Wales, I have to seriously disagree with you on a couple of points.

First of all, you think it is right to fight to keep a child entirely away from his or her father (a good father!)because it's easier for the mother? Um, are you serious? Because I think that's pretty dispicable. When a father loves his child and would be a positive influence in that child's life, it is absolutely unacceptable to rip the child away from him. I mean, that's kind of cruel.

Second of all, blood does not matter to Lucky. That has been established through his relationship with Cam. He loves that kid, and made it clear that he still wants to be a huge part of his life. I'm sure Lucky will be furious when he finds out about Jake- he has every right to be. But he will still love that child and deserves to be involved.

And finally, you think it is unfair for Liz to try to keep Jake away from Jason- a man with a very dangerous lifestyle that is constantly getting him and the women in his life shot. And yet you think she ought to rip the kids away from Lucky, who has raised them and is far, far less likely to get them hurt? Again, seriously?

I didn't say a mother should keep a child away from his father. I said that I would always fight to maintain sole custody not that I would not allow my children to be a part of their father's life and vice versa. I just am not for the idea of splitting legal custody of children and I would agree to a stipulation that I not be allowed to move them out of state. If things are not amicable then there will be problems either way and I could always lose that battle but that's what I'd personally seek.

As for Lucky, today's show only mentioned Jake so now it's a mystery where they stand on Cameron until they choose to mention him again.

I think it's unfair for a mother to keep a father away from his child unless the father is a physical threat to the child and I specifically mean as in neglectful, abusive, et al. I don't really care about Jason's profession because I don't take Jason and Sonny and that mob business seriously and never have otherwise I wouldn't watch GH. I suspend a great deal of reality to accept that they coexist in PC with all the other citizens interacting with them like normal. As far as I'm concerned, they are only a hazard when the creative minds of GH run out of conflicts then someone has to get shot, kidnapped, etc. Based on GH's history, there are a whole lot of characters who shouldn't have had children because they were always on the run or in danger since adventure was the name of the game on GH so I can't possibly take Sonny and Jason's profession any more seriously than I did PC where half the town dealt with vampires and the GH half was safe.

Since I don't take the mob stuff seriously then I'd take Jason over Lucky in a flash. His character is stronger than Lucky's and he's good with children which should make him even better with his own. Naturally, I don't agree that Lucky is less likely to get them hurt because this all comes down to a pen so if the writers want Lucky to relapse and endanger the children that would negate whatever might happen as a result of their exposure to Lucky. Neither Jason nor Lucky would intentionally try to harm any children so they're on equal footing in that area.

As far as Lucky having raised those kids--that's a pet peeve of mine . It is such an exaggeration to me to say someone raised a three month old baby. When people throw birthday parties for a one year old they are doing it for themselves and not the child because a child at that age doesn't understand. If you were talking about older children then I'd agree but these are kids at an age where they can easily adjust. Plus I'm not saying that Lucky shouldn't get to see them. I'm saying that he shouldn't have custody of them and I'm pretty sure that the direction in which this s/l is heading he won't. This is GH and Jason will be with his son soon enough.

On another subject, I LOVED Scott today. The minute he said "Pot, meet kettle" my sister and I looked at each other with glee, and after he brought up the whole sleeping with her stepfather thing, we were cheering.

Scott was on a roll. I've never liked that he always has to come in second to Luke but that's been the role he's played and far be it from them to switch that standard for once.

I would always fight to maintain sole custody of my children no matter how wonderful of a father they have. It just makes things a whole lot easier. You're right that biology doesn't matter but who knows whether it will matter to Lucky when he finds out the truth about Jake.

Except Lucky isnt trying to steal those kids from her. He just wants his rights protected and written down on paper. I really dont see the harm in that

Elizabeth really has no right to keep Jason from his son no matter what his profession. When she slept with him she took the risk of getting pregnant-protection or not so she's being unfair all the way around.

That needs to be taken up with Jason bc although Liz asked him to stay away it was HIS choice to do so. He didnt have to.

