Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

JessDVD

Member
  • Content Count

    718
  • Joined

Community Reputation

1.8k Excellent
  1. That one isn't unique to this crowd, I see that term all the time among non-fundies and it causes my soul to shrivel up a little (ok, a lot). I think it's sweet if a dad wants to take his daughter out for a semi-fancy occasion, especially if it's a daughter who likes that sort of thing (which I'm guessing is what's at play here with John and the girls), but by no means is that the only way that a dad can have a relationship with his daughters, speaking as the wife to a dad who has four daughters, and I think said dad would shrivel up and die if he were asked to do a daddy/daughter date.
  2. JessDVD

    S04.E16: Missing

    Generally this would have been more interesting if it had turned out that the dad wasn't an abusive SOB and it was all a misunderstanding. THAT would have been a compelling finish. But since we all knew it was a slow slide to Danny finding someone to testify that the dad was violent, it wasn't all that interest-holding. (Although that may have also been us waiting impatiently for the press conference in Michigan at ELEVEN last night but whatever) Name me one person who was surprised to see the kid come around from behind the mom showing signs of injury. I also felt like the ADA taking the tack of "This is just hearsay" was kind of dumb, because aren't abuse allegations entirely based on hearsay? There's nothing keeping anyone from falsely denying that they've been abusive, likewise nothing keeping anyone from falsely accusing others of being abusive. That it's hearsay is irrelevant; unless the abuser happens to lay hands on the abused in the actual courtroom in front of the jury, any case involving abuse allegations is based on hearsay. And taking this back to my first sentence, I really do think it would have been more interesting to see a jury consider if the aunt should be convicted of kidnapping due to her legitimate concern about the kid being abused, that turned out to be incorrect, as well as see the aunt grapple with, I was wrong and what do I do now. That scenario is that murky gray of legality that is soooo much more intriguing than a "Welp, we finally found someone who would testify that he actually is an abusive SOB so you're clear. Hurrah!" All that said, I don't envy the work of CPS workers, trying to divine from inconclusive physical evidence and conflicting, unreliable witness testimony or lack thereof, if a child is actually in danger. In conclusion - if you're going to kidnap your niece and pretend she's your daughter (I thought that part was weird too, wouldn't it have been an easier lie to include the truth that her mom was dead, and then tack on the lie part about her dad being a war hero? In the department of the best lies are mostly true?), make sure she knows that once she's a teenager, to never commit petty crimes that might cause law enforcers to look up her real identity.
  3. 1st grade was updated maybe 3 or so years ago. But the people who teach at the school, based on the pictures I see in that Facebook group of kids who use the DVDs and then go to the school to meet the teachers, mostly seem to have missed the memo that the millennium happened. I roll my eyes a lot at the people in that group. The curriculum is, unsurprisingly, pretty didactic in some areas. But imo the beauty of home school is being able to take what you want and ignore what you don't. So, I use their methods of teaching reading, grammar, and math that work well for me and my kids and leave the spiral perms and excessive preachiness at the door of someone else's house.
  4. OK, I watched the video (I decided to be kind to my husband and the kid who had a bad dream and apparently thought it required her to be in our bed 🙄🙄, both of whom were still sleeping when I first saw that post) and have three additions to my previous comments: 1) I forgot about the DVD program that Abeka offers (since we don't use it, I often forget it exists...), and it's about what she described. They offer an accredited and unaccredited version, and states that have stricter rules for home schooling will accept their accredited version. I don't know much (really, anything) about those states' regulations but I have always assumed that those states have some sort of standards that any curriculum has to live up to, that they wouldn't just accept any random "Joe Schmoe's Edukashun Program". So if Alyssa has any major gaps in her own education (I mean, let's be real, I went to public school and have a bachelor's degree and teaching my kids has made me realize how many gaps my own education had), using the DVDs will help her ensure that her kids are learning. 2) Abeka does love their cursive. I use manuscript (print) for K5 (what they call your basic 5 year old kindergarten) and 1st grade, and start teaching cursive in grade 2. 3) Whatever those videos Alyssa is using with the littles are, it's not Abeka. Or really should be considered home schooling. It's just your basic educational videos, we have a stack of the Leapfrog brand ones, if my littles want to watch something while the bigs are doing school, that is an option. In conclusion, I always felt like the Duggars and Bateses gave a really poor presentation of home schooling, especially since it wasn't quite as mainstream at that time when their shows were first starting and all the kids were still living at home. It's pretty common in my circles and nobody even blinks now when we mention that we home school, but in the early 2000s when the Duggars were showing off their wisdom booklets, this was not the case. So I'm glad that at least one of their ilk in the current generation, is using a real curriculum. Tldr again: Yeah, sorry, I talk too much. This is one topic that I have a lot of knowledge in. I'll shut up now.
