"Friends" Poll

Post your answers!!!

Fave Guy Character: Fave Girl Character: Fave Season: Fave Quote: Fave Episode: Fave Friends Couple: Character You Are Most Like: Character You Are Least Like: Character/Actor You Would Most Like To Meet: Favorite Actor: What do you want to happen in future "Friends" episodes?:

Here are my answers: Fave Guy Character: Chandler Fave Girl Character: Rachel Fave Season: Season 2 and Season 5 Fave Quote: "How YOU doin'?" ~ Joey, lol, and "It's always been you, Rach" ~ Ross in TOW The List Fave Episode: I have a couple...TOW Ross Finds Out, *TOW The Prom Video*, TOW The Two Parties, TOW Everyone Finds Out, and the episode where Joey and Chandler get robbed...i don't remember the title :-( Fave Friends Couple: R + R!!!!!!!!! Character You Are Most Like:definitely Rachel :-) Character You Are Least Like: probably Ross Character/Actor You Would Most Like To Meet: Chandler/Matthew Perry Favorite Actor/Actress: Jennifer Aniston/Matthew Perry *tie* What do you want to see happen in future "Friends" episodes?: I definitely want R&R to get back together! They are meant to be! And (only my opinion) I kind of want Monica and Chandler to break up. I know it sounds horrible, but they are just kind of an annoying couple to me at least.

:-)

well and he's... y'know old[glare from Monica]-er than some people, but younger than some buildings!

Rachel story line actually LEAD somewhere! Chandler and Monica: baby, marraige, house.... The WHole Nine Yards... :) (Guess what my new favorite movie is?)

~Ashley* Candice, GET HELP.

I"m FINALLY going to go see it tonight!! ~Act

In article , [email] (Moron Cow) wrote:

Why do you say this? (apart from the movie connection)

Tennant

Y' know, Family, House, Dog, Car, Fish, the Whole Nine Yards :)

~Ashley* "The more people I know. The more people that hang themselves."

It's actually a war term of some sort, isn't it? Like there were 9 yards between something (i don't know exactly). There's also nine yards of cement capacity in a truck.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

:)

both.

R&R to get back together

Lora

Ross: "I'm going to make myself happy" Chandler: "Do you want us to leave the room?"

I should really stop filling these out...but it's Friday night, oh well..

time and my mood

to meet: I met Matt, I love Matt! =) I'd love to meet any of the others. . .

able to say "I like what the writers did with Ross and Rachel." And then get to see them together for a while.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

KatieLiz505 wrote:

~Act

THE LAST EPISODE??

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

It's starting to look that way, isn't it?

Sadly, yes.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Fave Guy Character: CHANDLER Fave Girl Character: PHOEBE Fave Season: 4 Fave Quote: "Shut up! Shut up! Shut uuuuuuuuuuup!!!" Fave Episode: TOW WHERE EVERYBODY FINDS OUT Fave Friends Couple: C+M Character You Are Most Like: RACHEL Character You Are Least Like: ROSS Character/Actor You Would Most Like To Meet: MATTHEW PERRY Favorite Actor: MATTHEW PERRY What do you want to happen in future "Friends" episodes?: C+M=3 and marriage, P+J hook up, more guest appearances, plenty of funny stuff...

Adeline.

" The world is my lesbian wedding"

Chandler & Monica marriage and possibly a kid, and some decent storylines for Phoebe

In article , "Adeline" wrote:

I like it!

Tennant :)

Tennant Stuart wrote...

Ain't it cute ? = )

Adeline.

umm what?? -Kat

Monica:"Fine! Judge all you want to but (to Ross) married a lesbian, (to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg into the fire, (to Chandler) live in a box."

Katrina wrote...

C+M=3

Ain't it cute ?

what does it mean???

maybe if you did C+M= <3

now i get that...

-Kat

Monica:"Fine! Judge all you want to but (to Ross) married a lesbian, (to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg into the fire, (to Chandler) live in a box."

Katrina wrote...

That means : Chandler plus Monica makes three. Which is the two of them and a combination of them both symbolized in a brand new human being.

*I* don't. What's that supposed to mean ?? Chandler plus Monica makes less than three ?? Duh... sorry but now I don't get it.

Adeline.

Adeline wrote:

Or as Genesis 2:24 puts it, "And the two became one flesh". How uncanny!

In which case, the equation is C+M=1.

For my money, not until they get married. They aren't really committed until they say so permanently in front of God and everybody.

This is not to say that marriage causes committment. Ross' pathetic life proves that to be false. It is but one element in the recipe. A mandatory single element. I will not buy that Chandler and Monica are that committed as to be a new person until they stop playing house and announce their legal intention to share their entire lives together. Living together without being engaged is a copout.

Sorry I can't agree on that. To me, only love matters. It doesn't count wether two people are married or not if they really love each other. JMO.

