It was completely doomed if Ross did not want to give up having Rachel in his life. That was sufficient to doom it.
Right. It was doomed for several reasons, one of which involved the relationship between Ross and Rachel. No one disputes that. It was also doomed because Emily showed signs of not being able to trust Ross when she did not know explicitly where he was and what he was doing.
The only way in which Emily does not trust Ross is in relation to Rachel.
A situation which was so bad that Emily didn’t see a problem calling up Rachel’s apartment to see if Ross was there. That Monica answered made things better than they might have been.
There is no suggestion that she doesn't trust Ross in any other way.
Yes, Emily couldn’t wait for Ross to return home to chit chat on the phone. She had to track him down. In the same conversation, she admitted she would feel better about everything when she was in NYC and could know where he was and what he was doing all the time.
There are two ways to interpret this: Either she believes that she can’t trust him to keep his word about Rachel and he will use every opportunity he has to be with her, or she can’t trust him in general.
Well, yes, but I don't see it as unreasonable to call his sister to see if she knows where he is and when he will be home.
You’ve changed your argument though. You originally suggested that she had some dire need to speak with him that justified her calling around to find him. It was demonstrated that she just wanted to know where he was, and to find out, she called Rachel and Monica’s apartment.
I think in this circumstance, call a cell phone, Joey and Chandler’s, or just try Ross later. Non-emergency calls to Rachel’s apartment just isn’t a good idea for Emily. If you expect Ross to stay away from Rachel until Emily feels better and possibly loosens up a bit, then we can expect that Emily will leave Rachel alone by not calling the apartment.
Those are Monica's words and I have heard them used under completely normal circumstances.
The writers used those words intentionally to show that Emily was, in fact, tracking Ross down/looking for Ross for non-important reasons.
provokes an argument.
They don’t argue.
Ross is bailing on the relationship with Emily because at the last minute he understands, finally, that he wants to be able to see Rachel more than he wants to be married to Emily.
Ross bails on the relationship because both he and Emily have a frank moment where they both realize and understand that she doesn’t trust Ross beyond the Rachel thing. We don’t know if Emily wants to continue after this realization because she’s not given a voice, and we don’t know if they would ever be able to get past that obstacle. Some people think they can, try, and fail.
Ross doesn’t want to put in the work and have it fail, and I don’t think you can lay all the blame on his connection to Rachel for that. Emily makes some tough demands, and if Ross complies with those demands and the relationship fails, he could be left with nothing. He probably wouldn’t be, but I can see this being his fear. He’s lost a marriage before when things were good after all.
Oh come on, people move further away from their friends all the time.
Yes they do. I live in the US and one of my very best friends lives in South Korea. My friends made the choice to go there on his own. He didn’t go because his husband/boyfriend told him to in order to avoid seeing someone else (In NYC of all places).
Calling it "insurmountable" is ridiculous.
I call if that because I see evidence that if Emily didn’t start to loosen up, she would go the other way and become more demanding. Becoming more demanding would make meeting her demands impossible.
It is no worse than if he moved because of a job.
Again, making a joint decision or a personal decision to do something is different than doing something as an ultimatum or condition.
Yes, and Ross would have to leave if he's being faithful to his promise to Emily. Awkward but necessary.
Agreed, so if she is so nitpicky about Rachel, then she should have a ban on the apartment since Rachel lives there if we side with everything Emily wants or puts into place as a condition.
Ross is simply never going to get over Rachel
Ross should not have married Emily if he was in love with someone else. Emily should not have married Ross if she thought he had feelings for someone else even if she loved him. This is something that should have been resolved before they got married, standing at the alter or not.
I wonder what your colleagues would say about that. As an academic, I would've thought that you would've understood the importance of a tenure-track job in a person's career.
A few things with this…
I don’t know of a school that just gives tenure to a newly hired faculty member, and certainly not 30 something Ross Gellar who would be considered a baby in the world of academia. He would be starting at the bottom (lecturer or assistant professor) and have to work up over time. Then he’d have to qualify to apply for tenure, and then prove he had demonstrated sufficient reason to be given tenure. If he was denied, many schools would not let him continuing working there OR he’d have to take a pay cut.
Additionally, if Ross is hired on as some sort of full time instructor when he is in NYC, we might assume he already is on tenure track.
So again, this is one of these things where you look at the total picture and see what benefits you receive from accepting.
any event, he could get it all back – except the furniture – if the marriage didn't work.
His relationships with his friends have been impacted by Emily’s conditions, and as we’ve discussed, he’s the one who has to spend less time with them and won’t remain as close. So if the marriage doesn’t work out, he can’t just pick up where they left off. Everyone will be in different places by that point and dynamics will have changed.
I don't believe that was the major reason.
I do, because people tend to love their children more than their romantic partners.
Don't you think that Ross would've moved to France if Rachel had offered to get back with him if he did?
No. Ross created a situation where Rachel and Emma would stay in NYC and then changed his mind and encouraged Rachel to take the opportunity. Ross made no plans to follow even though he clearly wanted to be with Rachel and his daughter. However, he had another child, his job, his friends, etc. in NYC and close by, so he made the choice not to follow.
You're making an awful lot out of what Emily said on the spur of the moment.
Because she called Rachel’s home and was speaking to Rachel’s friends about how her husband was not supposed to be around Rachel. It was rude, she talked about Ross like a mother playfully scolding a child would, and made the room uncomfortable.
She changed her mind 12 hours later.
She showed up at the airport. We don’t know what she intended. She might have been there to break it off in person. Either way, Ross had to beg and search for her to get that.
We obviously can't prove that,
We have less proof about your theory on how Carol got pregnant, but you support that theory very enthusiastically.
So you should be able to understand how people can look at the Ross and Emily situation, agree that there is a Rachel problem, and see that there are still major problems beyond that.
He is certainly not giving up any more than he would give up if he moved some distance away for a job.
Apples and oranges. Moving away for a job would be something he either decided to do for himself, or he and Emily would have decided together. Not seeing one of his friends, and by extension, reducing his role in the lives of his sister and other friends, was not something he had a choice in if he wanted to keep his wife.
Would you say he should not take a job in Philadelphia?
I’ve already addressed this, but he should not take the job if it offers him nothing better than what his current university job offers. If it offers better benefits, money, an/or options/opportunities, and his goal is to move up in academia, then he should take it. If he doesn’t want to spend his life in academia and wants to go back to working in museums, then maybe he shouldn’t take it.
Ross is asking Emily to leave behind all of her friends, her immediate family, the culture that she is familiar with, and her job on the proposition that Ross will be able to get Rachel out of his head.
Ross is asking her to come live in NYC with him like she agreed to before the wedding. This is something they discussed and settled before the wedding mishap and the conditions were put in place. It’s relevant in pointing out that she is giving things up, yes, but these were decisions they made together.
How is Ross giving up "almost his entire life for Emily," but Emily isn't doing the same for Ross?
So I never said Emily isn’t giving up things. I also never said Emily is just plain wrong. You seem to accuse me of quite a number of things because you don’t like my position on this. I don’t agree with your position, but I like debate (which is a good reason to go into academia btw lol)
My whole problem with Emily is that what she does, the choices she makes, and the things she decides to give up are done so either by personal choice, or because she and Ross discussed the options and came to a mutual decision that could make both of them happy. We even see Emily make efforts to befriend Ross’s friends so that when she does come over, she will have people outside of Ross to associate with.
