j swift

Something tells me the AI social media manager over at Soap Central is not a big Days fan. Maybe, it's the fact that they can't distinguish Gabi from her daughter, Ari?🤔🤖😎

Well that's set dressing versus set design. The set designer is paid once, like an architect. The set dresser is paid every time they need to re-dress the set like an interior decorator, who is also in charge of consistency, like which family photos go on which tables. But, that also means that your “shared condo” idea would not be a cost savings, because you'd need to use a set dresser (no other union worker would be allowed to touch the set), every time you shot with either Phoebe, Lucinda, or Katherine. Also, they are all union jobs, so no need to be concerned about benefits and insurance.

I am not an authority on set design for television, but AI helped us, and verified the information. The answer was logical, but informative (the TL:DR version is in the conclusion)🤖 **1. Royalties or One-Time Payment for Set Designs in Soap Operas** Set designers for television, including soap operas, typically do not receive royalties in the traditional sense, such as weekly or monthly payments for the ongoing use of their designs on a show. Unlike actors, writers, or directors, who are often covered by union agreements (e.g., SAG-AFTRA, WGA, or DGA) that include residuals or royalties for reuse of their work, set designers generally work under different compensation models. Here’s how it typically works: - **One-Time Payment or Contracted Salary**: Set designers are usually paid a flat fee or a contracted salary for their work on a soap opera. This payment covers the design, creation, and implementation of the sets for the production. For soap operas, which often involve long-term, ongoing production, designers may be hired as staff or on a per-project basis, receiving payment for their work upfront or over the course of their contract. The payment structure depends on whether the designer is a freelancer or an employee of the production company, but it is not tied to the frequency of the set’s appearance on air. In other words, there’s no royalty stream for set designers based on how often their sets are used in episodes. - **Union Considerations**: In the United States, set designers may be members of unions like the United Scenic Artists (USA) Local 829, which represents designers in theater, film, and television. Union agreements typically outline minimum rates for design work, but these agreements do not provide for residuals or royalties for set designers in the same way they do for other creatives. The designer’s fee compensates them for the creation and use of the set for the original production, and no additional payments are made for the set’s continued use within that same show. - **Why No Royalties?**: Sets are considered part of the production’s physical assets, owned by the production company or studio once created. Unlike intellectual property such as scripts or music, which can generate royalties through licensing or reuse, set designs are typically treated as work-for-hire. The designer relinquishes ownership of the design to the production company, and their compensation is complete upon delivery of the work, barring any specific contractual provisions to the contrary. Thus, in most cases, a set designer receives a one-time payment or a series of payments tied to the production schedule (e.g., weekly or monthly during the design and build phase), and there are no ongoing royalties for the sets’ appearance on the soap opera. **2. Additional Payment for Sets Used on Another Soap Opera** If a set designed for one soap opera is later reused on a different soap opera (or another show), the original set designer typically does not receive additional payment or royalties for this reuse, unless explicitly stipulated in their contract. Here’s why and under what circumstances additional compensation might occur: - **Ownership of Sets**: Once a set is created, the production company or studio typically owns it outright. If the same production company produces both soap operas (e.g., both shows are under the same network or studio, like ABC or CBS), they can repurpose sets across their productions without additional payment to the designer. This is because the set is considered a physical asset of the company, and the designer’s original contract covers its use for the company’s purposes. - **Contractual Provisions**: In rare cases, a set designer’s contract might include clauses that address reuse of their designs in other productions. For example, if the designer retains some intellectual property rights (highly unusual in work-for-hire television production), they could negotiate additional compensation for reuse on another show. However, this is not standard practice, as set designs are generally treated as fully owned by the production company. - **Union Guidelines**: The United Scenic Artists union does not typically mandate additional payments for the reuse of sets in different productions, especially if the reuse occurs within the same production company or studio. If the set is sold or licensed to a completely different production company for use in another show, there might be a case for additional compensation, but this would depend on the designer’s original contract and is not a common occurrence. - **Practical Examples**: Historically, soap operas have reused sets due to budget constraints or studio space limitations. For instance, shows produced by the same company (e.g., Procter & Gamble Productions, which owned multiple soaps like *As the World Turns* and *Guiding Light*) might repurpose sets to save costs. In such cases, the original designer would not receive additional payment unless their contract explicitly required it. Similarly, when a show like *All My Children* or *One Life to Live* used sets from another soap, the production company’s ownership of the set meant no further compensation was owed to the designer. - **Exceptions**: If a designer is particularly prominent or has significant leverage (e.g., a high-profile designer with a unique artistic contribution), they might negotiate a contract that includes provisions for additional payments in cases of reuse across different shows. However, this is rare in the cost-conscious world of soap opera production, where budgets are tightly managed. **Additional Notes** - **Soap Opera Production Context**: Soap operas are unique in television due to their high episode output and relatively low budgets compared to primetime shows. Sets are often reused extensively within a single show to save costs, and this reuse is anticipated in the designer’s initial compensation. The fast-paced production schedule also means that designers are often focused on delivering practical, reusable sets rather than expecting ongoing royalties. - **Comparison to Other Creatives**: Unlike actors or writers, whose work is directly tied to the airing of episodes (triggering residuals under SAG-AFTRA or WGA agreements), set designers’ contributions are not tied to specific broadcasts. This distinction explains why royalties are not part of their compensation model.[](https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/calculating-sag-residuals-17706/)[](https://www.wga.org/members/finances/residuals/residuals-survival-guide) - **Cross-Show Reuse Trends**: The reuse of sets across soap operas has occurred occasionally, often when shows share studio space or are produced by the same company. For example, sets from *Another World* were reportedly reused for other NBC soaps after its cancellation. The lack of additional payment for designers in these cases reflects the industry’s view of sets as production assets rather than licensable intellectual property. **Conclusion** In summary, set designers for soap operas typically receive a one-time payment or contracted salary for their work, with no ongoing royalties for the sets’ use within the original show. If those sets are reused on another soap opera, the designer is unlikely to receive additional compensation unless their contract specifically includes such provisions, which is uncommon due to the production company’s ownership of the sets. The economics of soap opera production and the work-for-hire nature of set design mean that designers are compensated upfront, and any reuse of their work is covered by the initial agreement. For specific cases, designers would need to negotiate unique contract terms to secure additional payments for cross-show reuse, but this is not standard industry practice.

I won't spoil it, but this all pays off in a kind-of satisfying way.. We'll discuss it when you get there. But, clock April's ESP, because it seems to disappear at the most inconvenient moment. I mean, it is nice that she has a job on the movie set. But, later, April will need her psychic abilities, yet somehow she seems to no longer possess the skill. Structurally, that's the problem with giving any soap character ESP, because suddenly the character is imbued with omnipotence, which instantly takes away their dramatic potential as victim. The writer has to excuse why they wouldn't predict the threat to their own existence.

I’ve been thinking about @janea4oldreally smart post last month on the new writers, and @Michael recent comments helped crystallize something for me—specifically, the difference between stories continuing on autopilot versus actual course corrections since the transition. This list isn’t about performance or quality shifts, just concrete story pivots that seem to reflect a new set of choices. I’m not including character work here, though I do think Philip and Kate are great examples of where the new team has started writing legacy characters more in line with their emotional and historical rhythms, rather than just as plot triggers when a scheme is needed. Here are four storylines that stood out to me as having changed direction under Cwikly/Ford: 1. Jada and Shawn: Abandoned After Initial Setup They slept together while Rafe was kidnapped, and there was a brief window—around EJ’s shooting—where it looked like a romantic arc was being seeded. But since the writing shift, it’s gone completely dormant. Most telling was this week’s lack of follow-up after Jada testified at EJ’s hearing. In a normal murder mystery arc, that includes a romance, we'd see Jada and Shawn together after the hearing, much like we see EJ and Belle interacting. 2. EJ’s Funding: Retcon or Expanded Mystery? When EJ acquired the hospital, there was no indication that he required outside money. Now he’s been shown secretly moving funds toward a second project—possibly connected to Versavix or Stefano’s off-book holdings. That changes the shape of the arc. It’s no longer just “EJ bought the hospital”—it’s EJ is running multi-front operations, and the writers are laying a longer fuse than before. Even the elevator gag, which was previously established has been integrated into the new plot. 3. Gwen: Reinserted With Intent Gwen was announced as returning in July, which means the current writers had to create something fresh for her. What they’ve built—placing her at the Dimera mansion and pairing her in scenes with Kristen, Rachel, and EJ—feels deliberate. It’s not comic relief or isolated mischief; it’s legacy-adjacent plotting. A real change from how she was positioned at the end of her last run. 4. Cat: Elevated to ISA Asset Cat was in danger of being backburnered as Marlena’s receptionist. Now she’s been reframed as a tech-savvy ISA operative with clear skills and genre purpose. It’s a genuine character upgrade, and it is an interesting way to suggest the pre-surgery Cat and how she was like her brother Aaron. Takeaway: These shifts propose that the new team isn’t just executing pre-written outlines—they’re restructuring stories in ways that align with classic genre logic: tighter plot interlocks, more emphasis on institutional roles (ISA, hospital board, Dimera biz), and smarter placement of characters in narrative ecosystems. It doesn’t mean everything’s fixed, but clearly they are not just blindly following someone else's outline.

Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Ciara’s got three kids on a boat. Theresa’s a grandmother. And somehow Stephanie is still stuck in “young love” stories where the town jock learns how to be romantic. Don’t get me wrong—I like having a single character positioned as a lead romantic option. But Stephanie always feels like a character in search of a definition. There’s no throughline that’s carried across her three recasts. Except maybe her pattern: falling for jerks, softening them up, and then watching them leave town.

I’m of two minds on the Stefano noise. On the one hand, yes—it’s pure Days-of-Our-Lives absurdist-coded storytelling to flirt with bringing the Phoenix back from the dead again, maybe even with a paternity twist involving Kristen. That kind of logic doesn’t exactly hold water, but it does feel spiritually true to the world we’re in. But on the other hand, I’ve really liked what we’ve seen of Tony this year. He has been sharp and charismatic, and the writing’s actually let him play smart. His plan to use the trial to get a grateful Johnny embedded as a mole at Titan made perfect sense, and the negotiation he had with Gabi—letting her believe she was pulling strings while subtly steering things—was genuinely satisfying. For a minute there, it felt like Days was remembering how to write Dimera power plays without needing a chip or a resurrection to juice the plot. So if we are heading toward another Stefano-lite retread, I worry we’re undercutting a perfectly good Tony story in progress. He’s finally being written with intelligence and charm again—why throw him under the resurrection bus? If there’s a legacy story to tell, great. But it shouldn’t come at the expense of what feels to me like Tony 1.0 from the 1980s, as opposed to the sillier version we got in the last decade.

Is Stephanie Salem's oldest 20something? Because it feels like she's been an ingénue since the turn of the millennium. I'm willing to concede that she may be in her 30s now, but in our universe's timeline she'd be on the verge of perimenopausal. 🤭

Oh, so Jeremy’s back just to make Alex look like the better option for Steve? I can already hear the character-propping complaints (is that officially a verb yet?). And yeah, Steve’s sudden distrust of Alex feels a little out of nowhere. But I guess Jeremy’s always going to be jerk-coded. Some Salem résumés are just harder to clean up than others—especially when they involve drug-smuggling and shady airlines. We haven’t seen him in twenty years, but apparently some reputations never quite expire.

To no one's surprise, I'm a bit lost. @AbcNbc247 — what was the specific clue that confirmed Stephanie's book is about Jeremy Horton and not Nathan Horton? I thought I had finally cracked that one, but so far, my prediction record is rivaled only by Rafe’s inability to close a case. Even Rachel seems two steps ahead on the EJ shooting. If you haven’t seen today’s Marlena/Rachel scenes, I actually recommend listening with your eyes closed like it’s a radio soap. Rachel’s dialogue was solid—she came off sharp, with a nice rhythm to her delivery. Then we open our eyes, and she’s standing center frame like she’s about to curtsy to Marlena. The directors don't let her move like a little girl visiting her grandmother. Also, the scene tells us she just came from the movies with Brady... but the costume tells a different story. This doesn't look like an outfit from 2025 (or even 18 months ago), nor does it look like something Kristen Dimera would buy for her daughter. She was styled like an American Girl Doll who’s seen some things. Just to be clear: this is a comment about the costuming for the character, not the actress, who is adorable and handled the scene well. But the visual language here is veering into uncanny territory, and it’s distracting from what the script is trying to accomplish.

Just to be clear: I have no spoilers here. This is all speculation based only on what’s aired so far. Now that Marlena is asking Rachel if she remembers anything else from the night of the shooting, I wonder if we’re heading toward a misdirect. Rachel might say she saw a blonde woman shoot EJ. That would raise obvious red flags—especially since Marlena has been shown acting unsettled lately, and we’ve had the Queen of the Night dream recur more than once. The show loves giving Marlena a psychological mystery, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they played with the idea that Marlena could have had a blackout or been manipulated. But I don’t think it’ll stick. The more likely option? Sami. We already know Sami couldn’t make it to Salem the night of the shooting because her flight was delayed due to volcanic ash. That explanation felt deliberately squishy. It leaves room for the possibility. So here’s my theory: Rachel says she saw a blonde woman. Marlena becomes the early suspect. But the truth is, it was Sami. Maybe there was a fight with EJ, something went wrong, and she fled. If so, that’s a neat way for the show to give Sami a major story impact without needing Alison Sweeney to stay long-term. It would also settle the EJ/Sami vs. EJ/Belle question in a permanent way. If they go this route, Marlena’s just a red herring—and Rachel’s testimony kicks off the whole reveal.

This whole article reads like a clickbait. I am unaware of any gossip or rumors that she was leaving. Is it me or are they just making stuff up for clicks? Because it feels like they made up the rumor, got a tepid reply, and used AI to write the story.

I do love that in 2025, the only place where bookstores are booming is Salem. Amazon may have destroyed the industry, but it’s no match for Julie Williams and a good subplot. Only in soaps do we replace a failing restaurant with… a retail bookstore.

I thought Days balanced absurdity and human drama perfect today. Yes, the structure of Johnny’s trial is ludicrous—he hasn’t had a single off-screen meeting with his own defense attorney (his father!), and he looks genuinely surprised by every development. But Belle’s opening statement at least acknowledged the elephant in the courtroom: that EJ, as both victim and parent, should never be defending his son. It doesn’t fix the logic, but it gives it a little genre scaffolding. I’m glad they leaned into fantasy. Watching EJ cross-examine Jada was far more satisfying than having a guest lawyer deliver exposition. We’re not watching for procedural accuracy—we’re watching for character clashes. The trial feels like a heightened, theatrical whodunit: stylized, emotional, and completely untethered from actual law. It goes from “that would never happen” to “glad we got to see that interaction happen” Speaking of absurdity: I’ve stopped wondering why Kate is still trying to keep Stephanie’s authorship of One Stormy Night a secret from Philip—as if the CEO of Titan won’t be signing the checks. That only makes sense if you forget Titan is a company and pretend it’s just a sexy book club. And if Days is teasing a return tied to one of the major families—someone from Stephanie’s past—it pretty much has to be Nathan Horton. Of the three main options—Jeremy Horton, Max Brady, and Nathan Horton—only one intersects meaningfully with both Stephanie and Philip. Nathan’s history gives him built-in ties to: Stephanie (former love interest, emotionally unresolved) Philip (they clashed over Chloe and Parker) The hospital canvas (he was a doctor, and we’re now deep in hospital politics) The Horton family (if the show is re-grounding that branch) Max always had identity confusion with the Brady bloodline and worked better as a mechanic than a romantic lead. Jeremy was toxic and unrooted—not viable for long-term integration unless this is an “ex returns for revenge” arc. Which was Bob/Everett's angle. But Nathan? Nathan is narratively portable. Nathan Horton brings a very different energy than Alex Kiriakis or Jeremy Horton. Alex and Jeremy are both swaggering, high-testosterone archetypes: emotionally chaotic, impulsive, and branded as bad boys, even if the show tries to round their edges. Bringing in Jeremy would just be doubling down on that same flavor of romantic recklessness. But Nathan? Nathan is the clean-cut, dutiful counterpoint. He’s a doctor. He’s responsible. That said, I have to laugh at the idea that Stephanie supposedly wrote a whole torrid, identity-hiding romance novel about her time with Nathan Horton. No shade, but I remember that relationship as more orthopedic than erotic. Still, if the show wants to retcon it as a great lost love, at least it tracks structurally. Finally, kudos to the new writers and producers. Days is quietly phasing out the Bistro now that Stefan and Ava are gone. That makes sense. Salem didn’t really need two restaurants and The Small Bar, especially with so few characters available to anchor them. Replacing it with a bookstore, especially one run by Julie, feels like a smart trade. It gives Horton Square another purpose, ties Julie to the heart of the canvas, and adds a new set.

There's always intrigue and cool discussions in this thread. And I love the weekends when we break it down more structurally. Although, much like Marlena's boudoir, an unwelcome presence threatens our community. 🍃 I agree with @carolineg that the original possession only worked because it was built on John and Marlena’s love story. And it had emotional stakes under all the genre excess. And I get what @Antoyne ’s saying too: Marlena’s grief doesn’t need bells and whistles to land. But for me, this is exactly why I stay with Days. It knows how to hold grief and absurdity in the same frame. That contrast isn’t new; it’s the show’s texture. It rarely works, because it seems difficult to create and maintain. Yet when Days hits the balance, it lands. What we saw Friday isn’t a random rehash. It’s a return to the threshold. Marlena, raw with grief, is revisiting the liminal space where her identity was once rewritten. In true DAYS style, Dr. Evans is experiencing grief as disorientation, to demonstrate her true love for John Black. The possession was never just chaos for chaos’s sake. It followed a psychological logic. First, Stefano hypnotized Marlena and created the Queen of the Night fantasy space—elegant, eerie, and coercive. That wasn’t the devil. That was manipulation under the guise of romance. It was only after her resistance was worn down in that dreamworld that the actual possession took hold. So when Marlena slips back into that Queen space this week—alone, grieving, destabilized—it doesn’t feel to me like the show is going full “supernatural extra.” It feels like they're revisiting the memory structure of that trauma. She’s not possessed. She’s haunted. Which is what real grief can feel like too. And maybe that’s the point. We’ve had so much grief in Salem lately—so much real loss—that bringing back things like the Woman in White, Aramid, and Stefano’s shadow isn’t about shock. It’s about reminding us of the weird, the theatrical, the completely bonkers texture that makes this place feel like Days. It’s not just about mourning John. It’s about remembering the whole ecosystem we’ve been watching for decades. Hopefully, Marlena's lesson through her grief will be that she doesn't need to be saved anymore. She's going to be okay on her own.

Are we sure Doug3 didn't just set a curse on Julie? Because there's no way Gwen is going to let her keep that necklace. 🤔jk . Everyone is so sentimental every time an actor is fired. But, from @AbcNbc247's video, I think we dodged a bullet. Doug3 was seconds away from turning Doug's Place into a hiphop/zumba/zebra-print aerobics studio, if Tate didn't get rid of him when he did (love the tiny matching backpack, BTW). Anyway, weren't we just talking about which writers should get credit for the current story when Marlena went from grieving widow to the Queen of the Night? (Me, no likey...). It feels very retro/homage, rather than modern and progressive. Correct me if I am wrong (this means you @Bright Eyes or @brisbydog ), Stefano invaded Marlena's dreams in the Paris Underground Queen of the Night Story, (not the possession), that reunited Rachel Blake with her daughter Kristen. That was separate from the possession. This is totally speculative, with no information. But, it seems like they are going to revisit Rachel telling Kristen that she is Stefano's biological child. Yet, we were told that the actress playing Rachel Blake (old Rachel) had her last episode back in March when EJ tried to drug her, and then he kidnapped her. However, weren't we told that EJ returned Rachel Blake (not Black) to Kristen in return for Brady's vote on the hospital board? So, where's old Rachel when we need her? Is she at Aremid? Can't Gwen stay there while they're repainting the east wing?

I’ve never been a Belle-type-of-guy. Not during the Shelle years, not during her legal crusader phase, not even when the show leaned on her as the stable sibling. I found her boring. Respectable, sure, but dull. The character never sparked for me, and I’ve never been especially drawn to Martha Madison’s performance. But something’s shifted. The EJ/Belle dynamic has done more than make her sexy—it’s made her compelling. She’s smart, self-aware, and finally written with the kind of agency that gives a character shape. She’s not being protected by the narrative. She’s carrying it. I never thought I’d say this, but Belle is working as a protagonist. And I’m into it. (Also, are we sure Johnny’s not actually related to Brady? I get that he's the designated exposition sponge, but the way he keeps needing Chanel and Belle to explain his own murder trial is starting to feel... familiar.)

I don’t think Gwen’s wealth is setting her up for a villain turn. I think it’s meant to position her for redemption; specifically by helping return the hospital to the Hortons. That’s the beat that gets her back in Jack’s good graces and lets Jennifer begin to soften toward her. It also aligns nicely with the 60th anniversary: if the hospital’s opening a free clinic named after Tom (as the preview video suggests), Gwen helping make that happen gives her a clean narrative pivot. It’s sure to be controversial, because it’ll feel like Gwen getting rewarded while Abby stays dead. But from a story perspective? (Unpopular opinion) Gwen’s the better long-term asset. Not nicer, not better than Abby—but a more flexible, more fun character who could thrive if given a little grace.

But, because it is Salem, not enough money to buy her own penthouse (or even a condo). And not live either out of a suitcase, or in with her middle-aged siblings-in-law.😉

After running myself in circles trying to explain how Gwen got her money—from Megan? from Dimitri?—I remembered the actual point. The point of Gwen saying she’s rich in two different scenes isn’t for me to ask why, it’s to make sure I know she is rich enough, They’re laying pipe, not writing a moot court case examples for Property Law 101. I don't know why I keep forgetting that? And if tradition holds, she’ll be pawning Von Leuschner earrings by September.

On a good day, Days manages to be completely unhinged and still land something emotional. Today’s episode did both. We got a sweet reunion between Gabi and Ari—and also another nudge in the ongoing mystery of who’s actually paying for EJ’s hospital takeover. In the May 13th episode, EJ announced his intention to buy the hospital. He said he was using funds from Titan’s purchase of DiMera, and the moment was played straight; no hesitation, no mention of needing help. It read like a classic DiMera move: strategic, overconfident, and entirely self-financed. Now we’re being told he couldn’t afford it alone, and the ISA is tracing the money. Meanwhile, Gwen tells Leo today that she ended up with Dimitri’s fortune. The timing feels deliberate. If we’re meant to connect the dots, she’s likely the silent partner. What’s less clear is the logic. Gwen and Dimitri were married, yes, but he’s alive, recently released, and hasn’t been written as destitute. If Gwen has his money, how? And more to the point—why doesn’t Dimitri? I assumed that's filed under “questions we're supposed to ask because Dimitri's not around”? Also worth noting: the Ari and Holly kidnapping wrapped surprisingly fast. The rescue happened over the course of a single episode. But even with that pacing, the Gabi/Ari moment landed. That’s the balance I keep coming back for.

My post mentioning Donna was direct, clear, and grounded in behavioral truth. Her post comes shortly after the accountability post, but she doesn’t quote or reference it—because she doesn’t want to respond to the content. She wants to shift the emotional terrain back to her comfort zone: being misunderstood, lecturing about technicalities, and invoking her “lifelong fan” badge as moral insulation. Rather than engaging with the very specific emotional and behavioral critique posted two hours earlier, she turns to quasi-legal jargon and an irrelevant discussion about the history of VCRs and personal ownership laws. Rather than confront it, she’s now: Recasting herself as the misunderstood victim Arguing a different topic entirely Distracting from community harm with performative innocence It's not just a deflection. It’s an evasion strategy built on misdirection. The Latest Post — The Faux Legal Authority Play ❌ Illogical Claim #1: This is a category error. Owning a VCR is not the same as redistributing copyrighted television clips online. VCRs were never illegal—unauthorized public sharing and reproduction is. She conflates personal use with broadcast rights. ❌ Illogical Claim #2: This is false and ignores the legal distinction between licensed viewing (e.g., via streaming platforms) and owning or copying material. Streaming is not the same as having lawful ownership or the right to upload/distribute. ❌ Poor Logic: No case is cited. No precedent is referenced. She uses the phrase as a rhetorical fog machine—pretending that vague legal “determinations” somehow justify her past behavior. This is argument by assertion, not evidence. Part 2: Her YouTube History — The Involuntary Confession She was twice terminated from YouTube for: Copyright violations Spam, scams, and deceptive practices Yet in her new post, she claims: But earlier she said: She knows. She just doesn’t accept responsibility. That’s not lack of knowledge—it’s motivated denial. The message above is not about whether she’s a fan. So, let me be even clearer. It’s about: Her refusal to change her behavior after disturbing Drake Hogestyn’s family Her ongoing self-centered tone Her lack of remorse and continual reinsertion into sensitive discussions That’s a choice you’re making, Donna. But if you continue to insert yourself into discussions that you’ve already compromised, you’re going to keep hearing from people who haven’t forgotten what happened—because you haven’t actually changed.

Donna has mentioned more than once now that she “paid a price” for what happened with the Hogestyn situation. That may very well be true, but what she hasn’t done is show any change in behavior within our community that would suggest she learned from it. If anything, Donna, you continue to post in the same tone—defensive, attention-seeking, and without any acknowledgment of the damage caused. You still center yourself in stories about Drake. You still deflect when challenged. And you still lash out at people like carolineng who aren’t even criticizing you harshly, just asking for basic accountability. Paying a price isn’t the same as expressing remorse, Donna. And expressing remorse isn’t the same as doing something differently. It’s hard to see your words as anything other than self-pity dressed up as insight. No one is forcing you to keep reliving this. That’s a choice you’re making, Donna. But if you continue to insert yourself into discussions that you’ve already compromised, you’re going to keep hearing from people who haven’t forgotten what happened—because you haven’t actually changed.

Here’s the corrected chart reflecting that neither Leo nor Javi knows that the baby is Sophia’s, and neither knows that Sophia gave birth: