.
"JamesS1889" wrote in message news:[email]...
s/he
of
how
his
do
Rachel's only staying with Joey because the crew doesn't want to build a new set. ;)
I too think that once the baby becomes more mobil, she would move, closer to Ross.
But, you never know what the writers have in store for us with her and Ross.
Lora
are you saying that people do not remember anything from when they were infant, toddlers, etc??
That is not true and it has been proven and stated by psychologists that kids are affected when they are young. Think of Joey's sex-craziness as the same as domestic violence (not exactly the same) but they both affect the child.
"p r i y a" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
s/he
Sofya wrote in message news:9srvnm$887$[email]...
We're saying that the first few years are not going to shape people's lives as much as some people think it will.
the
Okay, ONE--Joey's sex life is in no way the same as domestic violence.
But more importantly, recovered memories have been found by many psychologists to be rather unreliable.
Lewis.
Here are some studies:
Record 1 of 11 in PsycINFO 1999-2001/09 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 2000-08533-023 DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal-Article TITLE: Repressed memory still lacks scientific reliability. AUTHOR: Walcott,-Damon-Muir SOURCE: Journal-of-the-American-Academy-of-Psychiatry-and-the-Law. 2000; Vol 28(2): 243-244. PUBLISHER: US: American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. ISSN: 1093-6793 PUBLICATION YEAR: 2000 ABSTRACT: Discusses the case of Franklin v. Stevenson, 987 P.2d 22 (Utah 1999), in which C. Franklin recovered repressed memories of suffering childhood abuse and subsequently sued her alleged abuser, K. Stevenson. Recovered memories were the result of treatment with relaxation techniques by a psychologist. The jury returned a verdict against Stevenson, whose attorneys moved to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court granted the motion and reasoned that since the therapeutic techniques used to obtain Franklin's repressed memories were "hypnosis-like," the techniques lacked "the inherent reliability of the methods used to recover a memory." The Utah Supreme Court noted that testimony resulting from scientific intervention is subject to scrutiny of the method's reliability. Since Franklin's memory was "the product of scientific intervention" and since the intervention is unreliable, the testimony was tainted and thus inadmissible. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract) View Complete Record
Record 2 of 11 in PsycINFO 1999-2001/09 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 2000-07149-026SEE PREVIOUS CHAPTER SEE NEXT CHAPTER DOCUMENT TYPE: Chapter TITLE: Eyewitness testimony. AUTHOR: Wright,-Daniel-B; Davies,-Graham-M BOOK SOURCE: Durso, Francis T. (Ed). (1999). Handbook of applied cognition. (pp. 789-818). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. xxii, 881 pp.SEE BOOK ISBN: 0471977659 (hardcover) PUBLICATION YEAR: 1999 ABSTRACT: (from the chapter) Reviews existing research on estimator and system variables in eyewitness testimony. Three issues involved are presented: the reliability of child witnesses; the role that psychologists and psychological research should play when the courts hear eyewitness testimony, and the credibility of memories "recovered" after long delays. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
Record 3 of 11 in PsycINFO 1999-2001/09 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 2000-03921-001SEE NEXT CHAPTER DOCUMENT TYPE: Chapter TITLE: The history and xeitgeist of the repressed-false-memory debate: Scientific and sociological perspectives on suggestibility and childhood memory. AUTHOR: Douglas-Brown,-Rhonda; Goldstein,-Eleanor; Bjorklund,-David-F BOOK SOURCE: Bjorklund, David F. (Ed). (2000). False-memory creation in children and adults: Theory, research, and implications. (pp. 1-30). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. x, 254 pp.SEE BOOK ISBN: 080583169X (hardcover) PUBLICATION YEAR: 2000 ABSTRACT: (from the chapter) Reflects on the zeitgeist or spirit of the times in which the interface between the psychology of childhood memories and legal cases emerged, climaxed, and waned. First the authors examine the impact of early research on current investigations relevant to the cases concerning children's reliability as witnesses. They also examine theoretical and empirical considerations of mechanisms of memory important to the repressed-false memory debate that surrounds the cases involving accusations based on "recovered" memories of childhood sexual abuse, which usually emerges during the course of therapy. How various social movements and changes in the legal system have led to the upsurge in childhood memory cases during the past 2 decades is discussed and the current state of the childhood memory debate is presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
Record 4 of 11 in PsycINFO 1996-1998 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 2000-13581-014 DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal-Article TITLE: Admissibility of repressed memory evidence by therapists in sexual abuse cases. AUTHOR: Gordon,-Jonathan-D SOURCE: Psychology,-Public-Policy,-and-Law. 1998 Dec; Vol 4(4): 1198-1225. PUBLISHER: US: American Psychological Assn. ISSN: 1076-8971 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1998 ABSTRACT: The surfacing of repressed memories and resultant allegations of childhood sexual abuse is analyzed in the context of the evidentiary admissibility of the proffered expert testimony by therapists. To be admissible, such expert testimony must comply with the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The literature on repression and repressed memories is reviewed in light of various therapist techniques used with clients presenting complaints of lost memory. The scientific efficacy of these suggestive techniques, and the frequently false memories of childhood sexual abuse that ensue, is cause for concern regarding their evidentiary reliability, and such testimony fails the Daubert criteria for the admissibility of expert testimony. Suggestions are made to assist judges in their evidentiary gatekeeping role. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract) View Complete Record
Record 5 of 11 in PsycINFO 1996-1998 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 1997-36532-000 DOCUMENT TYPE: Authored-Book; Book TITLE: Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. AUTHOR: Brown,-Daniel; Scheflin,-Alan-W; Hammond,-D-Corydon PUBLISHER: New York, NY, US: W. W. Norton and Co, Inc. (1998). xii, 786 pp. ISBN: 0393702545 (hardcover) PUBLICATION YEAR: 1998 ABSTRACT: (from the jacket) This book is designed to be a text for clinicians and experimentalists who wish to understand the workings of memory in and out of the therapeutic arena. In addition, it will guide attorneys and judges in litigating and resolving cases in the courts concerning memory and the use of hypnosis to recover memory. /// The authors review memory research, trauma treatment, and legal cases pertaining to the false memory controversy. They discuss current memory science and research with both children and adults, pointing out where findings are and are not generalizable to trauma memories recovered in psychotherapy. Research on the reliability of memories recovered in hypnosis is reviewed and guidelines for using hypnosis with patients reporting no, partial, or full memory of having been sexually abused are outlined also. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
Record 6 of 11 in PsycINFO 1996-1998 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 1999-05465-009 DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal-Article TITLE: Admissibility of false memory evidence: R v Bartlett [1996] 2 VR 687 per Winneke P, Charles JA and Southwell AJA. AUTHOR: Freckelton,-Ian SOURCE: Psychiatry,-Psychology-and-Law. 1997 Nov; Vol 4(2): 241-244. PUBLISHER: Australia: Australian Academic Press. ISSN: 1321-8719 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1997 ABSTRACT: The Victorian Court of Appeal decision in R v Bartlett [1996] 2 VR 687 established the legitimacy, in certain circumstances, for the defence in criminal trials to adduce suitably qualified expert evidence about the unreliability of recovered memories. In this regard, it stands in curious contrast to a number of recent decisions on the admissibility of counterintuitive evidence. However, it is suggested, the decision needs to be assessed in terms of the Victorian Court of Appeal's repudiation of an "area of expertise" rule, by contrast with decisions in New Zealand, the United States and Canada, and other jurisdictions in Australia, and the absence in the case of any arguments about the probative value of such evidence as against its prejudicial impact. It is suggested that the decision underlines the need for High Court guidance on the relevance of "reliability" to expert evidence admissibility determinations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
Record 7 of 11 in PsycINFO 1996-1998 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 1997-43294-001 DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal-Article TITLE: Desperately seeking evidence: The recovered memory debate. AUTHOR: Memon,-Amina; Young,-Mark SOURCE: Legal-and-Criminological-Psychology. 1997 Sep; Vol 2(Part 2): 131-154. PUBLISHER: England: British Psychological Society. ISSN: 1355-3259 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1997 ABSTRACT: Reviews some of the mechanisms that may account for recovered memories and examines their likely accuracy in relation to the literature on the encoding and retrieval of traumatic events. Emphasis is placed on how scientific research can inform the courts about the reliability of recovered memory evidence. The following areas are deemed relevant when evaluating evidence based on a recovered memory: (1) the effects of trauma on memory (an influence on memory at the encoding stage); (2) how memory can be aided and distorted (an influence on memory at the retrieval stage); and (3) factors likely to influence jury decisions concerning recovered memories. Cases documenting the veracity of recovered memories are few and far between. On the contrary there is sufficient evidence to be concerned about the accuracy of recovered memories in the legal context. Further research is needed on the conditions under which false recollections may occur and how these may be prevented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