Ross makes a mistake and says another person’s name at the wedding. This is upsetting. I don’t blame her for being upset or running off or questioning if they should be married. I blame her for carrying on with the wedding because it’s obvious she questions if she can trust him. She shouldn’t have married him if she didn’t trust him. They should have canceled the ceremony, figured out if they could make the relationship work as a non-married couple, and gone from there.
It would have been easier to swallow if the condition had been, “Ross, I don’t know if this is going to work. While we figure out if we are going to get married or not, I need you to stay away from Rachel.” This is essentially the same request, but it also indicates that it make not be a permanent state of affairs (thereby preventing Emily from being isolated from the rest of the group) and because they aren’t married, there is “less to lose” so to speak if it doesn’t work out.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face — You are simply using too many arguments that I can't begin to take seriously.
It was also doomed because Emily showed signs of not being able to trust Ross when she did not know explicitly where he was and what he was doing.
Well, when she is in New York she will know.
Yes, Emily couldn’t wait for Ross to return home to chit chat on the phone.
We don't know why she wanted to talk to him.
In the same conversation, she admitted she would feel better about everything when she was in NYC and could know where he was and what he was doing all the time.
That was after she had discovered that Rachel was there. That is a significant point.
There are two ways to interpret this: Either she believes that she can’t trust him to keep his word about Rachel
Emily did trust Ross in that regard and found out that her trust was misplaced in this particular case.
and he will use every opportunity he has to be with her,
No, she says she will feel better when she is in New York and knows where he is.
or she can’t trust him in general.
I defy you to find anything that indicates that Emily does not trust Ross except around Rachel.
You’ve changed your argument though. You originally suggested that she had some dire need to speak with him that justified her calling around to find him.
Please copy and paste where I said anything about a dire need. You are just making that up.
It was demonstrated that she just wanted to know where he was, and to find out, she called Rachel and Monica’s apartment.
She wants to talk to him. That is all that we know.
I think in this circumstance, call a cell phone, Joey and Chandler’s, or just try Ross later. Non-emergency calls to Rachel’s apartment just isn’t a good idea for Emily. If you expect Ross to stay away from Rachel until Emily feels better and possibly loosens up a bit, then we can expect that Emily will leave Rachel alone by not calling the apartment.
Does Ross have a cell phone?I just don't see Emily calling Ross's sisters apartment as being a big deal. It would not have been if Ross wasn't there, and Emily had no reason to believe that he would be there.
The writers used those words intentionally to show that Emily was, in fact, tracking Ross down/looking for Ross for non-important reasons.
But they put the words in Monica's mouth. That is how Monica sees it. As far as interpreting what Emily is doing, that is useless.
They don’t argue.
Are what we going to argue about what the word "argue" means? Ross provokes a dispute with Emily when he asks her, twice, a question to which he already knows the answer. He asks her if she trusts him. He knows that she doesn't trust him around Rachel – how could she – and Rachel is what they have been talking about.
Ross bails on the relationship because both he and Emily have a frank moment where they both realize and understand that she doesn’t trust Ross beyond the Rachel thing.
There is simply nothing to indicate that. This was all about Rachel all along. You are just making up the idea that Emily doesn't trust Ross in general. Your arguments for that are very weak.
Ross doesn’t want to put in the work and have it fail,
Oh be serious, Ross realizes that he wants to be able to see Rachel more than he wants to be married to Emily.
Emily makes some tough demands,
Basically the same as her moving to New York. No, he can just go back to the village and Rachel. Emily is 3000 miles from home.
I call if that because I see evidence that if Emily didn’t start to loosen up, she would go the other way and become more demanding.
I defy you to produce any credible evidence that Emily is going to become more demanding. There isn't any.
Becoming more demanding would make meeting her demands impossible.
There is nothing to suggest that is going to happen.
Again, making a joint decision or a personal decision to do something is different than doing something as an ultimatum or condition.
Ross should've offered to do what Emily wants without being asked. It really is just common sense if Ross has any concern about Emily's feelings.
Agreed, so if she is so nitpicky about Rachel, then she should have a ban on the apartment since Rachel lives there if we side with everything Emily wants or puts into place as a condition.
I agree that in retrospect calling Monica's apartment was not a good idea, but I have no idea what you are saying here.
Ross should not have married Emily if he was in love with someone else.
Ross thinks that he is over Rachel. He was kidding himself. He does that a lot.The bottom line is that the best way to get over someone, short of waiting for 20 years, is to get involved with someone else and build a life with them. But that only works if you
want to get over the other person, and Ross does not want to get over Rachel. It takes him rather a long time to realize that.
Emily should not have married Ross if she thought he had feelings for someone else even if she loved him.
Do you mean at the altar? She had to make a snap decision, and she does not know what Ross will say. This was not a situation that she had anticipated.
This is something that should have been resolved before they got married, standing at the alter or not.
Emily had no idea of the situation before the altar. She does not really understand the situation until the next day at the airport.
I don’t know of a school that just gives tenure to a newly hired faculty member, and certainly not 30 something Ross Gellar who would be considered a baby in the world of academia.
Neither do I. Where did I say he was going to be given tenure? Please copy and paste what gave you that idea. Do you know what a tenure-track job is?
He would be starting at the bottom (lecturer or assistant professor) and have to work up over time.
Of course. A tenure-track job is going to be assistant professor, not lecturer.
Additionally, if Ross is hired on as some sort of full time instructor when he is in NYC, we might assume he already is on tenure track.
You seem to be familiar with some sort of academic system that I have no knowledge of. No, a full-time instructor is not a tenure-track job.
His relationships with his friends have been impacted by Emily’s conditions, and as we’ve discussed,
Yes.
So if the marriage doesn’t work out, he can’t just pick up where they left off. Everyone will be in different places by that point and dynamics will have changed.
With real friends you can pick up the relationship after a gap of years. I don't actually think that they are all real friends; they are the sort of group that occurs when you have a bunch of people basically living together.I can't imagine that Ross would want to keep in touch with Phoebe or Joey.
I do, because people tend to love their children more than their romantic partners.
Not when a person is as obsessed with someone as Ross is with Rachel. And when he is a part-time parent. Ben has a family.
Ross made no plans to follow even though he clearly wanted to be with Rachel and his daughter.
Rachel did not offer to get back with him if he moved. That is the critical condition.
Because she called Rachel’s home and was speaking to Rachel’s friends about how her husband was not supposed to be around Rachel. It was rude, she talked about Ross like a mother playfully scolding a child would, and made the room uncomfortable.
They already know that, and Ross has been behaving like a child through all of this.
She showed up at the airport. We don’t know what she intended. She might have been there to break it off in person.
Yeah sure. Then why did she run away? Why was she willing to consider later on getting back with Ross? That is what I mean by a really unconvincing argument.
Either way, Ross had to beg and search for her to get that.
That Emily got over being humiliated that way in 12 hours enough to want to go away with Ross is quite remarkable.
We have less proof about your theory on how Carol got pregnant, but you support that theory very enthusiastically.
My argument is that I'm not contradicting anything that we do know. We actually know very little. I believe that my reconstruction explains a lot of things better than anything else that I know
of.It explains why Carol and Susan are so enthusiastic about the baby – not the usual reaction to an accidental pregnancy. It explains why Carol does not ask for child support and gives Ross the option of being as involved or as uninvolved as he wants. It explains Susan's behavior in what I believe to be a more satisfactory way than that she is a bitch. I know there is no proof.
and see that there are still major problems beyond that.
I don't see any evidence of that or any reason to believe that. I don't see that you are explaining anything that badly needs an explanation.The whole 10 years is about Ross's obsession with Rachel. But instead of using that to explain his behavior, you are introducing other things that are otherwise not present or only barely present in the series.After Ross has had three divorces, he is concerned about how many divorces he has had, but his one failed marriage was not even remotely his fault. I don't know why he should be so afraid of failing with Emily that he won't even try.