As far as Jason vs Sam goes she is more of a threat to the kids no matter what Jason's profession. But let's put it this way if you were in Elizabeth's shoes would you want Sam around your kids? If the answer is "no" then it makes no difference who is more dangerous because then you'd have to say that the kids shouldn't be around either one of them.

and if you were in Lucky's shoes, would you want Jason around your kids? Its teh same argument both ways

Unfortunately, people have kids under all kinds of circumstances and they are sometimes not bought up in the best or safest environments but that doesn't necessarily mean their parents are bad. Lucky wouldn't be able to get Elizabeth's children by using that argument anyway and I doubt that on this version of GH he will ever prevail over Jason so it's basically moot.

Catn argue there bc the writing is so biased and Jason wins above all

I think most mothers who put themselves in that situation would take their medicine and go to jail in order to protect their kids from someone that did what Sam did. I'd put on that orange jumpsuit in a heartbeat to keep her away from my children. No it would not be dumb if she's saving them from Sam and she wouldn't lose her kids forever because lying about paternity does not make her an unfit mother.

no by lying under oath is called perjury and makes her a criminal and is grounds to be thrown in prison. Saving her kids from Sam? I really dont think Sam is that much of a threat and I think Liz would be an idiot to risk leaving her children just to punish Sam. Especially now that she knows Sam knows the truth, this is something she needs to consider. When she weighs the positives and negatives, I hope she will realize that making Sam pay isnt worth abandoing her trouble and letting them be raised without a mother. Liz already felt the pain of not beign around her baby whe nhe was kidnapped. I dont see her intentionally risking giving him up for a few years

Okay so what it boils down to is that they had about a two year stint to 1999 and then basically were strangers until late 2004. They got married late 2005 and the honeymoon gets delayed and within six months they have major issues. So all the talk about their great love story is just talk. I can't get back into them because the show stopped being really invested in them in 1999. There was this five year period in which they basically had nothing and she went to Jason with her problems whenever he was around. Then they decided to make Jason and Courtney the couple and Elizabeth floated to Ric, had another night with Zander, tried to make it work with Ric and then eventually landed with Lucky. Now look at that mess. I'm not even going to justify the writing for them because they were an afterthought.

Liz and Lucky were never strangers. The fact is they were a couple from 2000-2002 even if the writing wasnt the best. They had their moments but they had Helena to contend with. When they broke up in may of 2002, they didnt have much to do with each other for about a year as they went in seperate directions but that changed in 2003, when she trned to him with the Ric stuff. There was no 5 year perioud of nothing. They've pretty much been a couple every single year with the exception of 2003

Lucky should have gotten his own lawyer in the first place no matter what. Alexis is being used in this plot to push along the reveal and Diane will probably get to gloat since she's got more info than Alexis. Alexis has to be hit with the whole Lucky sleeping with Sam thing so it may be a riot after all.

he should have instead of just blindly following Liz and Diane. Thank goodness for Alexis' involvement

Even though Elizabeth is hiding the fact that Jake is Jason's from Lucky, Alexis should be able to relate to her justifications unless they give her amnesia. Since she kept Kristina's paternity a secret then this is right up her alley.

except Alexis doesnt know so we cant predict how she will react.

Since I don't take the mob stuff seriously then I'd take Jason over Lucky in a flash

and that right there is a problem bc the mob stuff is serious stuff. People involved are constantly getting killed, shot, kidnapped, nearly blown up, etc.. and thats not be taken seriously? Jason's lifestyle isnt as glamorous and heroic as GH often tries to portray it. Its ugly, violent, dangerous and criminal. Everyone around him and Sonny suffer. The wives, the gfs, the children, the nannies, etc... This is something that should always be taken into consideration

Edited September 29, 200718 yr by Cheap21

Loved the 9/28/07 episode. Anybody noticed how MVJ started to write Friday eps, then Monday, then Thursday/Friday? I think that is intentional. Of the five days, Fridays tend to be the least watched day of the week, and that affects Mondays. Thursdays are the most important day of the week on TV. It's better for a show to garner 10 million viewers on a Thursday as opposed to 12 million any other day of the week (higher premium for ads). B&B struggles on Thursdays.

