The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Celia Rubenstein]

19 hours ago, hathorlive said:

It will be interesting to see if the family stays together after the deposition process. 

Why would the deposition process tear the family apart? They all already know what's going on in their family behind closed doors. Nothing is going to come out in a deposition is going to be news to any of them.

I keep reading here about these horrible depositions and cross-examinations the girls are going to undergo and I don't know where that line of thinking is coming from. They are not the ones on trial. What questions are they going to have to answer that will be so terrible?

There are limits on what you can ask somebody in a deposition and on the witness stand.  The subject matter has to be relevant to the case. I'm just not seeing a lot of things they're going to be forced to discuss that will be so shattering.  To the extent opposing counsel may try to make them discuss specifics of the abuse they endured, they would just look like assholes.  It won't happen for that reason alone. And it would be irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the actions of the City of Springdale. And that is who is on trial.  I think people are forgetting that ... Springdale is the entity on trial, not Jessa, not Jill, not Jinger, and not Joy.

And not Jim Bob either, for that matter. How he and Michelle handled the abuse is also completely irrelevant to this case. Any attempts to bring that up in a trial would only make it look like blame-shifting on the part of the defendants and it won't happen either.

I think people's imaginations are starting to run away just a little bit.

[ariel]

2 hours ago, JoanArc said:

Plus it gets them out from under Daddy's thumb, and is actually "manly". Jim Bob would shit himself if he spent 5 minutes around an actual soldier. Any soldier. Gomer Pyle.

 The Duggar boys make Gomer Pyle look like a Rhodes Scholar.

[Mollie]

46 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Why would the deposition process tear the family apart? They all already know what's going on in their family behind closed doors. Nothing is going to come out in a deposition is going to be news to any of them.

I keep reading here about these horrible depositions and cross-examinations the girls are going to undergo and I don't know where that line of thinking is coming from. They are not the ones on trial. What questions are they going to have to answer that will be so terrible?

There are limits on what you can ask somebody in a deposition and on the witness stand.  The subject matter has to be relevant to the case. I'm just not seeing a lot of things they're going to be forced to discuss that will be so shattering.  To the extent opposing counsel may try to make them discuss specifics of the abuse they endured, they would just look like assholes.  It won't happen for that reason alone. And it would be irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the actions of the City of Springdale. And that is who is on trial.  I think people are forgetting that ... Springdale is the entity on trial, not Jessa, not Jill, not Jinger, and not Joy.

And not Jim Bob either, for that matter. How he and Michelle handled the abuse is also completely irrelevant to this case. Any attempts to bring that up in a trial would only make it look like blame-shifting on the part of the defendants and it won't happen either.

I think people's imaginations are starting to run away just a little bit.

Of course questions have to be relevant to the case.

It would take all day for me to write down the embarrassing things they could be asked.  And, if asked, would have to answer or be thrown in jail for contempt of court.  For example, in Paragraph 38 the lawsuit claims that an anonymous caller phoned the Arkansas Police Child Abuse hotline in December, 2006.  The caller claimed that Josh Duggar sexually abused Jill, Jessa, Jinger and Joy and one other minor child.  The caller identified the girls by name.  This and many other claims in the lawsuit introduce the ability for the Defense to ask all kinds of interesting questions:

Who wrote the letter, found in the book, given to the Oprah show, reported to the hotline and which started the police investigation?  Michelle and Jim Bob would not answer this question during their police interviews, but they knew who it was.  (Could it have been Jana or Grandma Mary or someone else within the Duggar family?  The book was inside the Duggar house before it was loaned to a friend, wasn't it?)

The girls' suit claims that the molestations were not public knowledge until the InTouch article was published.  So here are a few questions that could be asked:

1.  How many other people in the community knew about the scandals?

2.  How many members of their church were present when Josh made his confession in church?  How many church elders knew?

3.  How many people in the anonymous victim's family knew?

4.  How could the lesbian couple who gave the tip to InTouch find out about the molestation scandals when they didn't even live near Springdale or Fayetteville?

In Paragraph 67, the Plaintiffs introduce the concept of public shame on social media and forum posts, mentioning freejinger.  This allows the introduction of forum posts by the iconic Alice who exposed the molestations on another forum many years ago.

Etc., etc., etc.  Truly embarrassing stuff could be revealed, things the Duggars are still hiding to this day.  The only reason the girls are risking all of this further embarrassment is that someone (probably Jimbo) said they might get $15 million from the suit.  They have no shame when it comes to making money.

[lascuba]

I don't hold up much hope for learning a huge amount of new info from the depositions, though it can happen (there was a lawsuit I was following a few years ago involving very marginally internet-famous people...a settlement was eventually reached, but something so damaging came out about the person most everyone was rooting for that her reputation never recovered). I'd kill to learn who wrote that letter, though, and I'm rubbing my hand in anticipation of having their financials out in the open. 

[ginger90]

There may not be new information in the depositions, but they better make sure the depositions match the testimony in court. 

[GeeGolly]

49 minutes ago, Mollie said:

Of course questions have to be relevant to the case.

It would take all day for me to write down the embarrassing things they could be asked.  And, if asked, would have to answer or be thrown in jail for contempt of court.  For example, in Paragraph 38 the lawsuit claims that an anonymous caller phoned the Arkansas Police Child Abuse hotline in December, 2006.  The caller claimed that Josh Duggar sexually abused Jill, Jessa, Jinger and Joy and one other minor child.  The caller identified the girls by name.  This and many other claims in the lawsuit introduce the ability for the Defense to ask all kinds of interesting questions:

Who wrote the letter, found in the book, given to the Oprah show, reported to the hotline and which started the police investigation?  Michelle and Jim Bob would not answer this question during their police interviews, but they knew who it was.  (Could it have been Jana or Grandma Mary or someone else within the Duggar family?  The book was inside the Duggar house before it was loaned to a friend, wasn't it?)

The girls' suit claims that the molestations were not public knowledge until the InTouch article was published.  So here are a few questions that could be asked:

1.  How many other people in the community knew about the scandals?

2.  How many members of their church were present when Josh made his confession in church?  How many church elders knew?

3.  How many people in the anonymous victim's family knew?

4.  How could the lesbian couple who gave the tip to InTouch find out about the molestation scandals when they didn't even live near Springdale or Fayetteville?

In Paragraph 67, the Plaintiffs introduce the concept of public shame on social media and forum posts, mentioning freejinger.  This allows the introduction of forum posts by the iconic Alice who exposed the molestations on another forum many years ago.

Etc., etc., etc.  Truly embarrassing stuff could be revealed, things the Duggars are still hiding to this day.  The only reason the girls are risking all of this further embarrassment is that someone (probably Jimbo) said they might get $15 million from the suit.  They have no shame when it comes to making money.

You're forgetting that the girls were young and wouldn't know the answer to those questions pertaining to the time this happened. And why/how would they know #4?

[Celia Rubenstein]

2 hours ago, Mollie said:

Of course questions have to be relevant to the case.

... And, if asked, would have to answer or be thrown in jail for contempt of court. 

That is not how depositions work.  They can ask you a question, but you can object to it for any number of reasons. And you don't have to answer until a judge rules on whether or not it has to be answered.  You don't get dragged out in handcuffs for refusing to answer a question on the spot. 

 

Quote

It would take all day for me to write down the embarrassing things they could be asked.

Well it will only take me a couple of minutes to answer the questions you posed:

Quote

1.  How many other people in the community knew about the scandals?

"I have no idea. I was a just a child when all this happened."

Quote

2.  How many members of their church were present when Josh made his confession in church?  How many church elders knew?

"I wasn't there.  I don't know." 

Quote

3.  How many people in the anonymous victim's family knew?

"I have no idea."

Quote

4.  How could the lesbian couple who gave the tip to InTouch find out about the molestation scandals when they didn't even live near Springdale or Fayetteville?

"I have no idea."

As far as who wrote the letter, if they know who wrote it, all they have to do is say who it was.  No big deal.  And the freejinger posts by Alice are not some kind of *shocking* thing to talk about.  It in no way opens the door to forcing the girls into discussing the specifics of their abuse, which is the only thing that I think might be traumatic for them.  

Seems pretty simple to me.  And those questions are not at all embarrassing in my opinion.  And even if the answers to your questions turn out to not be as simple as the ones I suggest, the other possible answers still seem uncomplicated and not at all embarrassing, either - ten people were at the church, to my knowledge a half dozen other people knew.  No big deal.

And there is also a good argument to be made that most of your questions are irrelevant (as well as calling for speculation) ... what does the issue of how many people knew about the molestations have to do with whether or not the Springdale police made a mistake in releasing those records and did such a poor job redacting them it resulted in private information the girls told the police to be published in a tabloid?  That is the real issue, but it seems to be getting lost among the discussion of Jim Bob's misdeeds and the imagined spectacle of the girls fainting on the witness stand or running from the deposition room screaming and tearing their hair out.

The best thing I can say about your proposed list of questions is that it may (arguably) be relevant in terms of damages because it goes to how many people in the world already knew.  I don't think it will have much impact, though, because the real damage came from having the reports published in a magazine with a circulation approaching half a million. The fact that ten or twenty people in Springdale knew and there was an anonymous comment posted by someone on a puny blog really doesn't do much to offset things.  They can ask all the questions they want.  I don't think it will effect the case - or the girls - in the slightest. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein
apparently I blended the Alice post on a random blog with the freejinger posts, sorry. It doesn't really change my assessment of their significance or effect on the case in any way, however.

[Absolom]

6 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

And the freejinger posts by Alice are not some kind of *shocking* thing to talk about.  

When did Alice post on FJ?  I thought she posted on a different forum possibly years before FJ existed. 

[lascuba]

1 minute ago, Absolom said:

When did Alice post on FJ?  I thought she posted on a different forum possibly years before FJ existed. 

You're right, she never posted on FJ. Her post was a comment on a blog. 

[Mollie]

5 minutes ago, Absolom said:

When did Alice post on FJ?  I thought she posted on a different forum possibly years before FJ existed. 

Celia Rubenstein didn't understand what I wrote.  This is what I wrote above: "forum posts by the iconic Alice who exposed the molestations on another forum many years ago." 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Mollie

[Mollie]

6 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

The best thing I can say about your proposed list of questions is that it may (arguably) be relevant in terms of damages because it goes to how many people in the world already knew.  I don't think it will have much impact, though, because the real damage came from having the reports published in a magazine with a circulation approaching half a million. The fact that ten or twenty people in Springdale knew and there was an anonymous comment posted by someone on a puny blog really doesn't do much to offset things.  They can ask all the questions they want.  I don't think it will effect the case - or the girls - in the slightest. 

The forum you are reading right now receives 8.4 million views per month.

I think you might be able to better understand the ramifications mentioned in my comments when the response is filed and if and when the case ever comes to trial. 

[frenchtoast]

Folks, obviously the news of the lawsuit was something of a bombshell. But, it really seems like it's entered talking in circles territory and starting to get unnecessarily heated and argumentative. There is no requirement to reach agreement or consensus, and you cannot force anyone to agree with you or "admit" to your "side". Seeing a situation differently is ok. But at this point we're entering beating dead horse territory. 

Plus, it's moved way past Duggars In The Media. If new announcements about it are made, they can certainly be discussed here. In the meantime, discussion of Josh can go in his topic, there are the topics for the married girls and the generic Duggar World would probably fit the lawsuit. 

Most importantly, especially in a written medium, be civil. 

[Obsidian]

6 hours ago, SnarkyShark said:

Girls born in the year 2000 and later are now required to register as well.

Josie might be protecting your shores.

[ariel]

2 minutes ago, Obsidian said:

Josie might be protecting your shores.

She looks & behaves like a feral kitten.  When she is grown she'll be a feral cat.  That might scare the enemy.

[Obsidian]

11 minutes ago, ariel said:

She looks & behaves like a feral kitten.  When she is grown she'll be a feral cat.  That might scare the enemy.

Perhaps she'll lick them.

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

That is not how depositions work.  They can ask you a question, but you can object to it for any number of reasons. And you don't have to answer until a judge rules on whether or not it has to be answered.  You don't get dragged out in handcuffs for refusing to answer a question on the spot. 

 

Well it will only take me a couple of minutes to answer the questions you posed:

"I have no idea. I was a just a child when all this happened."

"I wasn't there.  I don't know." 

"I have no idea."

"I have no idea."

As far as who wrote the letter, if they know who wrote it, all they have to do is say who it was.  No big deal.  And the freejinger posts by Alice are not some kind of *shocking* thing to talk about.  It in no way opens the door to forcing the girls into discussing the specifics of their abuse, which is the only thing that I think might be traumatic for them.  

Seems pretty simple to me.  And those questions are not at all embarrassing in my opinion.  And even if the answers to your questions turn out to not be as simple as the ones I suggest, the other possible answers still seem uncomplicated and not at all embarrassing, either - ten people were at the church, to my knowledge a half dozen other people knew.  No big deal.

And there is also a good argument to be made that most of your questions are irrelevant (as well as calling for speculation) ... what does the issue of how many people knew about the molestations have to do with whether or not the Springdale police made a mistake in releasing those records and did such a poor job redacting them it resulted in private information the girls told the police to be published in a tabloid?  That is the real issue, but it seems to be getting lost among the discussion of Jim Bob's misdeeds and the imagined spectacle of the girls fainting on the witness stand or running from the deposition room screaming and tearing their hair out.

The best thing I can say about your proposed list of questions is that it may (arguably) be relevant in terms of damages because it goes to how many people in the world already knew.  I don't think it will have much impact, though, because the real damage came from having the reports published in a magazine with a circulation approaching half a million. The fact that ten or twenty people in Springdale knew and there was an anonymous comment posted by someone on a puny blog really doesn't do much to offset things.  They can ask all the questions they want.  I don't think it will effect the case - or the girls - in the slightest. 

Actually, the judge isn't there during the depositions.  Just the person being deposed, their attorney, the opposing attorney and and the transcriptionist.  If the defense lawyer interviewing the plaintiff asks a question which her attorney deems inappropriate, he/she will object and then the plaintiff will be expected to answer it.  It is only later that the deposition is submitted to the court and a judge rules on each objection and either sustains or rejects it.  In the meantime, a clever attorney can skirt all kinds of borderline relevant issues and get the interviewee all flustered in hopes of getting them to contradict their prior statements.  I have no doubt the defense attorney will do exactly that.  Perhaps some of the questions will be ruled inadmissible and the answers scrubbed from the deposition and not allowed in open court; but that doesn't mean they won't get asked and answered.

Obviously, I know a little bit about depositions having been deposed myself about a dozen times.  I've also read dozens of other people's depositions, including plaintiffs and expert witnesses.  I fully expect that the Duggar parents can and will be called upon to explain what exactly happened and how it was handled and that any counselor the girls saw will be deposed and will be expected to turn over records to the defense.  I was involved in one suit where the plaintiff claimed mental anguish, pain and suffering due to the incident which prevented him from moving forward with his life..  All his psychiatric records were obtained and he had to explain a whole lot of contradictory information in them including evidence that he had serious mental health issues predating the incident by many years and that, despite his overwhelming grief, he met a new girlfriend, asked her to marry him and moved her into his house within 6 months of the emotionally devastating event. Claiming the psychiatrist misunderstood or that the records just aren't accurate is not going to get them very far if there are a lot of discrepancies.

[JoanArc]

Quote

In the meantime, a clever attorney can skirt all kinds of borderline relevant issues and get the interviewee all flustered in hopes of getting them to contradict their prior statements.

These people are skilled liars, who stick to their script, and must have control of the narrative at all times. They've never ONCE faced a hard interviewer or not been in tacit control. Snowflakes. Someone, I think a lot of someones, will crack, or at least present conflicting information when grilled. No Jill, you can't goody-goody your way into 15 mil, no Jessa, you can't mean girl smirk your way there, etc. You answer the damn questions honestly. Everything they say will eventually made public. I kind of hope they win the suit and get a modest payout. The testimony will destroy them in the court of public opinion.

[Celia Rubenstein]

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

Actually, the judge isn't there during the depositions.  Just the person being deposed, their attorney, the opposing attorney and and the transcriptionist.  If the defense lawyer interviewing the plaintiff asks a question which her attorney deems inappropriate, he/she will object and then the plaintiff will be expected to answer it.  It is only later that the deposition is submitted to the court and a judge rules on each objection and either sustains or rejects it. 

Some of what you posted is not accurate, doodlebug, but since we've been ask to not discuss the lawsuit here, I will take my response to the Duggar World thread.

[xwordfanatik]

8 hours ago, doodlebug said:

All US males have to register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday, no matter what.  The religious grounds only comes up if they actually get drafted.  Gothard doesn't preach against war, so they'd have a hard time proving religious objections anyway.  Too dumb and uneducated for the modern military is more their speed.

Thank you.  I wasn't sure how that worked.  Mr. Xword is a war veteran, but we're old, and we don't have sons.

[ChaChaSlide]

RE: Duggars and the draft, I know they're friends with Tim and Franicia White (infamous for naming their daughter Heistheway). Tim is an officer in the Navy reserves, he actually was the commanding officer of the recruiting office attacked in Chattanooga and actually took the assailant out with his own personal weapon. Long story short yeah I don't think the Duggars have issues with military service due to religion. 

 

The Whites at Joy's wedding. 

[Absolom]

Which one is the so unfortunately named child?

[ChaChaSlide]

15 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Which one is the so unfortunately named child?

Young lady to the immediate right of Franicia. She's their oldest too; the next oldest is Pelaiah (brown dress older girl far right) and the rest of the kids all have relatively normal names--Abraham, Noah, Shiloh & Priscilla.

[GeeGolly]

38 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Which one is the so unfortunately named child?

Heistheway - yeesh, they were hash tagging before it was even a thing. Do they call her He's for short?

[Absolom]

I meant which one of the children in the photo has that name.  :)  So thank you, ChaChaSlide. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by Absolom

[Missy Vixen]

On 5/29/2017 at 8:11 AM, doodlebug said:

Too dumb and uneducated for the modern military is more their speed.

They couldn't pass the educational requirements; most of them have never taken the actual GED test, have they?

[Missy Vixen]

On 5/29/2017 at 11:30 AM, Celia Rubenstein said:

What questions are they going to have to answer that will be so terrible?

There are limits on what you can ask somebody in a deposition and on the witness stand.  

This case is over the damages the Duggars claim to have endured when the paperwork from Joshley Madison's molestation was published in In Touch. If you don't think the questions involved in the depositions over whether or not InTouch's publishers will have to hand over $15 million in damages will be horrific and highly personal, you've never been through a deposition. Our case was over the purchase of a car, in which three felonies were committed by the salesperson and dealership in question.

My deposition (over a car transaction) was 200 pages and seven hours of questions. My husband's deposition was five hours. We did nothing wrong. We were asked about our financial history, our relationship, were we suing for a big settlement, every possible combination of questions designed to scare and humiliate us while our attorney and the defendant's attorney played "whose dick is bigger". Anyone in a deposition is required to answer the questions and it's not like you can get up and walk out. Again, defense attorneys do not do this to actually get the truth. They are attempting to bully and intimidate the plaintiffs into abandoning their suit because the plaintiffs may have a strong case and a jury will award them money (and seriously damaging testimony will come out in court) if it gets to trial. The questions in this lawsuit will be the most personal, the most private, the most humiliating possible. Four underage girls were molested. They and their parents have claimed in many forms of media it wasn't that big of a deal, it was over the clothes, they weren't hurt by it, they forgave Josh, on and on and on and on. If the depositions are sealed or there is no availability to the press, there will be leaks to the media, and the leaks will be explosive. There are human beings in the room, many of which already don't think a lot of Jim Boob and his grifting.

All four daughters will be deposed, most likely one at a time. It will be them, maybe their husband, their lawyer and the defendants' lawyer, court reporter and support people in the room. Their husbands will be deposed. The attorneys representing InTouch will ask about their sex lives, any premarital sexual contact, why didn't they tell their parents from the beginning, are they sure they were that affected, on and on and on. They will have to answer and they will have to tell the truth. Do they resent their parents for not doing anything about what happened to them until the statute of limitations ran out and Joshley didn't have to go to jail? Do they blame Joshley? How would their lives be different if their parents had protected them? How do their husbands feel about this? Has it created problems in their sex life or other marital problems? Why did they not seek therapy? Jim Boob and J-Chelle will get their turn in the deposition chair as well; THAT will be worth paying to read the deposition and I can imagine they'll be questioned separately. I'm expecting not only fireworks, I'm expecting questions so brutal it's going to cause significant problems for the entire family when they read exactly what their parents said on a variety of subjects. (I'm guessing they'll be asked if they would have been able to support a family on what Jim Boob was making before TLC came along, did they value TLC's dollars more than their daughters' health and safety, why did they refuse to get them any type of therapy or help -- OMG, it'll be horrific. Jim Boob thinks he's smarter than the other side's attorneys. I'm only sorry none of us will get to watch him brought to his knees, especially if he tries to lie under oath. 

Again. We have been through this. Ours was ugly but it didn't involve the most private, personal aspects of any adult's life. We weren't asked to face the real fact that their parents threw four of their daughters under the bus to save their son, for example. We weren't our parents' meal ticket while they continued to indiscriminately breed until they had 19 kids they could not support on their own. We also weren't suing for $15 million.

[Celia Rubenstein]

The mod posted a note asking us not to discuss the lawsuit in this thread anymore, MissyVixen, so I will respond to you in the Duggar World thread as instructed.

[Sew Sumi]

 I think they did down to maybe Jessa. I'm pretty sure that the FRC wouldn't have employed Smuggar without one, no matter how sexy his family was to their base constituency. 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Sew Sumi
s/v agreement is neat!

[queenanne]

22 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Heistheway - yeesh, they were hash tagging before it was even a thing. Do they call her He's for short?

How many first-timers do you bet pronounce it as in Heisman Trophy?

[Mollie]

3 hours ago, Missy Vixen said:

Jim Boob and J-Chelle will get their turn in the deposition chair as well; THAT will be worth paying to read the deposition and I can imagine they'll be questioned separately. I'm expecting not only fireworks, I'm expecting questions so brutal it's going to cause significant problems for the entire family when they read exactly what their parents said on a variety of subjects. (I'm guessing they'll be asked if they would have been able to support a family on what Jim Boob was making before TLC came along, did they value TLC's dollars more than their daughters' health and safety, why did they refuse to get them any type of therapy or help -- OMG, it'll be horrific. Jim Boob thinks he's smarter than the other side's attorneys. I'm only sorry none of us will get to watch him brought to his knees, especially if he tries to lie under oath. 

You are right.  All of the Duggar family contracts and income from TLC will be exposed, because the 4 sisters are claiming an economic loss.  Because the suit is about what the InTouch media group published, all of those police reports will be open for discussion, including the interviews with Jim Bob and Michelle.  In fact, this lawsuit is more about what the media published than it is about what the police released.  It was the publishing of the information that pissed off the Duggars.

The entire TV interviews with Jim Bob, Michelle, Jill and Jessa will also be brought up because they covered the events mentioned in the lawsuit and anything the Duggars said in those interviews is relevant to the suit. 

[Beaner]

Y'all! Today was National Donut Day! You think the Duggars made the rounds of all the Dunkin Donuts & Krispy Kremes in town for the freebies??

[awaken]

1 minute ago, Beaner said:

Y'all! Today was National Donut Day! You think the Duggars made the rounds of all the Dunkin Donuts & Krispy Kremes in town for the freebies??

Probably!   And gave the stale leftovers to the homeless for a photo op! 

[Jeeves]

I was just flipping around in my Xfinity (Comcast) onscreen guide for TLC and found this entry for Monday, June 12, 7:00 - 9:00 pm (my local time):

Quote

Counting On -  S4 Ep1 (6/11/17) Catch up with the Duggars as Jill moves to Central America and Jessa prepares for her first child.

"First child," heh. Don't ya know that would p*ss off Princess Prickly Pear if she saw it? Heh.

I assume it's just sloppy editing and somebody at Comcast will fix it before long. I haven't looked it up, but come to think of it, it sounds like a description of an earlier episode. They just forgot to change "first" to "second" in describing what's essentially a rinse-and-repeat of some assortment of fungible Duggarlings' courting, engagement, wedding, babies, plus of course the Dullards going to/from Danger! America. Snore.

[Sew Sumi]

The date's not right. It sounds like a repeat. I just checked my guide for the 12th, and it says the same thing. I'm sure it'll be corrected as they get closer to debut day. 

Or they lied about leading off with Joy's wedding. 

We'll see, I guess. 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[Jeeves]

It could be some kind of placeholder episode description, but it's noted as "NEW" and as Season 4, Episode 1, and as two hours long.

TLC's website shows a "NEW" 2 hour episode on the evening of June 12. They call it "Episode 24" and it has only the generic "watch the next generation of Duggars . . . " series description. So, it could be the beginning of Season 4  . . . or some recycled episode that TLC is listing as "NEW"? 

ETA: While I was at TLC.com I looked for Counting On webisodes. The ones that came up didn't include any with Smuggar. Has anyone actually seen it yet?

Edited June 5, 2017 by Jeeves

[Sew Sumi]

Oh, I didn't even pay attention to the length. Two hours has to cover Joy's courtship, engagement, and wedding, since the audience has seen only snippets of all three components. 

[Missy Vixen]

I brought you a gift on a Monday afternoon because I wuv you all and I want you to be happy... 

Quote

Josh Duggar reportedly wants to join his sisters’ breach-of-privacy lawsuit over the publication of allegations that he molested them.

http://jezebel.com/josh-duggar-is-now-claiming-that-reports-he-molested-hi-1795831459

[Sew Sumi]

Too bad, so sad, Smuggar. You also cheated on your wife, and you have to also live with that. You just have to deal with the humiliation like other celebrities do, and if that means income loss because people don't want to deal with a child molester/cheater, then so be it. 

[xwordfanatik]

12 minutes ago, Missy Vixen said:

I brought you a gift on a Monday afternoon because I wuv you all and I want you to be happy... 

http://jezebel.com/josh-duggar-is-now-claiming-that-reports-he-molested-hi-1795831459

What an incredible asshole.  @Sew Sumi, I totally agree.  Self-entitled, and then some.

[Absolom]

It's over in the Josh thread already. 

[ariel]

Josh - good luck with that douchebag.

[sometimesy]

Imagine the show was about a circus family, then, a few years later, everyone has left the circus to pursue mundane occupations. The show isn't the same; The 19 children circus is now a sprinkling of boring young families. 

[Jeeves]

I have a question about TLC's scheduling of Duggar and Duggar-adjacent shows.

According to my online (Xfinity) schedule, tonight there is a (new) one-hour episode of Counting On, followed by a (new) one-hour show (special?) about Amy Duggar and whathisname her hubby.

Neither of those shows will be repeated later this evening. I used the "other times" search and Xfinity tells me there are no other showings scheduled of the Counting On episode. I found that previous Counting On episodes are available On Demand. I assume tonight's new episode will be available On Demand soon after it airs. 

Also, tonight the two Duggar/ish shows are preceded and followed by two or three repeat episodes of Long Lost Family. This is different from how TLC used to handle Counting On. IIRC, during last season TLC would show a repeat of the prior week's episode, followed by the premiere of that week's new episode.

And, didn't they show each of those episodes twice (I assume the feeds were timed to accommodate viewers across the four main US time zones)?

I'm not the most constant TLC viewer by any means, but for the few shows I follow, it seems the norm that a premiere episode will be preceded by a repeat of the prior episode (for My 600 Pound Life, the exquisitely subtitled "Supersized" versions), and that those shows will be repeated again that evening. 

Does anyone have an informed opinion on what TLC's stingy scheduling of these Duggar sh*tshows means? Is TLC essentially winding down the Duggar stuff? Are there enough advertisers who view the Duggars as poison, to influence TLC's scheduling decisions?

I mean, just shoving a premiere episode out there for one bare showing, doesn't seem consistent with how TLC generally shows the love for its in-production programming. From the horrid (Whitney Thore's awful faux show) to the horrific (My 600 Pound Life) to the divine (Nate and Jeremiah by Design). I've gotten used to "last week's show, this week's premiere, rinse and repeat."

Dare we hope it's the beginning end of Duggar programming on TLC? I've hoped before, but my inner skeptic sez TLC will be doing a VSE for Josie's wedding . . . 

So there's probably some reason for TLC's scheduling that I haven't thought of, and would be interested to learn.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Jeeves

[riverblue22]

In addition to the above observations, I went to On Demand to watch the wedding episode.  Wasn't it two hours long?  I was looking forward to seeing Olive Oyl Derick do something.  Anyway, they only had a one hour show there, and it was the wedding day.  I thought that was pretty strange because I was most interested in the second hour.

[Sew Sumi]

They didn't show the second hour? That took us back to November, right after Jinger's wedding. 

[Lisa418722]

4 hours ago, riverblue22 said:

In addition to the above observations, I went to On Demand to watch the wedding episode.  Wasn't it two hours long?  I was looking forward to seeing Olive Oyl Derick do something.  Anyway, they only had a one hour show there, and it was the wedding day.  I thought that was pretty strange because I was most interested in the second hour.

I was going to watch it On Demand, but Comcast wants me to buy the episode.  Nope, I'm not paying $1.99 for this.  

[louannems]

I watched it on the TLC TOGO APP.  I can "cast" it onto out TV, since my son gave us a Chromecast box. Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube can also easily be watched on TV, and searching for shows and movies is doen on our tablet.

[ginger90]

6 hours ago, Lisa418722 said:

I was going to watch it On Demand, but Comcast wants me to buy the episode.  Nope, I'm not paying $1.99 for this.  

I just watched it on Comcast. It came up as any other show would.

[Lisa418722]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

I just watched it on Comcast. It came up as any other show would.

I was always able to watch it for free in the past, but for some weird/strange reason I have to buy the episode now. 

[Sew Sumi]

I just tried it on Comcast. Free for me. I'm in CA.