Adeline.

Adeline wrote:

I sooo disagree! Marriage is the ultimate expression of a willingness to commit to another person and to do what it takes to make a relationship work. It's not only about love. There are many failed relationships where the people still love each other. "Playing" at marriage is not the same!

Laurie

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Laurie doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Oh, gee, *who* could you be referring to here?! :)

I'm a 16-year-old with no love life whatsoever, I'm not sure if I even believe in the idea of marriage so I won't comment. :)

Actually, I agree with Claire here. Moving in together isn't really a sign of emotional committment, but marriage definitely is. Not to say that the committment automatically comes with marriage, but rather that marriage is an expression of the committment that's already there. (And the couple have to be absolutely serious about it - decisions made based on a throw of the die or while under the influence of alcohol/marker pen distress are not what I'd call serious decisions.)

Tina Nellis wrote:

Good comment, tina! Are you *sure* you're just 16? :)

Laurie

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Laurie doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Well, I'm 17 at the end of May (which means driving soon, yippeeeeeeeeee!), so does that count as being just 16? :)

Tina Nellis wrote:

Wow..how coincidental..I bet I was born only a few weeks before you :o) ~Act

Tina Nellis wrote:

It sure does if you want it to! :D

Laurie

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Laurie doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Nah... nowadays I think of myself as being 17, minus 2 months. :)

Tina Nellis wrote:

TOO bad the Movie theaters dont think that way. I want to go see a friends taping next year but they stop taping a few weeks before my bday

~Act

When I turned 17 over the summer I was upset that the first few times I went to the movies they didn't ask for ID, I wanted to show off I could buy my own ticket! =) As for a taping, I'm going to one on Friday but am not 18 till July. Luckily, I can get a student ID with an earlier birthday just in case.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Adriana loves Matt wrote:

*gasp* thats a good idea. ~Act

LOL. Only if you know the people that make the school ID's, otherwise I don't suggest it!

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Adriana loves Matt wrote:

hmmm..hey can u do me a favor? lol ~Act

Tina Nellis wrote:

Yes I agree. But moving in together is getting the "feel" of some aspects of marriage so you dont jump into it unprepared..in a way. Ack..I've already talked about this..ok shutting up ~Act

Laurie wrote...

So ? Would those 'failed relationships where the people still love each other' still be going on if they'd been married ? Of course marriage is a great proof of love, but not always of committment ! Non-married people can be as committed if not more than married people. It just depends on the people. It has nothing to do with marriage for some people. On the other hand, it means more than anything else to others. I think it all comes from the way you were educated, in a religious or not atmosphere. Half of the marriages today turn into (painful) divorces and there are several explanations to that. Like people mistaking love and lust, marrying someone just to please them/their families, rushing into things... and all. To me, the most important parts of a reliationship are trust and intimacy. If you wake up every morning by your lover's side, feel complete this way and know it will be like that till the very last day of your lives (ie till death parts you), it doesn't matter whether leases are signed or not. But again, that's just my opinion, you don't have to stick to it and I'll be glad to see what you think.

Adeline.

Adeline wrote:

OK, can open...worms, everywhere! I believe that a lot of people get married for the wrong reasons. Also, lust is often mistaken for real love. The list goes on and on. Marriage is a tough thing and it takes a real commitment (there's that word again) to make it work. But it is a LEGAL contract. A solid marriage has a more solid foundation (especially if children are brought into it) than living together. You may want everything to be off paper but our society deals in legalities such as leases, contracts and such. Try moving into an apartment without a contract. Just tell the leasing office you don't believe in signed leases. See what they say. Signed contracts DO mean something. But if a signed paper means nothing to you, then you shouldn't get married and stay away from contracts. I have been married for many years and there have been occasional hard times but because of I made that promise and commitment (and took them SERIOUSLY), I stuck it out to our benefit and our childrens' benefit. And I have seen so many couples who have lived together beforehand, gotten married, and have gotten divorced. Over and over again. Living together is a poor guarantor of a successful marriage. Most of the successful, LONG-TERM marriages I have known involved no living together beforehand. I know this opinion has gone by way of the dinosaurs but that's how I feel, anyway. So be it.

Laurie

This appears to be what Chandler and Monica have done. The words you use to describe the level of committment are very helpful;

"just do it to see if they can handle marriage"

"To discover if it's love or just lust in disguise"

"a little step in between"

"it gives couples a chance to see if they are right for one another..."

It's a trial marriage. Not the real thing. They are not there yet. They have not achieved the ultimate committment. And as far as I'm concerned, M+C does not equal 3 until they get married.