9/28/07

Written by

Michele Val Jean

Elizabeth Korte

Directed by

Owen Renfroe

Except Lucky isnt trying to steal those kids from her. He just wants his rights protected and written down on paper. I really dont see the harm in that

That needs to be taken up with Jason bc although Liz asked him to stay away it was HIS choice to do so. He didnt have to.

and if you were in Lucky's shoes, would you want Jason around your kids? Its teh same argument both ways

Catn argue there bc the writing is so biased and Jason wins above all

no by lying under oath is called perjury and makes her a criminal and is grounds to be thrown in prison. Saving her kids from Sam? I really dont think Sam is that much of a threat and I think Liz would be an idiot to risk leaving her children just to punish Sam. Especially now that she knows Sam knows the truth, this is something she needs to consider. When she weighs the positives and negatives, I hope she will realize that making Sam pay isnt worth abandoing her trouble and letting them be raised without a mother. Liz already felt the pain of not beign around her baby whe nhe was kidnapped. I dont see her intentionally risking giving him up for a few years

Liz and Lucky were never strangers. The fact is they were a couple from 2000-2002 even if the writing wasnt the best. They had their moments but they had Helena to contend with. When they broke up in may of 2002, they didnt have much to do with each other for about a year as they went in seperate directions but that changed in 2003, when she trned to him with the Ric stuff. There was no 5 year perioud of nothing. They've pretty much been a couple every single year with the exception of 2003

he should have instead of just blindly following Liz and Diane. Thank goodness for Alexis' involvement

except Alexis doesnt know so we cant predict how she will react.

and that right there is a problem bc the mob stuff is serious stuff. People involved are constantly getting killed, shot, kidnapped, nearly blown up, etc.. and thats not be taken seriously? Jason's lifestyle isnt as glamorous and heroic as GH often tries to portray it. Its ugly, violent, dangerous and criminal. Everyone around him and Sonny suffer. The wives, the gfs, the children, the nannies, etc... This is something that should always be taken into consideration

I am going to simplify my response as much as possible because I don't really take this stuff seriously period. It's entertainment for me and when I say I would do this or that it is of course entriely hypothetical because I doubt I would ever encounter these situations or put myself in these situations.

#1 If I slept with a man who has a questionable job let's say a drug dealer and later found out I was pregnant by the man then I would have to bite the bullet and allow him to be a part of his child's life as long as he is not a physical threat to my child. Naturally, I would not want my child exposed to a drug dealer or anything of that nature but sometimes the consequences of our actions are not that cut and dry for our children so we would have to meet at a neutral site to allow him to know his child. If he chose to find an honest profession all the better.

#2 I said Lucky should have gotten an attorney in the first place. That's not confusing. Get your own lawyer fight for what you want and then deal with the results. Now I personally am not going to court to fight over my children unless I think my husband will neglect them or endanger them by his choice of personal company but I'm not going to tell the next person to do as I would.

And let me add that although I previously said I would want sole custody of my kids that doesn't mean that I would fight for sole custody of my kids. If my husband, for some reason, decided to go for full custody then I'd let him have it without a fight. Children are not property and I'm not going to treat any of mine as if I could split them in half and give their father ownership over one half of them. Custody battles are specifically about the parents' egos and emotions when there is no issue of child endangerment involved.

#3 At this point Lucky isn't fighting to keep his children away from Jason because to his knowledge they are not exposed to Jason. When he finds out that Jake is not his biological child and that Jason is his father and if Jason is part of his life at that point, if he wants to fight Jason that's up to him and again, he will lose. Now when you ask what I would do in that situation t if a child is not biologically mine then generally, I would not stand in the way. I don't care how much a person loves a child that is not his or hers, that child will ultimately have curiosity about his biological parents and I would never hinder that relationship without a seriously good reason.

#4 I wasn't trying to predict Alexis' reaction. I was just pulling stuff out of the air. Or maybe I was under the pretext of speculation.

#5 By saying Elizabeth is being unfair, I am not saying it's a problem for me. It's just my observation and it's neither here nor there.

#6 Did I not say take the medicine? On a soap I'd expect a character to hold on to a secret to save themselves but in reality I would expect a mother to let go of a secret to save her children. In the real world it is highly unlikely that aa prosecutor would question a witness in the manner Ric questioned Elizabeth. But say that a mother did perjure herself about her child's true paternity under the assumption that she was saving her child from danger, then what malicious prosecutor would come after her for perjury? Please--that is such a soap thing to do. I'm sure in the real world that kind of nonsense would warrant a protest.

