Jel

Member
  • Content count

    796
  • Joined

Community Likes

5,539 Excellent

About Jel

Recent Profile Visitors

979 profile views
  1. Or even out of our own heads. I like the idea of her making meals and then having an expert show her (and her followers) how to improve it. She's no expert as she says, but she's trying... I could see that as more relatable.
  2. With respect, MCM, I think what you are not really getting here is that while some Lisa fans share Lisa's opinion, they arrive at that opinion independently. That's probably why many of us like her -- we're naturally like-minded on some issues. They might side with her, think she makes a good point or two, laugh along with her, but no one needs a HW to tell them what to think. Imo, this LVP supporter you refer to is a straw man. I get that the minority opinion in the forums gets to clutch the pearls, fine, been there myself, but let's not pretend this knife doesn't cut both ways: Viewers' dislike of LVP colors their opinions as well. Case in point: If it was Lisa who wasn't wearing the underwear, acknowledged no role in pantygate, had the freakout, would the non-LVP fans be taking up for Lisa Vanderpump as vehemently as they have Erika? Would they be as hard on Dorit? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you're singling out the LVP fan as a special category of thinker who is so weak minded that s/he couldn't possibly do anything but auto-side with Lisa Vanderpump on everything, when the truth is that people generally take up for the person with whom they most agree-- they agree with that person mostly because they share similar opinions. That's not even my opinion -- that's in the literature. And that's not an LVP fan thing -- that's a people thing. Still one of my favorite posters though, MCM, even if I think you are way wrong about this.
  3. Thank you. I think most of us are reasonable people, smart enough to determine the meaning of that in the context it was presented. No further questions ;)
  4. My guess...the stalking situation.
  5. One final question, please (before you leave the stand ;) Was Lisa's comment something like, Erika, give her yours? Something like that?
  6. It was worse, and delivered with a mocking smile, which makes it so much worse to me than straight up anger. Dorinda could teach Bethenny a few things about how to "slut shame" a woman. I also liked Carole this episode, and I don't care that she's passionate about politics and thinks she knows more about it than Ramona does. She probably does. If we were forced to wager on the Vast Knowledge of All Things Politics Quiz, who among us would pick Ramona over Carole? (Identify yourselves please, so I can bet against you ;) Also, who among us would willingly invite Ramona to a party?
  7. I think Kim is a little delusional and judgy about her acting career vs. Eileen's, and I think viewers are a little judgy about Kim's acting career. That's the career that most people mock I think. Posters here have defended the soap opera as a start to a great film career, but even in that defense there's the underlying assumption that film career > soap career, since one is the entree into the other. Rightly or wrongly, that's how most people see it.
  8. The idea of enabling is not without its detractors, some going as far to argue that it's simply more excuse making made by the addicts who will not take responsibility for their own behavior and instead point to the actions of others as a reason for it. Others argue that it artificially prevents the addict from "hitting bottom" and robs them of their potential moment of realization. It's a grey area, because while technically a wife calling in sick for her hungover husband who will lose his job if he misses another day of work due to his drinking is the definition of enabling behavior, she is thinking of her small kids and their need for food and shelter and may do it because she doesn't want him to lose his job and the family to be evicted from their home. Like a lot of things, it's complicated. And as others have pointed out, Kim's underage children may have been Kyle and Mauricio's primary concern at the time. I can understand that. I'd say it meets the definition of enabling, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to have done. Would Kim have hit bottom if she lost her home? Maybe, maybe not. Would her kids have suffered if she lost her home, especially if that still wasn't enough to make her stop? Definitely.
  9. When people point out how many actors got their start on soaps, it makes one wonder why Eileen is still there, at the proverbial starting line.
  10. Yep, a lot of actors got their start on soaps, that's true. But Eileen's still there. That tells me she's not that great of an actress or she would have catapulted out of that show a long time ago.
  11. They robbed us of the Eileen and Rinna shame moment. I can't forgive that.
  12. Sing it Sis, and amen. All these bishes talking about unimportant stuff and Lisa Vanderpump is actually doing important stuff. Love her so much. ETA: Also second the buh bye to Eileen, the PTA mom everyone has to put up with. That's gold, dosodog, gold!
  13. Rinna's arrogance and delusions know no bounds. She's Kim's meal ticket? Kim you-stole-my-goddam house Richards, Brandi attacker then defender, all around drama causer and story line-generator Kim Richards? GTFOH. Rinna's more like a giant pimple -- yes, you notice it and think about it and are grossed out by it, maybe you even obsess about it for a little while because it's so irritating and embarrassing, but mostly you just can't wait for it to go away.
  14. I could totally see Landon saying that, as a joke, but also with a wink. I get a snob vibe from her.
  15. I think Rinna and Eileen believe they did reevaluate and change their behavior accordingly -- Rinna, with the double duty baby gift and Eileen with her very generous observation that Lisa Vanderpump may have feelings. They just weren't impressed with the results. It was a toe in the waters of magnanimity, and then right back out.