  5. I can't watch the video right now but I can answer the Abeka question. I use it for most subjects with my four kids, and used it myself at Christian school (I always feel the need to clarify, a sane, non-fundie school) in the 80s and 90s. And to prove my sanity and non-fundieness, my kids also go to the local public school a couple hours a week for classes like gym and art. So since they're assigned to classes, I get those teachers' emails about what they're doing in their class, and it's right along with what we're doing in our curriculum. I have a teaching degree (from an accredited, non-religious college, lol) so I don't really need these but they also provide teacher curriculum books that show and explain how to teach everything, so moms who have less or no experience teaching, can still use it. The biggest thing for Abeka is that it's a pretty traditional curriculum, more workbook than hands-on (which works for us but isn't for everyone), and it doesn't use the newer trendy methods of teaching math and reading (those "common core math" [which is a misnomer] posts that you'll see about the ways they teach math now). I also feel like the history can trend a little too #MURICA, if you get my drift. But I've been able to add some balance to that when we talk about it. Otherwise, it teaches all the subjects well, is pretty rigorous in the upper grades from what I hear (my oldest is 5th grade), and there are many people in the Facebook group of people who use it that I'm in, who talk about their kids doing fine in public school and higher education. At the risk of bring braggadocious, when we moved the summer before my 5th grade year and I went from Christian school to public, I could have skipped a grade because the curriculum was that far ahead of where public was. I think with the increased rigor of public school (kindergarten now being what we all knew as first grade), it's kind of evened out a bit. Tldr: I've used it as a student and teacher, I have an education degree from am accredited non-religious college, it is a real curriculum, not wisdom booklets, and if Alyssa is really using it, her kids will learn things.
  6. Bull's team said that the kid's prints were found on the poker, although they did say something like "Would it surprise you to find out that prints were on the poker that match your prints on the receipt at the coffee shop?", which in these shows often is just intended to suss out a confession, and someone on the team will say "It'd surprise us too because that didn't actually happen".
  7. That was the first episode in a long time that I didn't immediately pick out plot holes large enough to get lost in. I'm impressed. Chris Jackson is wonderful and I thought that the increased role of Chunk in this episode was really well done. A last minute plot twist that the daughter hired the son would have been good. As it was, I mostly just felt really really bad for the kid. I would have preferred that it totally have been an accident and they not leave it with him likely on the hook for first-degree. I hope the fictional daughter that we'll never see again, uses her millions to hire Chunk to defend the kid and get his sentence down to something small and get the kid's mom the help she needs. A possible plothole? Shouldn't the detective have found the kid's prints on the poker? Presumably the kid's prints weren't in the system, but it again gives a possibility that it wasn't the daughter. That detective seemed to have missed the innocent until proven guilty part of the justice system in America. But that's not new for this show.
  8. Flashback to 70s Ellie talking to her dad. Me: "I bet a million dollars she's talking to Gibbs". Camera turns. Yep. I also guffawed at McGee as the brother. I had a temporary out-of-body moment during all the mentions of senior and Ziva so that bit is now irrelevant to me. All in all, a good episode. The flashbacks episodes tend to be strong.
  9. Every reality show I've ever watched or remotely followed has begun as "Cameras follow us around doing the things we already do" and eventually become "Cameras record the obviously staged for the show and corporately sponsored fakery that we can only afford because of the corporate sponsors and our money from the show". I assume it's because the producers think they need to do this to continue the show and continue the show because it continues to make money but it's a real turn-off for me. I thought the pre-scandal Duggars were interesting when they were a mega-family and the show was really just showing us how they did things. Same for Jon & Kate Gosselin. But both shows lost my interest when they became a compilation of the fabulous toys, vacations, and other events that they can now afford with sponsors and show income. I still don't get UP, so I still don't get to actually watch the Bateses' show, but I still don't have any interest in watching a long commercial, even from people who I find interesting, so I can live with this...
  10. I think most people now, 100 years later, either don't know or don't care about the history behind 20s fashion (and a lot of other things, really) and just think the fashions are cool. But, everyone is prone in their own way to accepting the parts of things that they like and ignoring the parts they don't like, so it's unsurprising if the Bateses are employing that technique here. I did miss the part where 3-inch stilettos were part of the Gothard-approved wardrobe though. And bare shoulders. Of course Michael managed to make the look frumpy.