Record 8 of 11 in PsycINFO 1996-1998 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 1997-08634-019SEE PREVIOUS CHAPTER SEE NEXT CHAPTER DOCUMENT TYPE: Chapter TITLE: For whom does the bell toll? Repressed memory and challenges for the law--Getting beyond the statute of limitations. AUTHOR: Zoltek-Jick,-Rose-R BOOK SOURCE: Appelbaum, Paul S. (Ed); Uyehara, Lisa A. (Ed); et-al. (1997). Trauma and memory: Clinical and legal controversies. (pp. 445-476). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. xv, 552 pp.SEE BOOK ISBN: 0195100654 (hardcover) PUBLICATION YEAR: 1997 ABSTRACT: (from the chapter) The central premise of this chapter is that the ground of defendants' legal arguments is in the process of shifting. For the past decade, the legal doctrine that has borne the brunt of finding a principled way to decide whether and when cases based on repressed memory should enter the judicial system has been the statute of limitations. In order to ensure the fair resolution of legal disputes, all lawsuits must be filed within a legislatively prescribed "limitation period" dating from the occurrence of the act that caused the harm. /// If a plaintiff claims that she or he could not file a lawsuit within the filing period, not because of inadvertence or lack of diligence, but because she did not even know that an act of sexual abuse had occurred during her childhood due to repression of the memories of this abuse, how should the legal system react? /// In the past 2 yrs, we have seen the emergence of new defense strategies that have moved away from the issue of the "discovery" exception to the statute of limitations to strategies that mount a much more sophisticated multipronged frontal attack on the reliability or recovered memory itself. This chapter is divided into 3 sections that trace this development: Part 1: the countervailing policies and meanings of a statute of limitations challenge; Part 2: the patterns of litigation strategies: 1986 to present; and Part 3: the emerging assault on repressed memory and its implications for the law. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
Record 9 of 11 in PsycINFO 1992-1995 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 1996-97286-000 DOCUMENT TYPE: Edited-Book; Book TITLE: Memory distortions: How minds, brains, and societies reconstruct the past. AUTHOR: Schacter,-Daniel-L (Ed) PUBLISHER: Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press. (1995). xi, 417 pp. ISBN: 0674566750 (hardcover) PUBLICATION YEAR: 1995 ABSTRACT: (from the jacket) Hypnosis, confabulation, source amnesia, flashbulb memories, repression--these and numerous additional topics are explored in this . . . collection of essays. This . . . book [unites] contributions from cognitive psychology, psychopathology, psychiatry, neurobiology, sociology, history, and religious studies. It [explores] contemporary issues, including the value of eyewitness testimony and the accuracy of recovered memories of sexual abuse. /// This volume [explores] the full range of biological phenomena and social ideas relevant to understanding memory distortion, including the reliability of children's recollections, the effects of hypnosis on memory, and confabulation in brain-injured patients. They also look into the activity and role of brain systems, cellular bases of memory distortion, and the effects of emotion and trauma on the accuracy of memory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
Record 10 of 11 in PsycINFO 1992-1995 Holdings/Request Item ACCESSION NUMBER: 1996-03770-001 DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal-Article TITLE: Recovered memories: Unearthing the past in court. AUTHOR: Loftus,-Elizabeth-F; Rosenwald,-Laura-A SOURCE: Journal-of-Psychiatry-and-Law. 1995 Fal; Vol 23(3): 349-361. PUBLISHER: US: Federal Legal Publications Inc. ISSN: 0093-1853 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1995 ABSTRACT: In the past 7 years, hundreds of lawsuits based upon repressed memories have forced courts to deal with a new set of issues, including the reliability of such memories, what kind of expert testimony would help judges and juries evaluate the memories, and whether professionals who help retrieve repressed memories should be held liable when therapy goes awry. Research has demonstrated the fallibility of human memory. Experts can help illuminate the controversy over memory in general and repressed memory in particular, as well as the external factors that may distort resurfaced memories. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) View Complete Record
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
I think that Rachel decided to stay with Joey because she didn't want to hurt his feelings, she wanted to be close to everyone else, she is comfortable there, and she is afraid that if she lives to close to Ross, or with Ross, that her true feelings for him will come out. And we can all tell that they are both still confused about their feelings for each other. Hopefully soon they will get over this!