Apples and oranges.
True, but you are representing what Emily wants as horrendous whereas this sort of thing happens all the time. It is usually thought of as not ideal rather than as destroying someone's life.Ross wants Emily, or so he says. Emily stated her conditions. Ross agreed. He didn't have to agree. No one was forcing him.
I’ve already addressed this, but he should not take the job if it offers him nothing better than what his current university job offers.
My condition was that it was a tenure-track job.
If it offers better benefits, money, an/or options/opportunities, and his goal is to move up in academia, then he should take it.
A tenure-track job offers exactly that.
Ross is asking her to come live in NYC with him like she agreed to before the wedding. This is something they discussed and settled before the wedding mishap and the conditions were put in place. It’s relevant in pointing out that she is giving things up, yes, but these were decisions they made together.
Things changed when Ross said the wrong name at the altar and then when he got on a plane the next day with the other woman.
So I never said Emily isn’t giving up things. I also never said Emily is just plain wrong.
I never said that you did. If you disagree, please copy and paste from my posts where I said
that.My point is that Emily is actually giving up rather more than Ross is.
You seem to accuse me of quite a number of things because you don’t like my position on this.
Please have the intellectual honesty to copy and paste what you are complaining about.
My whole problem with Emily is that what she does, the choices she makes, and the things she decides to give up are done so either by personal choice, or because she and Ross discussed the options and came to a mutual decision that could make both of them happy.
Ross wants her to come to New York. She sets certain reasonable, common sense conditions.Frankly, Ross should've suggested all the things that Emily wants without her having to ask for them.
I blame her for carrying on with the wedding because it’s obvious she questions if she can trust him.
She had to make a snap decision and she doesn't know what is going on. She chose a decision that was least disruptive, and I can understand why.
She shouldn’t have married him if she didn’t trust him.
It wasn't clear that she couldn't trust him until she saw him getting on the plane with Rachel the next day.
They should have canceled the ceremony, figured out if they could make the relationship work as a non-married couple, and gone from there.
Okay, but she had to make a decision right there and she preferred to make the minimum amount of fuss.
It would have been easier to swallow if the condition had been, “Ross, I don’t know if this is going to work. While we figure out if we are going to get married or not, I need you to stay away from Rachel.” This is essentially the same request, but it also indicates that it make not be a permanent state of affairs (thereby preventing Emily from being isolated from the rest of the group) and because they aren’t married, there is “less to lose” so to speak if it doesn’t work out.
Can you really not understand Emily's mental state even sometime after London. I suppose a Vulcan could say that, but you are asking a human who has been humiliated in front of her friends and family to be more rational than humans are. It would be completely normal if she
hates Rachel with a passion, and, at that point, does not want Ross to ever see Rachel again.Most women would go bat shît crazy at the altar if the wrong name was said, but Emily held it together until Ross tried to treat the wrong name as a joke. I understand why she reacted that way, but I suspect that a lot of people wouldn't.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
We don't know why she wanted to talk to him.
We know it wasn't important because she spent the time talking on speaker phone with the group. This lends to the idea that she really just wanted to know where he was and what he was doing.
I defy you to find anything that indicates that Emily does not trust Ross except around Rachel.
She'll feel better when she is in New York City and can be with him and know where he is at all times.
Please copy and paste where I said anything about a dire need. You are just making that up.
Emily can't possibly have had a legitimate reason to want to talk to Ross?
Does Ross have a cell phone?
Maybe. People in his economic class had phones at the time of the show premier. They weren't as prevalent as they are now or reliable, and you could turn them off.
I just don't see Emily calling Ross's sisters apartment as being a big deal.
Look at it from Rachel's perspective. One of her best friends, and someone she has feelings for, can't be her friend anymore because of Emily. Emily feels entitled to call her apartment anyway.
As far as Emily knows, Rachel hasn't done anything. Ross is the one who screwed up. Why does Emily get rub salt in Rachel's wound by calling her home?
You are just making up the idea that Emily doesn't trust Ross in general. Your arguments for that are very weak.
It's how I interpret the dialogue and acting in the episodes in question. You have a different interpretation. It's cool.
We're all supposed to swallow your fantasy about how Ben came to be with admittedly no evidence of support because you like the story. Why is your non-evidence make believe better than my "weak" evidence theory?
Ross should've offered to do what Emily wants without being asked
If we can allow for the idea that Emily *might* loosen up along the way, we also have to allow for the idea that Ross might have offered this without being asked given the chance.
Do you mean at the altar? She had to make a snap decision
And "give us five minutes" wasn't an option either? If she didn't want to say no, wasn't sure about saying yes, then she could have taken a break, gone and talked with him, and moved on.
Soothed some sore feelings, and then come out laughing and telling Rachel that the next time they all went some where, Rachel was coming instead of surprising everyone last minute -- because it could have been played off that way. Oh! Our good friend showed up and surprised us! That's why Ross mispoke! hahah!
I can't imagine that Ross would want to keep in touch with Phoebe or Joey.
I don't know why any of them are friends with Phoebe. I like Phoebe, but she is so...random and unaware of what the rest of them are doing most of the time. Joey I am more iffy about because Chandler becomes really good friends with him, so the Chandler connection makes that harder to call.
I agree with the point that real friends pick up after years. My best friend was at the hospital the day I was born, because our dads are best friends. We didn't see each other from the time she graduated high school until she finished grad school, and I'm her son's god-mother. So I agree with this.
Then why did she run away?
Because Ross said Rachel's name at the wedding and she was upset with Ross and seeing Ross upset her? Seeing Ross there with Rachel upset her?
The whole 10 years is about Ross's obsession with Rachel
I notice that you want to use the seasons following the Emily disaster to support your argument about what Ross would or would not do. But I'm not allowed to use the following seasons to support my argument.
My condition was that it was a tenure-track job...A tenure-track job offers exactly that.
We don't know that his current university job isn't tenure-track or if he wants to remain at a university. So we again do not know if your hypothetical job provides benefits to him that would sway him to choose that job.
We have to assume that he is NOT tenure track and he wants to become so while remaining in a university setting until retirement for your argument to work.
Do you know what a tenure-track job is?
Yes. I have one.
A tenure-track job is going to be assistant professor, not lecturer.
In real work America, at a university or college setting, yes. On television, even on the news, the terms professor, instructor, and lecturer are used interchangeably because most people outside of academia don't know what they mean and differentiation doesn't mean a whole lot to people who are not in academia.
There are several examples of fictional characters like Ross who are called "professor" or "lecturer" or "instructor" because these words indicate a college or university setting and also suggest at least one advance degree (like a PhD).
Of course, we also have examples of characters like Ted from How I Met Your Mother who didn't have a PhD. that we know of and somehow became Professor Mosby when he taught at a college. In general though, the use of such titles stands in the fictional universe.
You seem to be familiar with some sort of academic system that I have no knowledge of. No, a full-time instructor is not a tenure-track job.
So first of all, I said some sort (or type) of full time instructor which could include any of the titles mentioned above.
Like my argument above stated, because of the general understanding of academic titles outside of academia, he could very well be a guest lecturer and get tenure on tv (which I've seen another tv show do btw). Again, that doesn't reflect real world rules, but it does reflect fictional rules and understanding.
