Members JSROCKS Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I've said this before but IMO if Carly and Jacka ss existed IRL he would be considered an abusive spouse (now an ex and without the physical part ) and she would be the abused spouse( now ex ). I'm sure TIIC didn't mean it to seem that way ( or did they ) but IMO that's exactly how it seems. I too am starting to feel bad for Michael Park for having to play Jack who seems to sink lower with each passing second. Speaking of Emloony--- what is her problem. Hopefully DD will make her life miserable and Tom keeps Daniel away from her dumb a ss for a little while longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nikki22 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Her WEAVE is unsightly?? Ummm OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted November 28, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Ummm it's a JOKE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 And that entitles him to end their relationship, if he chooses. What it DOES NOT entitle him to do, is VIOLATE a court approved custody agreement. And today, he made it clear this decamping back to Emma's was some open-ended punishment for Carly. LYING to one's family is NOT a crime. Vienna acted as an accomplice to Simon, and Jack approved her living at the farm and interacting with his children. Craig orchestrated a kidnapping, and Jack (just a few months ago) allowed Craig to enter Carly's home, overriding her objections, so Parker could thank him. JJ got kidnapped because of Jack's "association" with Julia and Les...and did Carly say BOO about any of that? If Carly chooses to forgive Kit, that's her business. She's NOT forcing anyone else to accept Kit into their life. He's not even pretending to say, "you can see them here at the farm, Carly..." It's "toe the line until...," then "when you do what I want, I'll let you see your kids". That's being punitive, vindictive, and ultimately NOT in the best interests of his children. Shouldn't THAT be part of his deliberations? And no doubt the topper.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted November 28, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 That would be Les' association with crazy biker buddies who can't mind their own business. What did Jack do to them that required revenge? I'm so glad I'm sitting down for this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nikki22 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Well, maybe you need some better material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted November 28, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 You won't ever have to worry about my material again, Nikki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nikki22 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 OK, whatever works for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Did you miss Silas explaining he was going to raise JJ, because Les was his friend, and Jack shot and killed Les? And I'm glad you're sitting down too...you must need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted November 28, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Did you miss the episode where Jack killed Les for the hell of it on a homicidal rampage? I did too, although it never happened. So Silas can change a custody arrangement but Jack can't, eh? I'm not concerned with sitting down now. I'm just glad to have an empty stomach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I wasn't aware simple-minded criminals like Silas would care if Jack's killing Les was legal and justified. The point was, as SILAS saw it, Jack killed his friend Les, that made Jack the wrong person to raise Les' son. Silas planned from the beginning to take JJ, much to Ava's surprise. Ava nearly talked him out of it after Carly paid the ransom. But when Jack appeared to have followed Ava from the pick up, that changed Silas' mind. He created the explosion, and they took JJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted November 28, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 The kidnapping was brought up as if to say "if not for Jack, it wouldn't have happened," but when it did, "Carly didn't say boo about it." That doesn't read like Silas talking. Therefore the question remains: what makes it okay for Silas to change a custody arrangement and wrong for Jack to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 No, that's not what I meant. Jack keeps pointing at Carly's "associates" and telling her he doesn't want them around his children. Jack is "friends" with a lot of people of questionable moral fiber himself...Vienna, Henry, Katie, Craig, and Meg to name a few who HAVE committed felonies, whether or not they were punished for them. Jack holds Katie up as an example to his children. (*snort*) He clearly doesn't mind V, Henry, and Meg befriending his children, even though Henry's got a long rap sheet, V aided and abetted Simon almost as much as Carly did, and Meg aided and abetted a kidnapping. Does Carly go around bellowing about who he can and can't have the children around? NO---she doesn't say Boo about ANY of it. Restricting HIS access to his children is a line SHE won't cross. Jack turns around and restricts her visitation to hurt her. He didn't do it because Carly's lie about her recovery put the kids in danger...he did it to prove he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted November 29, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 29, 2007 I still don't believe that this was anything but Jack protecting the kids AND himself, but I could almost excuse Kit's actions now that she did for Sage what she wouldn't do for JJ in Idaho. ATWT could stand to maintain a few grudges, because at least half the "friends" in Oakdale really shouldn't be speaking to each other. Perhaps none of those fiends got Jack on the defensive because they didn't directly harm his kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted November 29, 2007 Members Share Posted November 29, 2007 Sigh...how I wish ATWT kept grudges going. What I wouldn't pay to see Babs going after Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.