In article , "Sofya" wrote:
Are you saying that a 30 year old single mother, encountering the highest rental rates found in the United States, should not tolerate having an apartment mate that dates? What is Rachel's baby going to remember, save for a string of many "aunts" visiting, most unmemorable/non recurring?
Has Joey had that many more partners than Rachel? Given his large family, he seems better equipped to deal with a new addition to their living situation than she.
Spoiler space for 807
What harm can it do to stay? I think Rachel was very smart indeed when she decided to stay with Joey. Joey is one of her best friends (if not the best nowadays), and he has experience with children. Being used to seven sisters with dozens of nieces and nephews, he even told Ross about his babysitting skills in 206 TOW The Baby On The Bus ("I have seven Catholic sisters. I've taken care of hundreds of kids"). The baby won't understand a thing of what's going on in the apartment in the beginning anyway. Also, Joey promised to change his ways now that there's a baby on the way; in fact he has already changed. Who would have thought that he was capable of proposing to not only one, but two women out of sheer kindness a couple of years ago?
In article , [email] (Marita Bakken) writes:
And then he proceeded to leave the baby on a bus because he was hitting on a couple of women, couldn't remember what outfit the baby was wearing, and thought clowns didn't have heads.
Yeah, that's a glowing recommendation. Of course the same could be said for Chandler.
"JamesS1889" wrote in message news:[email]...
[email]
a
for
For sure, if I was going to cite an example of Joey being a good baby-sitter, I sure wouldn't use "TOW The Baby On the Bus" as an example! Yikes.
I know this is a revolutionary idea these days, but I think the actual FATHER (remember him?) should be the one who would take care of the baby in addition to Rachel and I think the closer she lives to him, the better. Anyway, that is the *mother* in me talking.
Laurie
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 02:41:18 GMT, "Laurie" wrote:
Okay, I'm not a mother yet, but I would certainly let Joey take care of my little goddaughter if he wanted to.
206 TOW The Baby On The Bus shows us two things IMO: 1) Joey has taken care of lots of kids, and nothing implies that he hasn't taken care of any children since then (he also mentioned in e.g. 720 TOW Rachel's Big Kiss that his sisters are still having babies, and he revealed that he was thinking about having children himself one day in 707 TOW Ross's Library Book.) 2) Compare season 2 Joey to season 8 Joey. He has matured a great deal. He is loving and compassionate and cares more about his friends than most of the others in the Friends gang. If anyone had said to me in e.g. season 3 that *Joey* would propose to two women in season 8 to help them out, and thus giving up his status as one of the happiest bachelors in the West Village in the process, I would have laughed at them. But now? The idea doesn't seem that ridiculous anymore.
My respect for Joey as a responsible adult has grown quite a lot over the past few years, and yes, I do believe he is perfectly capable of taking care of children now. In fact, I can't wait to see him together with Rachel and little Green jr.
As for Ross, I have never said that he is a bad father. He has always been there for Ben, and he showed a great deal of "parenting skills" in 710 TOW The Holiday Armadillo where he came off as a lovely father, eager to teach his son about his heritage. However, I didn't think of him as ready for another kid when it was revealed that he was the father of Rachel's child. Hopefully, he'll mature enough before the baby arrives, but he certainly didn't impress me with his behaviour in e.g. 801TO After "I Do" (using little girls as a way of impressing Mona) and 803 TOW Rachel Tells... (automatically proposing marriage as some kind of business treaty to Rachel "because it was the right thing to do.")
Ross will probably manage to be a good dad for Rachel's baby, but I'm very glad Rachel decided to stay with Joey. She might as well stay with a good friend who will help her out (no one has said he'll be the father of the baby, that's Ross's job), and moving in with Ross just because they're having a baby is a ridiculous idea in the first place. Ross still lives across the street, so he'll be around. How much closer can you get to your child without living together with the mother?
"Marita Bakken" wrote in message news:[email]...
on
and
said
I suppose I wouldn't object him baby-sitting either, as long as he kept the baby off any buses!
I don't think he equates having children with getting serious with a woman. He has shown no slowing down in the "womanizer" department, anyways.
I love Joey, he's very sweet and kind to his friends but I still don't consider him quite a responsible adult. Sorry!