Claire Abraham wrote:

Amazingly I agree. But I still think they are more commited then R&R were. ~Act

Laurie wrote:

SURPISINGLY, Id have to disagree. I've seen many marriages that have failed in teh first few years becasue they couldnt stand being near each other all the time or they couldnt deal with sharing responsibilites, they could have been saved from a divorce if they had lived together first. ~Act

Activia wrote:

If living together before marriage improves the rate of successful marriages these days, then why are marriages failing at an all time high? *EVERYONE* seems to be living together before marriage these days! The real trouble starts when one partner wants a legal commitment but the other one doesn't. Too many people who live together are in this situation. Remember the old saying,"why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"? It's not used so much these days but sometimes it still applies and it still happens. And if there are any pregnancies involved, what a recipe for disaster! Jerry Springer, here we come! :)))

Laurie

marriages are failing because its easier to get a divorce for one, and for two people are getting married for the wrong reasons, and also because divorce isnt looked upon as such a crime anymore like it used to be its more acceptable in society. It has nothing to do with the fact that people are moving in together first, if anything that is helping bad marriages from beginning. ~Act

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Activia stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

IMO more marriages are failing because women aren't prepared to put up with wayward husbands, as they used to in the past (or vice versa of course)!

Paul Hyett wrote:

This is another reason, I agree. There are of course more then one and moving in together first is definitly not one of them.

~Act

Sorry I think you got me wrong. I never said that I had anything against contracts, leases... or that I thought marriage was useless. It's just that I don't think you HAVE TO be married to be committed to and truly love someone.

I rather see marriage as the outcome of years spent together with the one person you never cared as much for and your love grows stronger every day for. I think you have to know really well that person to make the vows and promises to always be there for them no matter what happens, and though you can never know anyone quite fully, I reckon years spent together help.

That was it and nothing more. It's not that I have anything AGAINST marriage. In fact I respect it, as the religious symbol it is and the happiness it generates to the people who believe and have faith in it. And I can't say I will never marry just yet. I've not lived much but from where I stand, I'll say that I may marry someday. If it means something to the person I'll be with, I will do it with no hesitation. But if they don't mind or tell me they don't need it to belong to me, I won't force them into it nor make such a big deal out of it.

My point also was, as Tina said, that people won't suddenly be committed just because they marry and she already pointed that out well.

Adeline.

Adeline wrote:

Ok. I just talked to someone who has been married twice..and the second time she lived with someone first. She said once they got married it does bring things to a new level.ect. ~Act

Laurie wrote...

So ? Would those 'failed relationships where the people still love each other' still be going on if they'd been married ? Of course marriage is a great proof of love, but not always of committment ! Non-married people can be as committed if not more than married people. It just depends on the people. It has nothing to do with marriage for some people. On the other hand, it means more than anything else to others. I think it all comes from the way you were educated, in a religious or not atmosphere. Half of the marriages today turn into (painful) divorces and there are several explanations to that. Like people mistaking love and lust, marrying someone just to please them/their families, rushing into things... and all. To me, the most important parts of a reliationship are trust and intimacy. If you wake up every morning by your lover's side, feel complete this way and know it will be like that till the very last day of your lives (ie till death parts you), it doesn't matter whether leases are signed or not. But again, that's just my opinion, you don't have to stick to it and I'll be glad to see what you think.

Adeline.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Adeline doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Very possibly yes, because they'd be more inclined to work at it, rather than bailing when more could be done to save the relationship. There is a reason why the divorce procedure is so convoluted and only recommended if it's clear everything else has failed - it's because marriage is seen as a sacred committment to one another that should not be undertaken lightly, same as a divorce/seperation should not be taken lightly, and the convoluted process tends to be in order to make sure that the couple really *don't* want to be together anymore, but also to allow the couple to reconcile if they decide they *do* want to be together - IIRC there are numerous stages you have to go through before you will be granted a divorce, and even then it has to be granted by the courts. Remember TOW Joey's Porche? Remember how the judge became very apprehensive about granting an annulment as soon as it was mentioned that Ross and Rachel had been in a serious relationship, and eventually refused them an annulment altogether? I suspect, even if R&R *hadn't* caused a supreme ruckus in the chamber, that the judge would have refused the annulment as soon as their past relationship came up. Breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend is a *lot* different from getting a divorce/annulment - if they weren't, they'd dish out divorces and annulments as soon as the couple hit a rough patch.

Tina Nellis wrote...

judge became very apprehensive about granting an annulment as soon >as it was mentioned that Ross and Rachel had been in a serious

    Sorry you took the time to write all this but once again, I have to
disagree.
If people really love each other and care about their relationship, they
don't need to be married to work on it and talk it over.
    Sadly, after big clashes, either one of the people goes and both are
angry and mad at each other. Which causes them to not open their mind at
each other and refuse conversation, hence blinds them from the feelings they
still have. In that way, yes I think too that all the stages you have to go
through to get a divorce or annulment may help reconciliate.

Adeline.

