|
Post by juxtaposer on Jun 3, 2017 19:59:27 GMT -5
So given that Jackie would have walked away from the deal cash in hand or no risk to her, who looks stupid now? If you don't know the situation then best not saying anything at all. That doll made Jackie look bad. The damage to her reputation far exceeded any pittance Mike might have made on the deal. I never heard about that doll until now. It was before I came along. I don't think anybody cares the least about it now, surely.
|
|
|
Post by jrchico on Jun 3, 2017 20:04:24 GMT -5
That doll made Jackie look bad. The damage to her reputation far exceeded any pittance Mike might have made on the deal. I never heard about that doll until now. It was before I came along. I don't think anybody cares the least about it now, surely. Just the people who are holding on to them in the hopes they become collectors items.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 20:28:37 GMT -5
I never heard about that doll until now. It was before I came along. I don't think anybody cares the least about it now, surely. Just the people who are holding on to them in the hopes they become collectors items. I may be late to the game (2011), but please, someone fill me in, what's the problem with the doll? (Personally, not for me, but maybe for my youngest daughter at the time.) Don
|
|
|
Post by jrchico on Jun 3, 2017 20:40:53 GMT -5
Just the people who are holding on to them in the hopes they become collectors items. I may be late to the game (2011), but please, someone fill me in, what's the problem with the doll? (Personally, not for me, but maybe for my youngest daughter at the time.) Don There is no problem with the doll. Rick was complaining that they hadn't sold very many of them. In my opinion, that could be a good thing for collectors as they would be worth more in the long run after Jackie becomes a household name. Some people want that for her (NOW!!) but i doubt if that will happen until she is an adult and making her own decisions.
|
|
|
Post by bounderdriver on Jun 3, 2017 21:07:55 GMT -5
That doll made Jackie look bad. The damage to her reputation far exceeded any pittance Mike might have made on the deal. I never heard about that doll until now. It was before I came along. I don't think anybody cares the least about it now, surely. Ask the little girls that were recipients of one, they cared.
Was it a high-value collectible? No. Was it intended to be? probably not. It did not make Jackie 'look bad' and did zero damage to her reputation. It was likely a licensing deal as stated earlier and little more. At the time of DWM and her high awareness at the time, I bet the fee was reasonably generous.
|
|
|
Post by pgantioch on Jun 3, 2017 23:42:57 GMT -5
Just the people who are holding on to them in the hopes they become collectors items. I may be late to the game (2011), but please, someone fill me in, what's the problem with the doll?(Personally, not for me, but maybe for my youngest daughter at the time.) Don 1. It didn't look much like her. 2. It didn't sell well. 3. A lot of people didn't think it matched the demographics of her fan base. Maybe I'm missing a few things...
|
|
|
Post by pgantioch on Jun 3, 2017 23:52:10 GMT -5
Anyone who has been a fan of Jackie's and have followed her on her forums, fansites, and social media, for more than a few years are aware of your posted comments Rick, so they know I am not the liar here. Your comments have got you banned on several sites, and some of those site more than once. Now you have created your own site, were you censor opinions opposed to your bias, labeling those who disagree with you as troublemakers, and liars. While at the same time supporting and encouraging those who share your bias. Since you control the forum, I am sure all who openly expresses opinions opposed to yours "will soon be gone". Rob49, please take a deep breath. Members can certainly disagree with others, including Rick, as long as we stay polite & don't get personal. It's not true that only people who agree with Rick are allowed to post here. We mods disagree plenty with each other & with other members. We try to discuss it & work it out. Lots of times we post polls so members can decide what we should do. Honestly, Rick is not a dictator, & he tries to do the best thing for the whole forum. You're welcome to post disagreements as long as you keep them polite & logical. Perhaps it'd be best not to refer to vague past transgressions, either....
|
|
|
Post by pgantioch on Jun 4, 2017 0:09:55 GMT -5
Save your absurd, self justifing denials for those who have not seen them repeated for over 6 years. The fact is PARENTS are responsible for the wellbeing of their children. And Jackie is not only blessed with both a mother a father who love and care for her unconditionally, she also has a very close and loving extended family, all of who have placed her childhood and family above the blind pursuit of stardom. What are your qualifications that justify your questioning THE DECISIONS OF ANY PARENT IN REGARD TO THE RAISING OF THEIR CHILDREN?Having read countless post by you blaming everyone from your parents, to your wife, to all in your life being at fault for everything, I can say with 100% confidence that you have NO qualification that justifies your attacks. Several of us, including Rick, have criticized Jackie's parents for the business decisions they have made: which songs to put on an album, what direction her career should take, how she should be promoted, which gigs she should take, etc, etc. Personally, I've criticized Mike especially for not allowing videos at her concerts. The Jackie doll was another of those decisions. GEB has written about a movie that might have been very good for her. Other than the decision to have a part-time career in general (which we by & large haven't criticized), those are BUSINESS decisions, not child-rearing decisions. If anything, some members here have criticized Jackie for the whole Juliet issue, which does have to do with the Evanchos' parenting decisions; but it's certainly not Jackie's "fault" in any way. It's true that some people feel entitled to criticize the way other people raise their children. Nobody's perfect. But again, Rick hasn't been the one doing that.