Secondly, even though the general argument you made is correct, there are schools that do not follow them. These are generally your schools that have turned to using more adjuncts and MA/MS holders to fill positions over your PhD. holders and your community/junior colleges. It's cheaper to do this, you have less tenure positions in general, and it makes me question academic integrity. However, it meets minimum regional accreditation standards so I don't know if there is much to be done.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the assistant vs associate professor situation.
Thirdly, the title argument is difficult when you bring in degrees from other countries. One of my graduate mentors is from Poland, and the title for anyone with a PhD equivalent degree from where she is from is professor in the same way we call Phd. holders Dr. So and So.
One of my undergrad professors got his advanced degree (PhD. Equivalent) at Oxford and had a similar title of professor because in some parts of the UK, professor is a title that is applied to teachers at certain levels.
Please have the intellectual honesty to copy and paste what you are complaining about.
You assumed I'm a Ross and Rachel fan and said my argument is based on wanting Ross and Rachel together. You later acknowledged that I wasn't after I pointed out that I had earlier posted about not liking her and posted two or three replies to my one. Which response would you like me to fetch?
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
You seem to accuse me of quite a number of things because you don’t like my position on this.
I hope you have the intellectual honesty to copy and paste from my posts the "quite a number of things" that I have accused you of. I do mean "copy and paste," not paraphrase.There are a couple of other things that I asked you to document by copying and pasting from my posts. You have not done so.
You assumed I'm a Ross and Rachel fan and said my argument is based on wanting Ross and Rachel together.
What I said was
I suspect that you like Rachel and that you want Ross and Rachel to get together.
It was not an accusation; it was an attempt to understand where you are coming from. There is a high correlation between the people who dislike Emily and the people who want Ross and Rachel to be
together.You pointed out that you don't like Rachel, and I immediately accepted that.
Yes. I have [a tenure-track job].
Hmm. And you don't have a PhD? That is certainly an extraordinarily unusual, and I would say unique,
situation.My question about Ross leaving Ben for a tenure-track job was a hypothetical question. It does not in any way depend upon the writer's knowledge of academic situations or
terminology.It relates to what Ross would give up to stay near Ben. His career? I am skeptical.
We're all supposed to swallow your fantasy about how Ben came to be with admittedly no evidence of support because you like the story. Why is your non-evidence make believe better than my "weak" evidence theory?
As I've said before, because it does not contradict anything that we do know and because it explains things that otherwise don't make a lot of sense.When a woman gets pregnant, there is no "default" about whether it was truly accidental or on purpose. People assume that Carol's pregnancy was accidental because she has left Ross, but she and Susan really seem to want the baby. They don't seem to have any of the ambivalence that is normal even when a woman gets pregnant deliberately.*Your arguments do not explain anything that are not more easily and naturally explained by Ross's obsession with Rachel. For example, you say that Ross bails on his marriage to Emily because
Ross doesn’t want to put in the work and have it fail,
I say that Ross realizes that he wants to continue seeing Rachel more than he wants Emily as his wife, and he can't have both. I believe that my explanation is much more consistent with what we know about Ross than your explanation. It fits his obsession with her exactly. He never gets over her.
I notice that you want to use the seasons following the Emily disaster to support your argument about what Ross would or would not do. But I'm not allowed to use the following seasons to support my argument.
Of course you are. Where are you doing that? Where am I objecting to your doing that?**Please get back to me with the several things that I asked you to support by copying and pasting from my posts. Please do that by copying and pasting from my posts, not by paraphrasing what you think I said.* As far as I know, there is no evidence either that the pregnancy was accidental or on purpose. Do you know of any such evidence.There is evidence that the pregnancy almost certainly occurred after Carol had told Ross and moved out.** Are you perhaps referring to Ross being concerned about how many marriages he has had later on? I don't remember his being concerned until he hit three. In any event, he indisputably married Emily. Are you suggesting that he did not want to try to make the marriage work because then he couldn't get an annulment and pretend it never happened? He still is concerned that he has been divorced three times even though he never consummated the marriage with Emily.
Phoebe: You didn’t get the annulment?!!Ross: I know.Phoebe: Ross?!Ross: Well, I tried! But when I got to my lawyer’s office all I could hear was, (in a high voice) "Three divorces. Three divorces!" Yes, in that high voice! Look, I just don’t want my tombstone to read, Ross Gellar, Three Divorces.
I don't think that issue came up after the second failed marriage, but Ross has been obsessed by Rachel since the pilot. And he continues to be obsessed by her, although sometimes he does not recognize it, to the end of the series.Being obsessed by Rachel is sort of Ross's dominant characteristic, but you don't think he broke up with Emily because he could not stand the idea of not being able to see Rachel?
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
I asked you to document
Oh I know you have, and I do not have the time or inclination to dig through this conversation, or our prior one, to provide more than I already have for a message board about Friends. The example I provided, you claim was not an accusation. I took it as such since most of the arguments following that assumption/accusation/guess were based on the idea that I really just wanted Ross and Rachel together. I'll take you at your word that it was just your suspicion about why I did not like Emily's behaviors after the wedding.
Hmm. And you don't have a PhD? That is certainly an extraordinarily unusual, and I would say unique, situation.
It can be as I mentioned before. However, as long as you qualify to work in the university, tenure track positions (accreditation requirements set minimum standards and departments add additional needs) look at several areas to determine eligibility when faculty applies for tenure. Criteria changes from institution to institution, but where I currently work, education, publication and research, institutional service, etc. are all considered.
My question about Ross leaving Ben for a tenure-track job was a hypothetical question. It does not in any way depend upon the writer's knowledge of academic situations or terminology.
It is hypothetical yes, but the terminology does matter when we are discussing does Ross's current university job correspond to the type of job you theoretically presented? If on the television show a university instructor = a tenured professor because of the reasons I mentioned earlier, would discussions of Ross being an instructor in New York correspond to a tenure track position at this hypothetical job?
It relates to what Ross would give up to stay near Ben. His career? I am skeptical.
Do you have any children or nieces, nephews? I ask because I think a lot of people who have children in their lives can't understand the position you are taking here.
Ross was an involved parent in as much as could be shown on a 30 minute sitcom. If he was a weekend or casual parent, he would not have been so concerned with Ben knowing about his Jewish heritage, having a say in his name (first and last), what toys he played with, etc. And obviously, there isn't going to be an episode about Ross helping to potty train Ben or pick him up from school because television is meant to capture specific story telling moments in a character's life.
So I do think, given that Ross was close with his son and fought to have an active and equal role in Ben's life, that Ben would be a major factor in deciding to move across the country should the opportunity arrive.
When a woman gets pregnant, there is no "default" about whether it was truly accidental or on purpose.
Oh no doubt, and we never argued that point. But like you don't get where I'm coming from about Emily, or that Ross would choose his kids above Emily, Rachel, and job offers, I don't see how you can possibly suggest that Carol and Susan deliberately plotted for Carol to use Ross to get pregnant after Carol and Ross's marriage was over because they wanted a baby and Carol wanted to keep Ross close.
I say that Ross realizes that he wants to continue seeing Rachel more than he wants Emily as his wife, and he can't have both.
I won't disagree that Ross wants to see Rachel. I won't disagree that this a problem causing factor in the marriage. I just disagree that this is why the marriage dissolved.
Where are you doing that? Where am I objecting to your doing that
There are a few different posts where Ross not following Emma and Rachel to Paris is used to defend Ben as the reason Ross didn't want to go to London. Your response to my posts generally suggested that because Paris thing happened five years later and because Ross and Rachel had been through a lot more by that point, his actions then were not relevant to his actions with Emily.
I can't fine the post now because we have discussed that point a few times, but I will find it in the morning if you like and paste then.
* As far as I know, there is no evidence either that the pregnancy was accidental or on purpose. Do you know of any such evidence.
There is evidence that the pregnancy almost certainly occurred after Carol had told Ross and moved out.
I haven't seen anything official in regards to the pregnancy, though I did see a video by What Culture (sp?) the other day that actually discussed the problem with Carol's pregnancy.
The pilot and first season establish that Ross is newly divorced and that Carol is newly pregnant. If we go by this alone, then we can speculate that the baby was conceived prior to the divorce but probably after she had decided to leave Ross since even clean divorces take time to be processed.
It's only in later seasons when they start to do more of the flashback episodes that the timeline of the divorce gets tampered with, making it very weird that Ben was somehow conceived up to a year after Carol left Ross. So... who knows.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
Oh I know you have, and I do not have the time or inclination to dig through this conversation, or our prior one, to provide more than I already have for a message board about Friends.
In other words, you know that you cannot support what you claim that I said. You have played fast and loose with the truth, and you are simply not an intellectually honest person. You don't seem to even be embarrassed about that.
took it as such since most of the arguments following that assumption/accusation/guess were based on the idea that I really just wanted Ross and Rachel together.
That is nonsense. You are lying. I would ask you to support that with actual quotes from what I wrote, but I know you don't have the honesty to do that.
However, as long as you qualify to work in the university, tenure track positions (accreditation requirements set minimum standards and departments add additional needs) look at several areas to determine eligibility when faculty applies for tenure.
You have no clue what a tenure-track position is. That is bizarre if you work at a university. Or perhaps the university that you work at is bizarre in terms of what other universities do.
I ask because I think a lot of people who have children in their lives can't understand the position you are taking here.
I know that people do routinely have to make hard choices, and they frequently involve leaving a child behind.
fought to have an active and equal role in Ben's life,
Do you mean fought with Susan? That didn't go on for very long, and in any event, Carol wanted him to have as much of a relationship as he wanted. Carol always seems to win those fights.
that Ben would be a major factor in deciding to move across the country should the opportunity arrive.
Of course. It is a matter of one's priorities. Ross would not move to England to be with Emily. It is a reasonable question what Ross would leave Ben for.
because they wanted a baby and Carol wanted to keep Ross close.
I think it is obvious that they are quite happy about the baby. So happy that it seems to me less likely that it was an accident than that it was deliberate.Being the father is not keeping Ross close. It is keeping him in Carol's life to some degree. I believe Carol likes the idea that she is not just completely kicking Ross out of her life because she is a lesbian.
Your response to my posts generally suggested that because Paris thing happened five years later and because Ross and Rachel had been through a lot more by that point, his actions then were not relevant to his actions with Emily.
The key point, which you don't seem to understand, is that Rachel never said that she would
get back with Ross if he moved to Paris. He would not move to London to
live with Emily. Would he have moved to Paris to
live with Rachel? There is the major problem of his job which is not transferable, but if – as I have suggested several times – Emily had not existed, but if in that time frame Rachel moved to London and said that she would
live with Ross if he moved to London, I sure as hell think he would have. I believe he was still working at the museum at that point.
though I did see a video by What Culture (sp?)
Do you have a URL?
The pilot and first season establish that Ross is newly divorced and that Carol is newly pregnant. If we go by this alone, then we can speculate that the baby was conceived prior to the divorce but probably after she had decided to leave Ross since even clean divorces take time to be processed.
Do you mean ignore the second episode and the rest of the first season? I gave the timeline in an earlier thread. I suggest that you look at it.
imdb.com/title/tt0108778/board/view/264106042?d=264106878#264106878We know that one month after the pilot, the baby is not far enough along that they can determine it sex. We know that in episode 12, Rachel is about 19 weeks. That is the first point at which Carol knows the sex of the baby. We know that Carol gives birth in the last episode of the first
season.In Friends, the gestation period in humans appears to be "one season." That makes sense, but I think that is a maximum. They are not divorced in the pilot. Carol has just removed the last of her stuff from Ross's apartment which is why Ross is so depressed. I have no idea where you are getting that.The flashback lays out a very reasonable sequence of events, but it does not tell is how much time there is between them. We know that when Carol told Ross and left him, the coffeehouse that we know and love was still a bar. The last night that it was a bar in fact.
It's only in later seasons when they start to do more of the flashback episodes that the timeline of the divorce gets tampered with, making it very weird that Ben was somehow conceived up to a year after Carol left Ross.
That is never suggested, or anything like that. I have no idea where you are getting that.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
you are simply not an intellectually honest person. You don't seem to even be embarrassed about that.
No, I just don't care enough about a message board about Friends to dig through these long posts. On top of that, the accusation I did post you claimed was not an accusation, and later excused behavior you displayed that you call out in others. You seem REALLY upset by this discussion, and I'm over here passing time.
By the way, in your last post alone, you claim:
you are simply not an intellectually honest person
Which you base on a stupid discussion about Friends and none of my actual intellectual, academic work.
And
You have no clue what a tenure-track position is.
Which is also wrong. Academic tenure is a position that one earns or has appointed. It allows for levels of academic freedom that others may not have and often makes termination of that person difficult without serious infractions. Additionally, many schools will fire faculty who are hired for tenure track positions but not awarded tenure.
Most universities don't just hand tenure over to people in tenure track positions after they have been working for a certain period of time.
Firstly, the accrediting body DOES set minimum standards for those who can be hired into any university/college faculty position regardless of tenure eligibility. In North American Academia, the first accreditation you want is regional (like Middle States Commission on Higher Education and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) and then the schools will want to seek more specialized accreditation for individual programs and departments. Of course, minimum tenure track qualifications will be determined at this level. That is, the regionally accrediting body determines the minimum standards a school has to uphold when appointing tenured and other faculty positions.
Secondly, schools and departments will then determine additional qualifications that they seek. It is very rare for a school to simply say, okay. Tenure track is five years. If you work five years on tenure track, you get tenure automatically at the end. This is why if you ask five schools what the tenure-eligible faculty member must do to earn tenure, you will probably get five different answers.
Finally on this point, yes, my school uses 1)Level of Education, 2) Time at the institution, 3) Service to the school, 4) Research and publication as some of the the criteria they review when those on tenure track become eligible to apply for tenure.
Other schools may have different or additional criteria, but given that this is what the schools I've worked for, with, and written letters of recommendation to for some of my colleagues have specifically been interested in, I think you may need to accept that your understanding of tenure may either be wrong or limited specifically to your experience with it.
Don't believe me? Here are some partial requirements for awarded tenure at a few different schools:
Tenure is awarded to individual faculty members upon evidence of the capacity and likelihood for continued intellectual, scholarly, and professional vitality; upon evidence of the ability and willingness to perform assigned duties; and upon evidence of a sense of responsibility and dedication to make the continuing exemplary performance of duties a reasonable expectation.
A successful candidate must present a strong, continuing record of productive research, publication, creative activity, and scholarly achievement appropriate to his/her discipline and fields of specialization; this record must be sufficient in both quantity and quality to demonstrate substantial progress toward an outstanding level of performance.Each successful candidate must show evidence of a continuing record of responsible academic citizenship appropriate to the candidate’s area.
Do you mean fought with Susan?
Not just Susan. Before Ben was born, Ross did have to assert his rights on a few occasions with Carol and Susan when it came to names. After he was born, there was the argument over the doll, etc. Ross wasn't always wrong and he wasn't always right, and Carol and Susan swayed in respecting his right to make decisions and simply ignoring or overriding him.
Surprisingly, once Ben was born Ross and Susan got a long much better so there was less of that, but there definitely were times where Carol and Susan basically decided to override Ross (even when it would later be worked out).
Do you have a URL?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SKuwVDEOUk
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
No, I just don't care enough about a message board about Friends to dig through these long posts.
If you think that you are right and care about being intellectually honest, it would not be that burdensome. You simply don't care.
You seem REALLY upset by this discussion,
I dislike having someone misrepresent what I have said and then decline to back up their claims.
Which you base on a stupid discussion about Friends and none of my actual intellectual, academic work.
A person is either intellectually honest, and cares about that, or they aren't. You aren't.
Which is also wrong. Academic tenure is a position that one earns or has appointed.
Of course, but a "tenure-track job" is a very specific term, and it is flatly unbelievable that you teach at a university and have no clue what it is.
Not just Susan.
Ross never had to
[fight] to have an active and equal role in Ben's life,
with Carol. Having an active and equal role does not mean that you always get your way. That is true when there are just two parents.
Surprisingly, once Ben was born Ross and Susan got a long much better so there was less of that,
It is only surprising if you think that Carol is simply a bitch and there's nothing more to it. It is not surprising if you understand how insecure Susan is initially.
but there definitely were times where Carol and Susan basically decided to override Ross (even when it would later be worked out).
Of course. Ross having an active and equal part in Ben's life does not mean that he always gets his way. Carol and Susan are raising the child.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
Okay, Let's be intellectually honest for just a moment.
You claim that I don't know what tenure track is, and that by extension I cannot work at a university that offer that. Specifically, you said:
it is flatly unbelievable that you teach at a university and have no clue what it is.
1) I provided a basic definition about what tenure is.
2) I provided information about what tenure track tends to include.
3)I provided information regarding agencies that provide minimum standards.
4) I provided two examples from schools that specify how to qualify for tenure when on tenure track.
5) You provided:
Do you know what a tenure-track job is?
You have no clue what a tenure-track position is.
These quotes specifically reference our discussion of real world tenure track positions. In an effort to support intellectual honesty, I did not include any of the conversation from our discussion about television understanding of academic position and tenure vs. real life.
Since you did not reference any of the evidence I presented short of saying
Of course, but a "tenure-track job" is a very specific term, and it is flatly unbelievable that you teach at a university and have no clue what it is.
I am left to assume that it doesn't seem to matter if someone provides evidence to you. I provided a wealth of evidence about tenure and tenure track positions and requirements, and you dismissed it by claiming that I still don't know what it is.
One of the reasons I haven't made an effort to go back and find some of the accusations you have made towards me if because I have noticed that you pick and choose what points to respond to, and seemingly ignore what you either don't want to address or see no reason to address.
My earlier posts to you were longer because I tried to make an effort to respond to your various points. If I did not respond to every single point, it was because I felt the point was addressed at some other time within the same post.
You completely ignored the evidence provided for a major point of discussion in my last post, and maintained that I am ignorant of tenure track even though the evidence I provided suggests otherwise. That is is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. You cannot ask of others what you refuse to provide yourself.
Finally, if you have an alternative understanding or definition of what tenure and tenure track positions are, please provide the definitions and some examples.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face —Ask a graduate student who is finishing their PhD and is going to be on the job market shortly for an academic job what a "tenure-track job" is. They will be able to explain it to you.They will think it is bizarre that you are asking.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
Well I am preparing for my Orals for my PhD. and I already work in academia on a tenure track so I guess I'll ask myself.
And again, you e done exactly what I said you did before. I addressed a point, provided evidence, and ask a question and you divert the question. Academic dishonesty.
Why are you avoiding answering? I've provided the answer and examples several times now. If I'm wrong, tell me how so I can tell my department chair.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
Why are you avoiding answering?
Because you would just argue with me, and it is something that anyone who teaches at a real university would already know.
If I'm wrong, tell me how so I can tell my department chair.
Ask your department chairman what a "tenure track job" is, and what your status is in relation to a "tenure track job," but there is considerable opportunity for embarrassment at your ignorance if you do so.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
Okay so I am right, you know I am right, and you can't avoid giving an answer without confirming that. Got it.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
you know I am right,
I know that you are ludicrously wrong.
and you can't avoid giving an answer without confirming that.
Ask your department chairman. Actually, ask almost anyone who teaches at a real university other than yourself.Or, if you don't want to appear totally ignorant in front of him or her, Google "meaning tenure-track jobs."It is a very clearly defined and very common concept. If you have never run across it, I find it difficult to believe that you could possibly be teaching at a real university or finishing a PhD.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
http://publications.umw.edu/facultyhandbook/section_3/definition/
Like this one that complies with what I've been saying?
http://jerz.setonhill.edu/about/tenure/
Or this one?
https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/what-is-academic-tenure/
or how about this one? And what does it say?
The path to earning tenure can be arduous. It’s a long-term probationary period, and for many candidates it can be quite stressful.
It starts with getting a tenure-track academic appointment, no small accomplishment in a tight academic job market. For that fortunate few, being a “tenure-stream,” “pre-tenure,” or “tenure-track” faculty member means that they’re still in the evaluation stage, which at most schools runs around five or six years.
During that time, their classes are observed by tenured faculty peers, their scholarship is reviewed by inside and outside referees, and their overall performance is tracked by an oversight committee, a department chair, and/or various deans.
Tenure procedures vary widely among colleges and universities, but basically they involve a faculty tenure committee or department making an initial recommendation based on a vote taken by secret ballot (with a supermajority often required), followed by a recommendation by a dean to the board of trustees. Unless there are unusual circumstances, the faculty vote is what really counts.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: A “yes” decision brings happiness and a sigh of relief. A “no” decision typically means the individual is given a year to find another position. It’s a high stakes, up or out game.
Okay definitely complies with what I have said...
The big three, plus one
Teaching, scholarship, and service are the holy trinity of criteria for a tenure evaluation. At schools that emphasize classroom instruction, teaching counts the most. At schools that emphasize research, scholarship counts the most. Many schools strike a balance among the two. Service tends to rank a distant third in any event.
At some schools, collegiality is the unstated fourth criterion for tenure. If someone is a bully or a jerk or otherwise deemed untrustworthy, it may come back to haunt him. On the other hand, someone who is socially popular may find colleagues willing to overlook substantive weaknesses in performance. At less-than-wonderful places, collegiality is code for ensuring the homogeneity of the group.
This too...
huh...so the Google search matches what I said, the evidence I presented earlier, my own faculty handbook from my school, my department's handbook...
so...I'm waiting
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face –Thank you for the link. It is not your fault obviously, but it is all crap that has been beaten to death, and that I don't think is a big deal. I know some people do.Whoever wrote the clip seems to not pay much attention to the show in regard to the flashback. The flashback does not take place at just one moment in time. It is very clearly over a period of time. You have a progressive series of events that take place over time. We are not told how much time, but it is probably months.One of the dumbest things in the link is the narrator asking why would Ross lie about the first woman that he had sex with. When this first comes up, Ross is nostalgic and looking for sympathy.Somehow his saying that the first time he had sex was with a dorm room cleaning lady would not have that effect.In Ross's mind, Carol was the first time, and even if that was not literally true, it was certainly emotionally true and the way he wants to remember it.If the first woman that you had sex with was a dorm room cleaning lady, of course you're going to lie about it. Who the hell wouldn't?
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
I can actually buy that as an explanation because we see plot and background changes as a series progresses. It's probably true that the the writers forgot that Carol was supposed to be the first, but it ultimately doesn't matter because for Ross she was what mattered.