C4 UK/Euro/Anzac SPOILER SPACE

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

I'm *not* disagreeing with you, but Ross's lawyer told him his annulment just required witnesses to testify that he & Rachel were not of sound mind.

If they had just quietly served the proper papers, then probably the judge would have rubber stamped them.

Tennnat

This is true. It doesn't mean that the singles have achieved the ultimate level of commitment. It means the married people got married too fast.

They do love each other. That is evident. However, we are discussing whether or not they are *so* committed to each other to be regarded as "a new person." The equation on which this thread is based suggested that C+M=3. That is, the two people had become so close they had become a new creation. But they are living together because they had decided they weren't quite ready to jump into that final step of getting married. Monica wants to marry some day. She believes in the institution quite firmly. They just aren't quite there yet. It's OK that they aren't there - but if Monica is the marrying kind and they aren't engaged, then they are not engaged because they have not committed themselves completely yet. So they are NOT yet that new creation, the new individual, Mondler. Not yet.

My argument does not mean that all couples living together are not in love. It does mean there is something staying their hand at doing it for some reason. And IMHO, if there is *any* reason why they are waiting, they have not acheived that M+C=3 status, that place where they are just one person.

Note that I recognize that just saying "I do" does not mean you are actually committed. I do think you cannot match the *highest* level of committment unless you tell the whole world you intend to be together forever.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Claire Abraham doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

And can I just point out here, seeing as it came up in another thread or maybe this one, that this does not automatically mean that two people who have strong personalities, and retain those strong personalities, are not committed (and yes I'm referring to R&R here). Whoever came up with the idea that someone who retained their personality in a relationship isn't committed is talking a load of, um, hogwash (other words to describe it, but not suitable for a family newsgroup :)) - my personal opinion is that keeping your own personality can actually be an even better way of showing commitment, because you're respecting your partner's personality while retaining your own, and vice-versa, and it can't get to a stage where the couple are completely alike and driving each other mad (and believe me, I've seen that - it ain't pretty).

And getting back to Friends, I'm going to sound unbelievably petty here but never mind: Ross and Rachel *did* make that commitment that Chandler and Monica shied away from. Granted, they were under the influence of alcohol and major marker pen distress when they made it, but they still made it, and they made it ultimately for a reason. When they're going to wake up and actually honour that commitment, of course, is another matter altogether... :)

I agree here. For me, there isn't an equivalent to marriage.

On a lighter note, I just had a funny thought of something Rachel might say when planning her next 'real' wedding that would shock everyone: 'I only want a small wedding, nothing extravagant, the dress doesn't even have to be a Gucci one.' :)

Yes Tina, VERY Petty :D

~Ashley* you might have to ignore me sometimes. Just not now.

Tina Nellis wrote:

They didnt even remember that they got married, so this can not be anywhere near an example of their commitment. ~Act

I'd agree with that. Rachel wasn't even committed enough to give her reasons for proposing to Ross any serious thought.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Claire Abraham doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

I said it was going to sound vindictive. I needed to vent. :) (I had a particularly nasty day at school yesterday, and today was even worse - don't even ask!) That was why I put in the little 'whether they respect that committment enough' thing - I knew how it was going to sound. What I *should* have said was that they made the committment, for however short a length of time, they just didn't seem to actually respect the committment (at least Rachel didn't).

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

It would certainly make a good cliffhanger for the end of Season Eight, if Rachel is in the bathroom just before marrying Ross, and worrying about her level of commitment, she pops the window out of its frame...

Tennant :)

Wow, I like the way you think.. Seriously that would provide tons of angst for the R&R fans (provided of course she did choose to go through with it the next season..) How many more wedding traumas can Ross really take? I could also see this working with Chandler, with him ultimately choosing to let go of his fear of commitment. But the best thing about your proposal for season 8 (as long as it's not a series finale) is that it would mean there was going to be a 9th season :)

EsotericGrrrl wrote:

Gee thanks. I'll just store next to the 50 acres of angst I already have ;-)

I ask you (anyone), is there anyone who has been more put through the ringer than us poor pathetic R&R fans? Nay, I say, nay!

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, James Squire doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

I have double that - in addition to being an R&R fan, I'm a B/A 'shipper, and that pesky curse automatically doubles however much angst you've already got stored. :)

My English and Drama classes. (I'm serious.)

Really?? For me it's gotta be math. I enjoy English.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

In article , [email]

I would have *loved* the chance to do drama at school! (Says he who didn't, so has no idea of what horrors may lurk.)

I'm afraid I found Maths & English Language rather easy, but as for English Literature, and even more so, LATIN - aaaargh!

Mind you, at least I can fully appreciate the "Romans Go Home" scene in Monty Python's Life Of Brian. :)

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

It's nothing to do with the actual course, it's more to do with the people in it. (If Al's lurking, he knows.)