Whether Ross (or Rachel) is ready for a child is not the issue, they will be having a child, ready or not. All I know is that he has been a great father to Ben, so he should be a great father to his new little one. I have a question though, why is it mature of Joey to propose to Rachel and not mature of Ross who is the actual father to consider marriage to Rachel? I don't like how the writers handled it like a business treaty, but he did seem to be thinking of Rachel's benefit. He said it was the right thing to do and he does have a point there.
I didn't say she should move in with Ross but I do believe that the closer the mom & dad live to eachother, the better it is for the baby. I don't have any problems with her decision to stay with Joey but as far as having a good friend who can help her out, I think Ross is the better choice. No one has been closer to her than Ross in the last 7 years or so. The writers probably saw more comedic potential with the Rachel/Joey pairing, so they stayed with it for now.
It's weird to talk about these people like they're real but it's fun, anyway. :)
Laurie
Laurie wrote in message news:BRIH7.4496$V%[email]...
I don't know anyone called it "mature", but I think Joey's proposal went off better because: 1) You know Rachel was gonna say no; and 2) Joey isn't the father so he willing to take on a responsibility that was not his doing.
It depends on what you think the writers' intentions were. I think Rachel took Ross' proposal more negatively than Joey's proposal (for the reasons mentioned above), but I think the writers were neutral on the point, just setting up the division between the two characters for dramatic purposes.
Lewis.
Lewis Nguyen wrote in message news:L0JH7.35829$[email]...
will
off
I didn't like the way that Ross asked Rachel to marry him. He said "Well, we should get married". He didn't have a really nice speech that Joey had (even if he did use that speech for Rachel and Phoebe). I hope that Ross didn't mean to say it the way that it sounded because I would still like to see R&R get back together. Joey would not be good for Rachel. He is still too immature. And Rachel and Joey don't love each other. If the writers put them together it would not be realistic. I would not buy it! Joey was sincere in his proposal, but justas a friend doing the right thing not as someone in love!! : )
I'm afraid that Joey will never be mature...
the proposals and every now and then advice tossed in would seem to make him look and sound more mature...but it just doesn't work. I think he's hopeless.
Sofya
"Trigger" wrote in message news:RgUH7.4877$[email]...
great
the
to
still
was
Rachel
reasons
just
purposes.
"Laurie" wrote in message news:BRIH7.4496$V%[email]...
when
not
to
hitting
The "Friends" are like my familia, so for me they are real. :)
Sofya
"Sofya" wrote in message news:9splvg$6jf$[email]...
will
A lot of folks have been using the two proposals as basis for evaluating the moral worth of these two characters. I submit that the writers frequently have what are really just technical reasons for having the characters act the way they do at certain times.
Joey's tender proposal to Rachel worked for several reasons. He does not actually have any romantic attachment to her, so the scene didn't have to be a seminal moment in the show's story arc. It was just a sweet, comic scene. The potential seriousness of the moment was undercut by the fact that he had *just* made the exact same speech to Phoebe. Because there is no deep, long-standing angst between Joey and Rachel, there is no great emotional response from the audience when she turns him down. We don't feel bad for Joey, we don't think he's crushed, we aren't incensed. We just think he tried to do a nice, if somewhat inappropriate, thing.
If Ross had made that same speech to Rachel, the emotional impact on the show would have been tremendous because of their history. There would have been the underlying sense that Ross has put his heart on the line, and this kind of big event is generally saved for sweeps and finales. It was too early in the season to have Ross make a heartfelt proposal to Rachel; this HAD to come across as mechanical, cold or forced for her refusal not to have tremendous emotional impact for the viewer. If the story arc for the season is their slow rekindling of feeling, making him get down on his knee to her is just premature; at the same time, Ross is basically very responsible about family and it makes sense that he would want to do what he thinks is the right thing. Both guys were trying to do the right thing. Joey could afford to be charming about it. Ross could not.
Laurie wrote in message news:iFGH7.4383$[email]...
Are you saying that the father and mother who do not love each other (presuming this is the case between Ross & Rachel) should move in together? What happens if one of them falls in love with someone else and decides to marry that person? The separation anxiety might be rather negative. Or given their history, R&R may sleep with each other occasionally while still going out with other people. What kind of message would that send to the kid? With Joey, Rachel has someone who she trusts and can help her. More importantly, they are strictly friends, so there's no line that either of them will cross.
Besides, Ross is still going to be the primary paternal figure in the kid's life. And they live across the street from each other. Hardly Montreal and Pouquipsie.
Lewis.
"Lewis Nguyen" wrote in message news:uXIH7.35779$[email]...
together?
No I didn't say that, I said they should live close to eachother, not WITH eachother.
given
going
Actually, I think R&R still love eachother deep down, but that's just my pro-R&R thinking. Sleeping together while still going out with others is an irresponsible message to send to any child.
With
importantly,
kid's
Agreed, they won't be far apart. It was unclear on the show how Ross felt about her decison to stay with Joey and not move into his building but Ross should have been considered before she made up her mind. He did go out on a limb for her trying to get her an apartment and she totally disregarded him but that's nothing usual for Rachel.
Laurie
"Laurie" wrote in message news:mrJH7.4556$[email]...
to
and
yeah, i wanted to see Ross be surprised and want to talk to Rachel to ask what she was thinking! lol
Sofya
"Lewis Nguyen" wrote in message news:uXIH7.35779$[email]...
together?
Ok, the R&R fan in me believes they still love eachother but I didn't say they should live together.
given
going
With
importantly,
Sleeping with someone and going out with others sends a terrible message to any child.
kid's
Agreed, they won't be living far apart. But what bugs me is that while Ross is going out on a limb trying to get the apartment, Rachel disregards him and changes her mind (not unusual for Rachel, actually). It was unclear on the show how Ross felt about her decision but his opinions on the matter (being the baby's father and everything) should have been considered.
Laurie
"Laurie" wrote in message news:huJH7.4557$[email]...
'SNIP'
#)$(*#&@|! Sorry about the double posting!
In article , "Lewis Nguyen" writes:
No, that is not what she is saying. Anymore than you are saying that if the father and the mother do not love each other, then the father should be shut out from raising the child, which you aren't.
The fact that in this case the father and the mother might not love each other is just one more problem piled on top of all the problems that already exist in this situation. This is a grade-A example of why it is such a bad idea to take that "roll in the hay" so haphazardly. The child that can issue forth from such a union complicates life and makes hard choices necessary, sometimes incredibly hard choices.
Maybe so, but it is still leaves much to be desired.
"Sofya" wrote in message news:...
No. She's not thinking about the good of the baby. Nor does she need to. The only thing she must think about is the good of the ratings. That's what the writers are paid to make her do. :)
On the other hand, just in case you are still worried about the baby's well-being: In the future Joey could have his bedroom walls and door padded with acoustic insulation material, so that the only thing the child will ever notice is Uncle Joey going into his room with his pretty lady friends, in order to show them his stamp collection or his butterfly collection or his baseball cap collection or his sandwich collection or whatever the hell Uncle Joey has been collecting over the years.
"Julio Duarte" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
learn
she is
You are such a cynic. I agree with you, but you are such a cynic.
Do you even know what a cynic is?
The "Cynics" were one of two Late Roman Empire Philosophical Schools: the Stoics and the Cynics(coming from cynical). The Stoics accepted hardsip and the dark side of life while the Cynics detailed the hardships in an attempt to illuminate them and have society act. So, depending on who you view a cynic...it can be good or bad. But first you must know what a cynic is.
Sofya
"David Buehrle" wrote in message news:neKJ7.1173926$[email]...
would
I'm not familiar with a group of Cynics from the Roman Empire. However, I'm well familiar with a group of *Greek* philosophers called the Cynics in the 4th and 5th centuries BC (or BCE if you prefer the current politically correct term.) They took the name from the Greek kynokos which means dog-like. This comes from the dog constellation kynos. (We call it Sirrus after the brightest star in it.)
The Cynics were virtue seeking people, but they sought virtue by documenting the faults of others. I believe this was in an attempt to learn from others' mistakes. It took on a negative connotation in that it appeared to others that these people were self-righteous by pointing out others' faults.
Now, let me say that I don't think of Julio as self-righteous. (And btw, that was to whom my comment was directed.) But I do believe Julio has documented a darker aspect of television. This aspect is that the TV industry labels our favorite shows as "entertainment", when the TV executives are really more concerned about ratings (which translates to advertising sales) than they are about the consistancy of our entertainment experience. It's not really a lie, as they don't hide the fact that TV is about ratings and ad sales, but it diverges from the purity of the art.
I intended my comment to be more toungue-in-cheek. A closer look might reveal that my comment was, in itself, also cynical. I hope no feelings were hurt. I didn't intend any deep criticism.
"Sofya" wrote in message news:9t8s8v$t1q$[email]...
and
attempt
But