|
|
|
Post by jrchico on Jun 4, 2017 0:33:20 GMT -5
Several... It's true that some people feel entitled to criticize the way other people raise their children. Nobody's perfect. But again, Rick hasn't been the one doing that. pgantioch Rich has done that, and much worse. I suppose you believe he was banned from the original Jackie ProBoard, twice for NO reason. He was banned for arguing with the Moderators and with Lisa. Sound familiar?
|
|
|
Post by pgantioch on Jun 4, 2017 9:34:46 GMT -5
Several... It's true that some people feel entitled to criticize the way other people raise their children. Nobody's perfect. But again, Rick hasn't been the one doing that. pgantioch Rich has done that, and much worse. I suppose you believe he was banned from the original Jackie ProBoard, twice for NO reason. Another thing we decided to do is not consider what happened on other sites, to give people a "clean slate" here. If there are questionable comments by anyone, the actual post here can be cited. I don't recall Rick criticizing the Evanchos' child-rearing here, though other people have been critical of aspects of the Juliet situation. So cite the post.
|
|
|
Post by pgantioch on Jun 4, 2017 10:09:44 GMT -5
Another thing we decided to do is not consider what happened on other sites, to give people a "clean slate" here. If there are questionable comments by anyone, the actual post here can be cited. I don't recall Rick criticizing the Evanchos' child-rearing here, though other people have been critical of aspects of the Juliet situation. So cite the post. Your choice to ignore everything someone has been saying for 6 years on all other forums they have taken part in is very, very PC, and needed since it is Rick's forum. I'm new here and I am not going to search out Rick's post thoughout [sic] this forum to site [sic], though I have seen several in which he crossed the lines drawn here, including the one my reply to that started this extended exchange. OK, but when do we start ignoring people's past comments on other sites? Have you ever looked up "the ravings of Matt Sims"? (You can google it.) He said some crazy things many years ago, but on Jackie sites more recently, has been more restrained. So shouldn't he be judged on what he says currently? We believe here that people should be judged on what they say here. If they're more restrained now than they were in the past, isn't that a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jun 4, 2017 11:19:25 GMT -5
You are starting to sound a lot like Jackie Junk David G, is that you good buddy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 11:34:53 GMT -5
I have no difficulty accepting whatever was stated by any member of THIS forum in the past on some other forum, including Amazon, should be left separate and forgotten. "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" is a reasonable philosophy.
Where I find it difficult is the separation of negative statements/opinions about decisions around Jackie's career and child rearing. Mike and Lisa are the last word regarding both Jackie's child rearing and her career. In Jackie's case, child rearing and career are intertwined. Decisions regarding one aspect may not be favourable to the other. Decisions having differing implications for both aspects will always lean toward child-rearing and family interests over career. This is a fact and not opinion. Both Mike and Lisa have amply demonstrated that right and duty to make those decisions.
To criticize Mike and Lisa about the impact of their decisions having negative impact upon Jackie's career is to criticize their child-rearing / family interest responsibility. So if one criticizes decisions regarding Jackie's career then they are silently doing likewise to Jackie's child-rearing. Therefore if the shoe fits......
To continue debating and criticizing Jackie's career is a total waste of time as it accomplishes nothing. We are not going to change the minds of those having the responsibility to make the decision.
|
|
|
Post by agog on Jun 4, 2017 12:44:21 GMT -5
"Quality of information on this forum..."... you mean like this? Making Canada Greater! The US has been a laughing stock for a long time. I hear dump wants to rename them Freedom Geese.... U.S. To Lose $1.6B As Mexican Vacationers Choose Canada - ForbesAlexandra Talty , CONTRIBUTOR I cover personal finance and travel. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. TWEET THIS The American tourism industry could be facing a new phenomenon: waning interest in the traveling to the United States. After decades of sitting pretty as a bucket list destination, the stars and stripes might be on their way out. Experts warn that anti-immigration rhetoric as well as confusing travel and electronic bans have dampened foreign interest in U.S. vacations, especially from Mexico. "We have Twitter wars with our President and former President of Mexico…. There is lots of speculation in the media about a trade war with Mexico," says Douglas Quimby, of Phocuswright, a travel research firm. "If that happens, what kind of impact does that have on millions of middle-class Mexicans looking to take a trip?" Mexican sentiment for the U.S. has been lagging since the primary elections when then-candidate Donald Trump claimed that Mexican immigrants were rapists and drug dealers. There were reports of Trump piñatas, angry newspaper op-eds and anti-Trump murals. During the presidential debates, Mexicans held drinking games, knocking one back every time their country was mentioned. More: www.forbes.com/sites/alexandratalty/2017/03/30/mexicans-choosing-canada-over-the-us-for-vacations/#4f523deb4d0dROTFLMAO! Freedom Geese! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! Etc etc.....
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Jun 4, 2017 14:14:26 GMT -5
Lisa banned me from proboards because she doesn't like me. Simple as that. rob49 is a liar. Simple as that. The other admins are handling this situation badly. Simple as that. If you are saying that you and the other admins cannot come to agreement as to what if anything should be done to improve the quality of information being posted (as opposed to quantity), I find that a bit troubling. From their posts, all of the admins, at least those who post frequently, appear to be quality posters themselves. That does not mean that they might not tolerate what some including me consider spam posts by others, but a continuation could turn this into another Amazon forum -- with pictures.
I have never seen you post what I consider spam. You have posted repeated comments here and on Amazon of not liking the direction that Jackie's career appears to you to be heading, but I personally feel that is on topic, whether or not I agree with your opinion.
|
|