Really? I got one of the highest marks in the country for English Lit, apparently (A* at least, and apparently it was a v. high one), but I only got an A on the Language exam. <g>

LOL!! I hear you Jim!

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Lol okay fine, but at least they had a chance at a relationship ..For X-files shippers, they have to settle for almost kisses, hand holding, looks..and the reality that even at the end they may never get together. Lol I mean come on it took 6 years just to get one teeny new year's kiss ;)

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, EsotericGrrrl doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

My English and Drama classes. I'm telling you, they honestly beat all on-off TV relationships for sheer ringersville, hands down.

You have a point, though. :)

As Rachel said to Chandler in TOW Heckles Dies, "OK, you win."

;-)

In article , James Squire wrote:

David & Maddie fans?

Sam & Diane fans?

Richard & Caroline fans?

Niles & Daphne fans?

Tennant

Sorry, been there. Not even close.

Been there too. They were handled *tons* more intelligently. The Cheers writers did not play with our emotions nearly as much as BKC do.

Copycats.

Next?

Sam & Diane fans?

I think there was angst in that, but not as much as Ross and Rachel. Could have possibly been because the character of Diane went away, but i'm not sure.

Whatever did happen before that show got cancelled?? Even in reruns the last I saw was when Richard proposed.

Never been a Frasier fan, but from Tennant I know that Kelsey Grammer has played him for 16 and that his father has changed jobs. =)

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

In article , [email] (EsotericGrrrl) wrote:

Yah - will she go through the window or won't she?

Will Phoebe Burke get to Janine's house in Sydney in time to save Ross?

Can Joey save Chandler Buffay from the clutches of the evil Malcolm?

He's averaging 0.5 wedding traumas per season so he'll have to, though he does look really weird now all his hair has fallen out.

Well yes, he *seems* a lot more stable now that Nora has married Jack, but could he or Monica harbour a guilty secret about Judy's death?

I'm settling for 16 good ones. :)

Tennant

HI Esoteric Girl

I think the best ending would be a big fight. Ending all the relationships and leaving all the characters puzzled into a couple of spinoffs! Chandler and Joey can go back to being Bert and Ernie playing Fire Ball. Monica can start a cooking show. Rachel a fashion program, Phoebe a MTV show or animal program. Ross can start digging Dinosaurs on NGC or Discovery.

Im looking forward to Season 6 ( Although 5 is very Good)

Greetings from the Netherlands

In article , "Henk Schuiling" wrote:

When *exactly* do you guys start Season 6?

And greetings to you too, Henk!

Did you like the "Netherlands/Neverland" joke in 309 "TOW the Football"? We've been discussing how Helen Baxendale had to speak with an exaggerated British accent, how natural was the Dutch voice of Suzanna Voltaire?

Tennant

HI Tennant

We start season 6 in the fall of this year.We are one year behind. So when this season is the last we still have one year to go. Or i have to order the tapes in from the UK.

Football"?

exaggerated

I dont remember the ep very well. Do you know the joke? Aint that the ep that Angela Visser appears (Miss Universe/World or something). I can be wrong its about two years ago i saw that. We are having a daily rerun of season 1-4. We're at the end of season 2 now. So maybe in three weeks i can tell you. Im gonna tape season 3 i think. I hadnt seen season 1 ever. Its great to watch the characters evolve. Certainly when its played every workday and not once a week.

Hank says Hi to every Friends Fan

In article , "Henk Schuiling" wrote:

You actually won't be far behind the UK viewers without satellite TV.

In 309, Chandler & Joey compete for a beautiful Dutch girl...

CHANDLER: Hold on a second Joe, where do Dutch people come from?

JOEY: Ah well, the ah, Pennsylvania Dutch, come from Pennsylvania.

CHANDLER: And the other ah, Dutch people, they come on from somewhere near the Netherlands, right?

JOEY: Nice try. (to Margha) See the Netherlands is this make believe place where Peter Pan and Tinker Bell come from.

MARGHA: Oh, my.

No, that was 119 "TOW the Monkey Gets Away", which has an more puzzling problem. Everyone is searching for the monkey, when Chandler & Joey arrive at an apartment occupied by two gorgeous sweaty half-naked women - Samantha (Miss Universe Angela Visser) and Tia (Elizabeth Sjoli). We don't know which is which, so the transcript has to call them Woman #1 & Woman #2...

WOMAN #1: Hi, can I help you?

(Chandler & Joey are dumbstruck for a moment)

CHANDLER: Um, we're kind of having an emergency and we- we were looking for something...

JOEY: A monkey.

CHANDLER: Yes, have you seen any?

WOMAN #1: No. No, haven't seen a monkey. Do you know anything about fixing radiators?

JOEY: Um, sure! Did you, uh, did you try turning the knob back the other way?

WOMAN #1: Of course.

JOEY: Oh. Then, no.