  11. 1) This is literally the first time I can think of, in 10+ years of watching crime procedurals, when a recovering-from-major-injury-or-illness agent, actually STEPPED BACK from a case, due to pain/recovery. 2) I've probably said it here before, but I can't stand it when suspects who have all the evidence pointing toward them, act all insulted when someone they love is suspicious of them. News flash, this is how people get away with heinous acts for years and years, when everyone around them ignores the obvious evidence because they just can't believe the person would do that. 3) Also, no way does a JAG lawyer agree to be interrogated without a lawyer present. Also also, making mental note to never, ever agree to attempt to obtain evidence for the investigating team, by trying to sneak something out of the suspect's house. But I did enjoy them discussing how they could obtain it legally, like that's ever mattered before. 4) Was it Vance who the team found on that match.com app? (Tinder? What do people call those things these days? I'm so glad that I'm old enough that I found my spouse the old fashioned way, meeting in college and relationship developing the way God intended, over AOL instant messenger) I thought they were talking about Gibbs but that didn't make sense with the end and I don't care enough to go back and watch it again.
  12. Pro tip: when paying off a juror to swing a case, try and pick one who has a better poker face. I continue to be underwhelmed by cases that hinge on such witness testimony as "Since you paid for the damage of your teen's dumb moves in exchange for the one damaged to not press charges, clearly you are also implicit in your husband's buying the son's college admission spot". Whoever strapped on Izzy's fake baby belly has obviously never actually seen a pregnant woman before because it was sitting way too high on her abdomen for someone who was past her due date. And if her contractions were only six minutes apart, they should not have been at the hospital. I also found her contractions to be a little unbelievable (they always told me, and I found it to be the truth for me, that a real, actual contraction, like the sort that you'd have to be having to be in a hospital gown, is so intense that you can't talk at all during them), like that weirdly long one where she was telling Bull to answer the phone. But at least the baby is here (were we ever told a name?) so maybe that plotline will be over for awhile.
  13. Yes! Him talking about how he hated the idea of perpetuating the black father abandonment cycle, like we all totally get that, but it seems pretty presumptuous to just assume that the bio mom and her husband couldn't possibly be able to teach the kid what he needed to know. I didn't think about this when I was posting originally, but your reply made me think - since you're right, no matter what, these couples are going to be spending their lives involved together, then why did bio dad start with serving them? Wouldn't it have been more productive to go to the couple with some kind of "OK, neither of us chose this situation but yet here we are so can we resolve this like adults?" and if that hadn't worked, THEN go with litigation? I'm only speaking for myself here of course, but I tend to think that if I were the bio mom, I'd be more willing to go along with it if I felt like the bio dad were coming at it from a "let's work together" angle, rather than "I'm suing for full custody of the child that is also biologically yours, whom you birthed". The show portrayed bio dad as a reasonable and non-asshole human, so this seems like a bit of a mis-step.
  14. That was really, really cringeworthy, listening to the lawyers bring up each couple's every "weakness" in some sort of game of, his anger issues mean he's more unfit (uh, that's not how that works), his hiring a nanny to take care of the baby means he's more unfit (what?). What's unfortunate about that is, this is really a legitimately difficult situation that I honestly don't know what I think is the right decision, and the lawyers being dicks about the opposing sides' supposed flaws (last I checked, being well-off enough to hire a nanny, and being poor enough to only live in a one-bedroom apartment, aren't actually commentaries on one's ability to be a parent), doesn't give us any depth as to the ethics of the situation, as well as either couple's legal right to custody. My question is, how did the African American couple get the other couple's info? I know it was his sperm, but shouldn't the white couple's info be protected under HIPPA? I've never used a fertility clinic but as best as we can figure, they should have a privacy policy, and while presumably the clinic notified the African American couple that his sperm had been used in error, the privacy policy should have kept the other couple's info from them. I did zone out a little during all the exposition so maybe this came up then... No jury. Did we even see Marisa? Different flow and feel to this one. The not-bio dad's line about God not giving you more than you can handle caused me to guffaw because that's been called out big time in Christian circles (or at least my circles...) as utter crap and not biblical. Good try there, guys. And finally, they played that ending like it was the Missouri Compromise, but I kept thinking that these couples barely know each other, and are agreeing to a very long time of being intricately involved in each other's lives without knowing anything about each others' parenting styles, convictions, religious leanings, life goals, etc. I know plenty of people end up in interesting custodial arrangements, but hopefully they've all had dinner together first.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size