But on the remote possibility that it would happen then mother goes to prison for the sake of protecting her children from someone that would watch one get kidnapped and hire thugs to threaten her. That's not abandonning her children because would a judge send her away under those circumstances? Probably not and if so, not for very long. I can't imagine anyone sending her in for a maximum sentence. I would not have lied in the first place but say I did, I would do what I had to do to keep a woman like Sam away from my children and that's no lie. The simplest route is to tell the truth and pay the piper.

Elizabeth and Lucky were strangers in 2000-2002 because that faux relationship was just that. He didn't know who she was and he was basically a zombie but if that's a relationship to you then so be it. To me there was years of nothing because the men that were mainly in her life were Ric, Zander and Jason. JY's Lucky didn't remember her but he went through the motions just so they could say they tried and then he got Sara. I think our major difference on this point is that for me just because two people are put together on screen doesn't make them a couple in the sense of enduring, if the relationship is not qualitative. Since they didn't have a quality relationship for several years then they had nothing. Now if you want to dispute that and say they did have a great relationship then I'm sure you will.

I post for fun and my way of thinking is out there and that works for me. I don't expect anyone else to see things the way I do but it's good either way. I am not one to take all of this seriously and I can't get bent over some fictional characters.

If Jason and Sam were the ones with the baby, half the people that are pointing out how dangersous Jason's life is to a child would have nothing to say. Most of this villification of Jason and Elizabeth stems from the fact that Sam is being replaced in Jason's life at this time. Lucky who is probably mere eye candy to viewers like myself is suddenly the poster boy for wronged husbands and fathers.....I don't think so. If he were a virtuous charactter then that would work but he's basically a blank slate who happens to be Luke and Laura's son. The best of Laura's children is Nikilas who can carry a story and is developed and complex. Lucky and Lulu are laughable.

I do want to add that for all the rumblings about how Jason's life is dangerous etc., the irony is that the only danger he's child has faced to date has been because of his relationship with Sam because she's vindictive.

GH's version of the Godfather is a travesty but I get a kick out of the silliness now and then. Please, it may be serious to you but to me it's not. When all else fails, let's take out that pen and write in a mob killing. Yet the incompetent PCPD sometines works hand in hand with them. IF PC were a real city, would any of the noble characters even live side by side with Sonny and his crew? I think not, so why take it seriously. As I said before, they had vampires in PC that the GH PC residents never encountered. Did I take that seriously as well? Uh no.

Let me add that this is all in fun for me and I hope I don't offend you or anyone else and if I do/did then I'm sorry.

Edited September 30, 200718 yr by Wales2004

I am going to simplify my response as much as possible because I don't really take this stuff seriously period. It's entertainment for me and when I say I would do this or that it is of course entriely hypothetical because I doubt I would ever encounter these situations or put myself in these situations.

#1 If I slept with a man who has a questionable job let's say a drug dealer and later found out I was pregnant by the man then I would have to bite the bullet and allow him to be a part of his child's life as long as he is not a physical threat to my child. Naturally, I would not want my child exposed to a drug dealer or anything of that nature but sometimes the consequences of our actions are not that cut and dry for our children so we would have to meet at a neutral site to allow him to know his child. If he chose to find an honest profession all the better.

#2 I said Lucky should have gotten an attorney in the first place. That's not confusing. Get your own lawyer fight for what you want and then deal with the results. Now I personally am not going to court to fight over my children unless I think my husband will neglect them or endanger them by his choice of personal company but I'm not going to tell the next person to do as I would.

And let me add that although I previously said I would want sole custody of my kids that doesn't mean that I would fight for sole custody of my kids. If my husband, for some reason, decided to go for full custody then I'd let him have it without a fight. Children are not property and I'm not going to treat any of mine as if I could split them in half and give their father ownership over one half of them. Custody battles are specifically about the parents' egos and emotions when there is no issue of child endangerment involved.

#3 At this point Lucky isn't fighting to keep his children away from Jason because to his knowledge they are not exposed to Jason. When he finds out that Jake is not his biological child and that Jason is his father and if Jason is part of his life at that point, if he wants to fight Jason that's up to him and again, he will lose. Now when you ask what I would do in that situation t if a child is not biologically mine then generally, I would not stand in the way. I don't care how much a person loves a child that is not his or hers, that child will ultimately have curiosity about his biological parents and I would never hinder that relationship without a seriously good reason.

#4 I wasn't trying to predict Alexis' reaction. I was just pulling stuff out of the air. Or maybe I was under the pretext of speculation.

#5 By saying Elizabeth is being unfair, I am not saying it's a problem for me. It's just my observation and it's neither here nor there.

#6 Did I not say take the medicine? On a soap I'd expect a character to hold on to a secret to save themselves but in reality I would expect a mother to let go of a secret to save her children. In the real world it is highly unlikely that aa prosecutor would question a witness in the manner Ric questioned Elizabeth. But say that a mother did perjure herself about her child's true paternity under the assumption that she was saving her child from danger, then what malicious prosecutor would come after her for perjury? Please--that is such a soap thing to do. I'm sure in the real world that kind of nonsense would warrant a protest.

But on the remote possibility that it would happen then mother goes to prison for the sake of protecting her children from someone that would watch one get kidnapped and hire thugs to threaten her. That's not abandonning her children because would a judge send her away under those circumstances? Probably not and if so, not for very long. I can't imagine anyone sending her in for a maximum sentence. I would not have lied in the first place but say I did, I would do what I had to do to keep a woman like Sam away from my children and that's no lie. The simplest route is to tell the truth and pay the piper.

Elizabeth and Lucky were strangers in 2000-2002 because that faux relationship was just that. He didn't know who she was and he was basically a zombie but if that's a relationship to you then so be it. To me there was years of nothing because the men that were mainly in her life were Ric, Zander and Jason. JY's Lucky didn't remember her but he went through the motions just so they could say they tried and then he got Sara. I think our major difference on this point is that for me just because two people are put together on screen doesn't make them a couple in the sense of enduring, if the relationship is not qualitative. Since they didn't have a quality relationship for several years then they had nothing. Now if you want to dispute that and say they did have a great relationship then I'm sure you will.

I post for fun and my way of thinking is out there and that works for me. I don't expect anyone else to see things the way I do but it's good either way. I am not one to take all of this seriously and I can't get bent over some fictional characters.

If Jason and Sam were the ones with the baby, half the people that are pointing out how dangersous Jason's life is to a child would have nothing to say. Most of this villification of Jason and Elizabeth stems from the fact that Sam is being replaced in Jason's life at this time. Lucky who is probably mere eye candy to viewers like myself is suddenly the poster boy for wronged husbands and fathers.....I don't think so. If he were a virtuous charactter then that would work but he's basically a blank slate who happens to be Luke and Laura's son. The best of Laura's children is Nikilas who can carry a story and is developed and complex. Lucky and Lulu are laughable.

I do want to add that for all the rumblings about how Jason's life is dangerous etc., the irony is that the only danger he's child has faced to date has been because of his relationship with Sam because she's vindictive.

GH's version of the Godfather is a travesty but I get a kick out of the silliness now and then. Please, it may be serious to you but to me it's not. When all else fails, let's take out that pen and write in a mob killing. Yet the incompetent PCPD sometines works hand in hand with them. IF PC were a real city, would any of the noble characters even live side by side with Sonny and his crew? I think not, so why take it seriously. As I said before, they had vampires in PC that the GH PC residents never encountered. Did I take that seriously as well? Uh no.

Let me add that this is all in fun for me and I hope I don't offend you or anyone else and if I do/did then I'm sorry.

PROPS to you....LMAO about PC...classic stuff. I never thought about that before!

Even in real life I'd take Jason over Lucky any day of the week.

And yeah find a judge that would convict Elizabeth over a lie in a city filled with people like Ric, Lucky, Jerry Jax, Sonny, etc...etc....

Liz's crime is nothing.

Edited September 30, 200718 yr by NeoAngelicLiz