(Another sweaty woman comes to the door, to speak to her friend)

WOMAN #2: Did I put too much rum in here?

(Joey and Chandler shoot each other glances)

WOMAN #1: Just a sec. (To Chandler & Joey) hope you find your monkey.

So, when you see 119, who comes to the door first? Visser or Sjoli?

Enjoy seeing season 1, and tape *all* the seasons, you'll only regret it later if you don't.

Tennant

Henk Schuiling wrote:

I enjoy this too! ~Act

Thanks Tina, I'm the one who brought up that point, but it was argued against. =)

As for the whoe living together/marriage commitment controversy, I can't really comment from experience and there's already over 30 replies to this thread, so I won't say much except that every situation is a unique case.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Claire Abraham wrote...

the two people had become so close they had become a new creation.

yet.

<snip>

OK, by C+M=3, I meant that it would be great if they had a baby. Not that their two souls would melt together to do only one or whatever you mean in all the quotes above (and if you actually meant baby, can't you just use the right words ?).

Yes, absolutely, I think it's a beautiful (if not THE most beautiful) act, but once again, only for some people. It is not always necessary.Some people have reached such a level of committment and closeness and intimacy and whatever feeling that makes love so great you can think of, that they just have to look in each other's eyes to know that they'll be together forever. And unfortunately, just because someone says they intend to be with someone else until death parts them doesn't shelter them from separation. Maybe makes it a thickest decision to think through, but definitely doesn't prevent divorces, unlike (to me) moving in together before marrying.

Adeline.

Adeline wrote:

Speaking only for myself, a new baby is only the possible result of what I was talking about. Even if no new baby comes of it, marriage would still represent C+M=3 for me.

If a man and a woman "just have to look in each other's eyes to know that they'll be together forever," I see no reason to not commit to that reality by getting married.

James Squire wrote...

You don't but maybe some do. If they don't believe in marriage for example. Some people think it's useless (that's NOT me, ok ?) as long as they know what they feel, and that's enough to make them happy. Or maybe others just want to keep that intimacy linking them a very private emotion and do not feel the need to expose it to the entire world. Or feel uncomfortable sharing what they have with dozens of people. There are as many reasons to not marry as there are to marry, and no matter how long we discuss the topic, it won't stop being true. You won't change my mind anyway, and I won't change yours, so, I'll shut up now. = )

Adeline.

Adeline wrote:

Not if C+M=3. It's not *just* about love if a whole new life can spring forth from it, one that C & M would both be responsible for.

Except that Chandler and Monica are still the individuals they were, as well as a whole new being.

I won't argue you here.

Well put.

I assumed that Adeline was imaging this possible future for C&M when she did her C+M=3. But no, they definitely are not there yet.

Fave Friends Couple: Russ and Julie Character You Are Most Like: Richard Character You Are Least Like: Janice Character/Actor You Would Most Like To Meet: i don't know Favorite Actor: the guy who played Emily's father What do you want to happen in future "Friends" episodes?: Return of Julie, Pete and Chloe; some jive-talking robots; Ross and Phoebe hook up; Joey gets elected to Congress; and a little green alien that only Chandler can see...

In article , "Sam Bell" wrote:

That great British actor Tom Conti.

Tennant Stuart

KatieLiz505 wrote in message ...

babies, kids will walk past my house--they will run! 'Run away from Crazy Snake Man,' they'll shout!"--Chandler

Matthew Perry

episodes?:

Chandler & Monica need some *gulp* time off. I don't mean a repeat of The Great Ross and Rachel War, but enough of a break for Monica to go back to normal and for Chandler to be depressed for awhile & go hang out with Joey.

Lauran

I agree. . .I'm not a big C&M fan, but I did think they were funny last season and didn't mind watching them. This season's not the same though. And I really miss that Joey/Chandler dynamic.

Adriana Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Adriana loves Matt wrote in message ...

think they were funny last season

the same though. And I

It's funny, 'cause I was just nominated for being the most dedicated to C & M, but the truth is, I wouldn't mind if they broke up. My favorite half of the couple is just as fun to watch when he's by himself. I loved their storyline in 6.17, but I'd also love to see an episode that has him off with Joey. The last really good Chandler/Joey moment I remember was TOW Joey Loses His Insurance. ("We have a crying child, roll the damn cameras!"--that reminded me of pre-Monica Chandler.) If C & M are going to stay together for the remainder of the show, we need more of that.

Lauran

:) Ok, I'm going back to the polls and voting myself most devoted C&M fan... I knew I should have done that before.... Lol, I write fanfic and expirment with them breaking up, it's fun, but I don't want it to ACTUALLY happen! As I said, time off from the COUPLE, to focus more on the seperate characters.... NOT A BREAK! (You have no Idea how sick I am of that!) I miss the Chandler/Joey bond. Monica and Rachel never really had that.... friendship thing like they did.... They fought WAAAY too much to be a Joey/Chandler... :) Death to all that say break them up! BWAHAHAHAHA! (It's late, ok! Give me a break! :P)

~Ashley* "I kill nasty things. But Holly chased me with a stick. They fight back sometimes" "Your odd" "I know"

Wow, I am nuts.... I think they just need to set the COUPLE aside... and focus a bit on the seprate characters....