You then have scenarios that can't be explained Away as well like the number of times Rachel ends up meeting Chandler (and making out with him) and then not remembering him when they meet again in the pilot. That's more of a stretch for me. But over all I agree with the point.
I mostly liked the video because it does point out that the time around the Carol/Ross/Susan thing is a. It ambiguous and the circumstances even more so.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
It's probably true that the the writers forgot that Carol was supposed to be the first,
I doubt that the writers had forgotten that is what Ross claimed. I believe they are intentionally adding some more information about Ross.
That's more of a stretch for me.
I just don't care. Nothing depends on it.
I mostly liked the video because it does point out that the time around the Carol/Ross/Susan thing is a. It ambiguous and the circumstances even more so.
The sequence of events is completely unambiguous. We have no indication of the
time between the different events, but there is clearly some. Probably quite a bit. I have no idea what you mean by saying the circumstances are ambiguous.What is completely certain is that when Carol told Ross that left him,
the coffeehouse was still a bar. We do not know how long before the pilot that was, but I think it is improbable that it was just two or three weeks.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
so...I'm waiting
Dear God, you didn't bother to read your own quotes. Above you quoted
It starts with getting a tenure-track academic appointment, no small accomplishment in a tight academic job market.
My hypothetical involved Ross being offered a
tenure-track job, say on the West Coast or in Philadelphia. You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about which is truly bizarre if you teach at a
university.Read your own quotes. Not all jobs are tenure-track jobs. A department cannot just decide that it wants to add another tenured professor. It has to have a line from the University authorizing that.When a university advertises a "tenure-track job," it is saying that it has a line from the University so that if the candidate works out,
there is actually a tenure level position that can be filled.Departments do not normally have such positions open. Tenure is a very long-term proposition and universities do not easily give a department the opportunity to hire someone with tenure.Go back and read your own quotes. This is not an obscure matter. You are really unbelievable.Go ask your department chairman. Go ask whoever advises new PhD's on finding a job. Go ask any new PhD who has been looking for jobs. Go ask almost any faculty member at a real university. Actually,
read your own quotes with more care that you obviously did.
reply
share
PaulWard27
7 years ago
Does this really matter? It has nothing directly related to the thread title and frankly it's boring to read.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
It doesn't really matter, but it's fun to argue about the topic because he is willfully pretending that what I am saying and supporting with several sources at the point. He is also refusing to supply his own definition and sources.
In other words, he does here what he does in the conversation about Emily in that he ignores points he can't argue or flat out says no and wrong without saying why.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
in that he ignores points he can't argue or flat out says no and wrong without saying why.
Let me ask you again to document that claim by copying and pasting from my posts.I would be surprised if you do because you have not exhibited any signs of intellectual honesty heretofore.
He is also refusing to supply his own definition and sources.
Umm. You documented the existence of "tenure track jobs" yourself.
It starts with getting a tenure-track academic appointment, no small accomplishment in a tight academic job market.
I suggest that you try to figure out what the source that you quoted is referring to.Actually I did explain, but I knew he wouldn't believe me, which is why suggested several times that you ask your department chairman, or a colleague, or someone who's been looking for an academic job, or almost anyone who teaches at a real university except for you.I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are simply a complete nutcase, and I cannot imagine that you actually teach at a real university and don't know what a tenure-track job is.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
I provided the information. You clearly know I am right or are refusing to believe me and the evidence I provided because you yourself have made up what it is and are sticking to it.
I'm not arguing the point any further, because ultimately, I was right the first time, and some rando on the internet claiming I'm wrong doesn't make it so.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
and some rando on the internet claiming I'm wrong doesn't make it so.
What
you quoted makes it clear that you are wrong in refusing to recognize that "tenure-track job" is a distinct and generally recognized category.
[The path to tenure] starts with getting a tenure-track academic appointment, no small accomplishment in a tight academic job market.
Perhaps you need to have this explained to you. If a young academic wants tenure, he has to get a "tenure track academic appointment." I don't see how you cannot understand that. And "tenure-track appointments" are not easy to get in today's academic market.That is why, in my hypothetical case, I asked if Ross would move to a Research 1 university on the West Coast if offered a tenure-track position, and he did not see the prospect of tenure in the New York area?Or would he move to a prestigious university in Philadelphia for a tenure-track position if he did not see the prospect of tenure in the New York area?You don't not seem to understand it, but for someone to get tenure, the University has to want to add a tenured position in their field. Universities are reluctant to add tenured positions because they go on for a very long time.On the odd chance that it is what is confusing you, "tenure track academic appointment," "tenure-track position," and "tenure-track job" all mean the same thing. You made it clear that you just don't have any clue what any of those terms refer to. I don't see how that is possible if you teach at a university.
reply
share
PaulWard27
7 years ago
Well I have to hand it to you. You really have a special ability to suck the life out of threads.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
What's funny is I told him I was done responding to him hours ago and he still continuing.
So Paul, what's your view on the Emily situation?
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
What's funny is I told him I was done responding to him hours ago and he still continuing.
It does not matter if you respond or not, since you don't pay any attention to what I'm saying. You don't even pay any attention to the things that you
quoted.At this point, you are not my target audience. On the odd chance that someone might look at this thread, I want it to be clear just how ridiculous you are.
reply
share
PaulWard27
7 years ago
I can ensure you, if anyone is still reading they are either slitting their wrists or laughing at you.
reply
share
PaulWard27
7 years ago
I think we have learned since that Helen Baxendale lied about, or at the very least failed to mention her pregnancy. Once this became apparent, it would appear planned stories for her and Ross had to be abruptly changed and this quite simply meant breaking them up.
As Ross is a regular and she was a guest role, it seemed to be the easy route to try and make her look the bitch, so fans wouldn't hate Ross going forward.
For what it is worth, I do actually agree to some extent with ppllkk. Ross could easily have tried harder to make it work with Emily and cut ties with Rachel until such a point that Emily was more at ease with the situation.
In a scene where I hated Ross, he even says this is what should be done. It was when Joey, against the rest of the groups wishes, challenged Ross and he rather condescendingly told the others 'it's what grown ups do', implying they were all kids. At this point Ross knew what he had to do to save his marriage, when it came to the crunch, he didn't.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
In a scene where I hated Ross, he even says this is what should be done.
This is a really great scene in the series that is so telling about what Ross wants. He knows what he should be doing, and he is very begrudgingly complying with what he should be doing to the point that it is so obvious that he is unhappy that his friends try to intervene.
Then he snaps at his friends for wanting him to do what makes him happy.
Of course, take the harshness away, and I think it's not out of character for Ross. I think he always sort of thinks of himself as the mature one who has it all together. The "adult" of the group so to speak.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
He knows what he should be doing, and he is very begrudgingly complying with what he should be doing to the point that it is so obvious that he is unhappy that his friends try to intervene.
Why yes. I did not know that you recognized that Emily's requirements are what Ross should be doing.Somehow, that did not come across clearly in what you have previously written.Let me see if I understand your position. Emily's requirements are necessary, and Ross understands that. But you dislike Emily because she imposes those conditions and does not "negotiate" until she has achieved the conditions by negotiating?You recognize that the conditions are necessary, but you dislike Emily because she is disrupting the group, and Ross will not be happy with his new bride because he's not seeing his friends every day?Ross recognizes that he should be doing what Emily wants, but somehow, you dislike Emily because she wants what is necessary for her marriage to have a chance?
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face —My wife is in Toronto at a meeting of The Society for Classical Studies. It was previously known as The American Philological Society.I just received an email from her and I will quote it.
Anyone at any normal university will know *precisely* what "tenure track" means and will know to within seventeen significant digits what the differences are among tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty, full-time non-tenure-track faculty, and part-time faculty (essentially never tenure track, though there are exceptions). And most will know exactly how their own school is similar to or different from others. No, it's inconceivable that anyone teaching at a university — or any post-doc, or any research faculty member, or most other professional staff — would not know the term.
So, you do you don't teach at a normal university or you are completely full of it.The latest
Chronicle of Higher Education arrived today. They say that they have 9,941 jobs listed on their website. A small fraction of those are listed in boxes that the schools have paid for in the "Careers" section.Over half the jobs in the "Careers" section are administrative or executive and so are not relevant. Of the teaching jobs, a clear majority are explicitly labeled "tenure-track." A couple of schools say they are looking for people for both "tenure-track" and "non-tenure-track jobs." One school is advertising for an assistant professor for a non-tenure-track job. A number of the jobs are not labeled either way.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
PaulWard27 wrote:
In a scene where I hated Ross, he even says this is what should be done.
Yes.
Ross: I'm really gonna miss this apartment. Y'know, Ben-Ben took his first steps right over there. (Points.)Joey: Ohh. Hey, remember when I ran into this thing (The shutters that close off the kitchen.) and it kinda knocked me out a little?Ross: I loved this place! To tell you the truth, I wish I didn't have to move.Joey: Uhh, are you saying that you're not entirely happy about this?Ross: Well, I mean if uh, if Emily gave me a choice…Joey: You do have a choice!! Ross, why are you listening to her?! Are you, are you crazy?!Ross: Why?Joey: It's not right what Emily wants you to do! She is totally-(The gang enters behind Joey and Phoebe pinches him again.)-Owww!! Stop pinching me! Look, now you guys said I only had to keep my mouth shut as long as Ross was happy, right? Well he just told me that he's not entirely happy.Ross: What's going on?Joey: We all hate Emily!Phoebe: Nooo!!Monica: No, Ross, we do not hate Emily. We-we just, we just think that you're having to sacrifice a whole lot to make her happy.Joey: Yeah!Chandler: Look, we just think that maybe she's being a little unreasonable.Joey: Yes! Yes! Unreasonable!Ross: Unreasonable? How about we have this conversation when one of you guys gets married! You have no idea what it takes to make a marriage work! All right, it's about compromise! Do you always like it? No! Do you do it? Yes! Because it's not all laughing, happy, candy in the sky, drinking coffee at Central Perk all the time! It's real life, okay? It's what grown-ups do!
Ross knows that Emily is right. Ross knows what he has to do for the marriage to have a chance. He doesn't like it, but he knows that it is necessary.And it has nothing to do with whether or not Emily trusts
him.One reoccurring theme in the series is Ross's friends giving him either bad advice or advice that turns out to be disastrous. This is a fine example of that. Ross's "friends" have no real concern for him. They just want to keep the group together for their own selfish reasons.Ross once again demonstrates that he does not seem to have a mind of his own. It Chandler and Joey told him to jump out of the window, he probably would.
At this point Ross knew what he had to do to save his marriage, when it came to the crunch, he didn't.
No, he did not. And he tries to switch the blame for his not doing what he knows he should do onto Emily by asking her if she trusts him. Of course Emily can't trust him around Rachel. And some posters fell for Ross shifting the
blame.So what do you think tipped the scale in favor of breaking up with the woman that he says that he loves and that he married? Do you think it was that he would miss the apartment. Do you think it was that he would miss seeing Joey every day? Do you think that it was that he would miss seeing Chandler every day, or Phoebe. Those are, of course, jokes. He might well miss seeing Monica every day, but he can see her whenever he wants to, and I doubt that seeing her is more important to him than living with his wife.Ross can still see all of these people, but he probably won't every day.What is left is that he won't be able to see Rachel. And I believe Ross cannot stand the prospect of that. That is why he declines – at the last minute – to behave like a "grown-up."
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
We're all supposed to swallow your fantasy about how Ben came to be with admittedly no evidence of support because you like the story. Why is your non-evidence make believe better than my "weak" evidence theory?
There is a rather major difference between my speculation on how Carol became pregnant, and your speculation that Emily would've become more and more demanding as time went on.I am trying to explain something that we know happened. Carol became pregnant. How did it happen?A large part of your argument is based on your
feeling that Emily
would've become more and more demanding, would've insisted on more and more concessions from Ross. But that never happened. Could it have happened, yes, but you are just speculating that it might have happened.There is a big difference between explaining something that we know happened and speculating about something that might have happened but didn't actually happen.
reply
share
The-Doll-Face
7 years ago
I am trying to explain something that we know happened. Carol became pregnant.
And Emily placed conditions on Ross in order for her to give their marriage a chance.
How did it happen?
It's up to the audience to speculate based on our interpretation of events, experiences and preferences. You created a scenario where two women conspire to trick a man into creating a child, and one of those women want to use the child as leverage to keep said man around.
I present the idea that Emily's conditions are unreasonable on a long term basis because it impacts Ross's relationship with his close friends and family, and I see indications that tell me that there is potential for Emily to grow more insecure and demanding as a result. I also argue that at the very least, there should have been a five minute break before continuing with the "I do's"
A large part of your argument is based on your feeling that Emily would've become more and more demanding, would've insisted on more and more concessions from Ross.
My argument was not that it would happen, but that it was a possibility just as her relenting and loosening up was another suggested possibility.
reply
share
ppllkk
7 years ago
The-Doll-Face wrote:
And Emily placed conditions on Ross in order for her to give their marriage a chance.
That is not in dispute. But I believe your argument depends on Emily accelerating those demands.Other than your disliking Emily, you do not have a serious argument except for that possibility.
You created a scenario where two women conspire to trick a man into creating a child, and one of those women want to use the child as leverage to keep said man around.
Oh for God sake. It is only Carol who wants Ross as the father. It is done over Susan's objection.I believe both Carol and Susan want a baby. Carol wants Ross to be the father for a variety of reasons but none of them involve "leverage to keep said man around."
I present the idea that Emily's conditions are unreasonable on a long term basis because it impacts Ross's relationship with his close friends and family,
Your wife is supposed to be more important to you than your friends. Emily's conditions are completely reasonable at the time. We do not know what would happen long-term since it doesn't happen.What it most impacts is Ross's relationship with Rachel, but that is necessary.
and I see indications that tell me that there is potential for Emily to grow more insecure and demanding as a result.
I don't. I don't see Emily as a nutcase who is going to get progressively
worse.In any event, their marriage is DOA without the conditions. They can worry about the future later on.
I also argue that at the very least, there should have been a five minute break before continuing with the "I do's"
Emily does not know what to do, but she has to do something. A five minute break is not going to resolve anything for God sake. You are just looking for things to complain about with
Emily.You do that a lot.
My argument was not that it would happen, but that it was a possibility just as her relenting and loosening up was another suggested possibility.
Of course they are both possibilities, but you are saying that Ross shouldn't even try because of one of those possibilities. A possibility that seems to be completely at odds with Emily's character. She wants Ross as her husband or she wouldn't even be talking to him at that point. But you believe that she is going to get what she wants, and then sabotage it by increasing her demands?There are psychos who would do that, but that is not consistent with Emily showing up at the airport 12 hours after being humiliated and being willing to give Ross another chance and move to New York. One of Emily's endearing characteristics is that in general she does not stay angry very long. (Rachel may be an exception but that is an extreme case.) In the telephone conversation, Emily learns that Ross has not lived up to what he said he would do. But she is still willing to move to New York.
reply
share