~Ashley* I am like, the only C&M fan out there it feels.

I think I should go back and vote myself most devoted C&M fan.... I didn't when I voted before :P

~Ashley* "Aunty Em: Hate you, Hate Kansas, taking dog, Dorothy"

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Lauran Mitchell doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

This is what I want to see as well. You're not alone. :) I don't know why people automatically think that a C&M break MUST automatically mean a repeat of the R&R mayhem of S3/S4, because the relationship's different enough that it doesn't have to be. And I *still* don't see the argument for C&M being unable still to be friends after a break/up like R&R were able to be, so I see no reason why a break couldn't happen.

C4 UK/Euro/Anzac SPOILER SPACE

In article , "Lauran Mitchell" wrote:

We discussed this issue some time ago - everyone scorned a love-triangle plot, so I now reckon a good storyline would be for Monica to take Ross in to look after him as his mental condition deteriorates, but Chandler can't handle being number two, so he and Monica split up etc. After several episodes of what-not & hoo-ha, Ross is taken off Monica's hands by Carol, following *her* break-up with Susan, and Chandler assumes he can now return to Monica - but it's not as easy as that, she's still furious, so Phoebe takes him in, where Denise falls in love with him.

Whether any of this has happened in 608-619 I don't know.

Tennant

Why do you say Chandler cant handle being #2?

WHAT??/ We clearly see that this cant work because of TO that could have been!

ok now its sounding like a soap opera!

I HIGHLY doubt it! If it did I might even stop watching! ~Act

Chandler Bing

Rachel Green

6

i dont remember the exact quote, but its when monica says "judge all you want but, married a lesbian, left a man at the alter, livin in a box" or something like that.

get back together.

~

TOW

want

kind of

are

I'd like for Ross and Rachel to reunite, and for Chandler to have some quality time with Joey while Monica is put on valium.

Chandler

Pheobe

All, no favorites

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

Well, that's very kind of you, Tina, I think, and chemically you may well be right - but as far as the storylines in "Friends" are concerned, it was Chandler & Monica who were friends that began a purely sexual relationship that later matured into comfortable love.

Ross & Rachel were friends where one & then the other harboured unrequited romantic desires, that *eventually* became a sexual relationship destroyed by mistrust - yet unencumbered by sex, the romance slowly returned...

What does C&M breaking up have to do with R&R? We were talking about releasing Chandler to get him back together with his best bud Joey.

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Nope, that's the plotline, not what I'm talking about. What I'm referring to is the actual *chemistry* between the *actors* - a plotline can be written saying any damn thing's going on, but if the right chemistry isn't there then you can't force it to be there just by writing it in, it just doesn't work like that. What I should really have said is that I think David and Jennifer have a sexual chemistry (and there we go with the misinterpretations again), but IMHO Courteney and Matthew have more of a non-sexual type, which is possibly why a lot of people started complaining that there was a lack of chemistry between C&M when the sex farce went on for more than a couple of episodes. A more clear-cut comparision would be between David and Jennifer and David and Helen Baxendale (Emily), actually - *no-one* can argue that David had more sexual chemistry with Helen than with Jennifer, because all his scenes with Helen fell completely flat and it became pretty obvious that in addition to *not* having any sexual chemistry, they didn't even really get along all that well anyway. We were being *told* that Ross and Emily were having a crazy romance, but we weren't *seeing* it.

I didn't bring it up, someone else did ('what would you think if they broke up C&M and got R&R back together in the same episode?').

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

We actually agree Tina, we're just getting confused over who said what...

Katrina said C&M don't have the chemistry that R&R have, and she wouldn't mind if C&M broke up if this would get R&R back together.

Tina argued that C&M have as much chemistry as R&R but in a non-sexual way.

Tennant agreed that R&R had sexual chemistry, but C&M had a sexual story.

Tina said that C&M had a sexual story, but R&R had sexual chemistry, then corrected this to Schwimmer & Aniston having the chemistry.

Then...

Esoteric said she wouldn't like it if the writers broke up C&M to unite R&R.

Tina agreed that such a course of action would be unfair.

Tennant pointed out that earlier on we were discussing temporarily breaking up C&M to bring Chandler & Joey back together, not R&R.

Okay?

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Tina has increasingly bad eyesight and badly needs to get her eyes checked again, in that case. :)

I don't remember that one at all now, sorry. :)

Tina wrote: What I should

I completely agree here Tina. I think that's why Ross and Rachel worked from the start for me.

('what would you think if they

All the Ross and Rachel fans would have to hide because there'd be a massacre!

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Thank you Tennant! Lots of people get the wrong idea when a Ross and Rachel fans suggests a breakup, but it's *not* about R&R, it's about seeing more Chandler the way he was before with Joey.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

So your going from breaking them up so that R&R can be together to breaking them up so C&J can be together?? wow that makes a lot of sense..NOT.. They can have C&J be just as close with C&M together!! I dont understand why everyone thinks just because C&M are together C&J still cant be best buds! Even this season they have had a few really good scenes together. If the writers want to it is very possible to have a major storyling between C&J. They arent going to write all the storylines about C&M's relationship because that would get boring..so give them a break and lets see what happens and stop making the solution to all the problems on the show breaking C&M up. THANKYOU! ~Act

In article , Activia wrote:

Firstly, the idea was for a TEMPORARY breakup, secondly we're just discussing hypothetical scenarios, thirdly the FAQ for "Mad About You" says that if anyone from the show should read a posting recommending a particular storyline, they will do the exact opposite...

Tennant

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Tennant Stuart stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Then lets all say the opposite of what we want in the show! :)

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Paul Hyett doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

I want that lovable girl Emily, with that *lovely* little English rose accent of hers and her sweet-as-pie personality, back on the show ASAP! :^)

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

And Joey leaves, so Eddie moves in with Elle. :_)

Tennant

No! They probably already know what we are doing! They are watching everymove we make with their little sattlite and monintering our thoughts!!!!!!

~Ashley* "There is no #1 Friends fan or no #1 Matthew Perry fan. Because no matter what I will always be more obsessive than everyone else."-Me.

THIS IS MADNESS I TELL YOU, MADNESS!!

-Kat

Monica:"Fine! Judge all you want to but (to Ross) married a lesbian, (to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg into the fire, (to Chandler) live in a box."

I want that wonderful guy who played Mark to become a regular!

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Fire Aniston and Schwimmer. Hate 'em both. No talent at all.

thirdly the FAQ for "Mad About You"

LOL! Are you serious?? Wow, this is like the weekend of 101 Facts About Tv Shows (Frasier, MAY...) from Tennant.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

In article , [email]

Do what I would do - check it out (para 9.2)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I misinterpreted. But I agree that a 2 episode break up would be good, just as long as they dotn go backwards in their relationship.. I think it might even help bring them closer once they make up as long as they dont say or do anything stupid. If they did I'd be pretty angry!!

~Act

One: You show no mercy, so I won't either. =) (just remember, no ripping heads).

Two: I *never* said C&M should break up so that R&R could be together. This goes back to what I have said about assuming that just because I'm a big R&R fan I want them together at all costs. Not true.

Three: If they had shown some really good C&J plots this year and their chemistry was as funny and great as it was in the past, I would have no problem with C&M. My complaint has been that when they are shown, they are only shown together. You say that the writers aren't going to have all their storylines together because it would get boring, but that's what they are doing.

Four: I am not saying the solution to all the problems on the show is to break M&C up. It was just a SUGGESTION for how to get both characters back to the way we all used to love them.

Five: This whole thing was only brought up because M&C fans still think the show would be completely ruined if they broke up, but it's not the "M&C Show" and no matter what commitment stage they are at, if the writers want them to be friends after, they will be. Don't completely deny yourself the possibility of it happening, because it if ever does, you'll see it as devastating..aka, the Ross and Rachel fan point of view.

If you have any further comments, reread point one.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

Adriana loves Matt wrote:

Well, I havent seen anyone show Mercy so why should I? LOL. Plus its more fun and interesting to not :o).

I didnt say YOU said this, but someone DID.

Once again I wasnt referring to you.

Not ALL the time though. There have been scenes with just Joey and Chandler this season.

I meant in a longer period of time. In other words probubley by the end of this season or if there is a next (hopefully there is) next season for sure they will have more storylines together.

so u think they should all regress into their old personalities?

Alright say I'm in denial but I believe that it would ruin the show, or make it unrealistic by having them just be friends after everything.

I'm not ripping your head off, I could never do that :o) ~Act

LL the time though. There have been scenes with just Joey and Chandler

I think you're missing my point, though. We don't have the "best buds" we used to. When was the last quality Joey and Chandler plot, just the two of them? And when was the last episode without a Chandler and Monica plot?

It was just a SUGGESTION for how to get both characters back to the

Definetely not. I just think we should see *more* traits of their old personalities.

Unrealistic is a word sitcom writers seem to enjoy. We gotta face it.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry

I agree, I'm a Ross and Rachel fan all the way, but I don't think they should break Chandler and Monica up for the sake of having only one couple on the show. Now, I do believe they should break up Chandler and Monica for *other* reasons, but that's another thread.

Adriana

Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry