|
Post by Beachguy on Jun 4, 2017 17:13:12 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. fake news , to have a negative opinion of her team or management who ever is about her career NOT child raising
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 17:37:13 GMT -5
Ursus, the other four admins have allowed rob49 to lie about me and to trash me with impunity on the open forum for all the members to see. They have done nothing. Now wayne has gotten into the act trashing our forum. Our forum is going to hell. The only way I can fix this is to assume dictatorial powers and I promised the members this would never happen. I will not be part of an admin team that doesn't have my back and who will let this happen to our forum. I am taking a break. Well, hope to see you back soon with a report about Midland. It looks like you'll get to hear "Vincent". It was wonderful at Carmel and Jackie enjoys singing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 18:19:55 GMT -5
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... You have to poke the doll in the belly to make it sing. Mine are still in the packages, but there's a hole in the front. She sings the first line of When You Wish Upon A Star. For some reason I thought you could have her sing different songs when she's out of the box. But I was told by fans at Carmel that out of the box it's still the same song, just goes on longer. I never bought one when they were $36, only when Toys 'R' Us sold them 3 for $15. They're just sitting on a closet shelf, doing nothing. I've wondered if they might be worth something some day. My neighbor has a Farrah Fawcett doll that's worth about $200. The Jackie dolls won't be worth anything until years after I'm dead. I'm not likely to still be around when Jackie turns 30. I'm taking the dolls to my next local concert, Redondo Beach, and giving them away to kids. If anyone going to that concert has a grandchild that likes Jackie and would like one, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by jrchico on Jun 4, 2017 18:47:15 GMT -5
He was banned for arguing with the Moderators and with Lisa. Sound familiar? He got into those ARGUEMENTS with Lisa and the moderators defending his comments attacking Mike and Lisa with outright hateful LIES and libelous comments full of visious name calling. Arguing about what happened on Lisa's site is like arguing about something that happened 1mil.BC. There is no way to prove anything one way or the other. There is no written record. You remember it one way and i remember it another. I read all of Ricks posts on that site and as far as i am concerned he was mostly right. Not very wise maybe but then neither are you being wise arguing with the Admins here.
|
|
|
Post by jrchico on Jun 4, 2017 18:55:07 GMT -5
You have to poke the doll in the belly to make it sing. Mine are still in the packages, but there's a hole in the front. She sings the first line of When You Wish Upon A Star. For some reason I thought you could have her sing different songs when she's out of the box. But I was told by fans at Carmel that out of the box it's still the same song, just goes on longer. I never bought one when they were $36, only when Toys 'R' Us sold them 3 for $15. They're just sitting on a closet shelf, doing nothing. I've wondered if they might be worth something some day. My neighbor has a Farrah Fawcett doll that's worth about $200. The Jackie dolls won't be worth anything until years after I'm dead. I'm not likely to still be around when Jackie turns 30. I'm taking the dolls to my next local concert, Redondo Beach, and giving them away to kids. If anyone going to that concert has a grandchild that likes Jackie and would like one, let me know. I was told once about a fan whose wife would only let him talk about Jackie on Mondays and if he ever purchased the doll, she would never sleep with him again and he could sleep with the doll instead. I remember that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 19:29:45 GMT -5
You have to poke the doll in the belly to make it sing. Mine are still in the packages, but there's a hole in the front. She sings the first line of When You Wish Upon A Star. For some reason I thought you could have her sing different songs when she's out of the box. But I was told by fans at Carmel that out of the box it's still the same song, just goes on longer. I never bought one when they were $36, only when Toys 'R' Us sold them 3 for $15. They're just sitting on a closet shelf, doing nothing. I've wondered if they might be worth something some day. My neighbor has a Farrah Fawcett doll that's worth about $200. The Jackie dolls won't be worth anything until years after I'm dead. I'm not likely to still be around when Jackie turns 30. I'm taking the dolls to my next local concert, Redondo Beach, and giving them away to kids. If anyone going to that concert has a grandchild that likes Jackie and would like one, let me know. I was told once about a fan whose wife would only let him talk about Jackie on Mondays and if he ever purchased the doll, she would never sleep with him again and he could sleep with the doll instead. I still have three Japanese dolls--one a geisha, the other two are kabuki figures. They had belonged to my late brother. Very beautiful objets d'art. The clothing is elegant and very finely embroidered. My ex's great idea was that I should give them to her daughter, who at the time was six years old and liked to pull off the heads of her own dolls. Er...no.
|
|
|
Post by ads on Jun 5, 2017 0:58:43 GMT -5
I like your work guys. I also like that you took control as admins and didn't leave it to a member vote. You're the ones that have to clean the mess and read every post, not many people appreciate that. The politics thread survived the first vote but got slaughter in the second vote. Best practice would say it will only end up going down hill, you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
|
Post by pgantioch on Jun 5, 2017 11:34:14 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. Sorry, Gordie, I just can't see how choosing which songs should be on a Jackie album is a child-rearing decision. Nor is deciding that fans can't make vids at her concerts; nor are the characteristics of a Jackie doll we've discussed. Sure, the number of gigs & the general direction of her career could be considered in the context of child-rearing, but not most of the details we've discussed. Anyway, Jackie will be 18 in a matter of months, & all this talk about child-rearing will be irrelevant. Jackie will be responsible for her own career. It's true that our debates don't affect what Jackie does. But you think fans of any artist shouldn't have these debates at all? What's the fun in that? LOL!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 11:56:36 GMT -5
You have to poke the doll in the belly to make it sing. Mine are still in the packages, but there's a hole in the front. She sings the first line of When You Wish Upon A Star. For some reason I thought you could have her sing different songs when she's out of the box. But I was told by fans at Carmel that out of the box it's still the same song, just goes on longer. I never bought one when they were $36, only when Toys 'R' Us sold them 3 for $15. They're just sitting on a closet shelf, doing nothing. I've wondered if they might be worth something some day. My neighbor has a Farrah Fawcett doll that's worth about $200. The Jackie dolls won't be worth anything until years after I'm dead. I'm not likely to still be around when Jackie turns 30. I'm taking the dolls to my next local concert, Redondo Beach, and giving them away to kids. If anyone going to that concert has a grandchild that likes Jackie and would like one, let me know. I was told once about a fan whose wife would only let him talk about Jackie on Mondays and if he ever purchased the doll, she would never sleep with him again and he could sleep with the doll instead. I always assumed they were mainly aimed at the girls 6 - 8 or so that frequent her concerts, and often are clutching her doll. Well, maybe also for those that must have "everything Jackie" or put them away as a possible collector item. To me, not a bad marketing decision, especially if (as one poster noted) the E's had no skin in the game. Maybe a bobble head would be better - bigger head to draw a more realistic face on. Probably still would not be a big seller. Don
|
|
|
Post by jamesn on Jun 5, 2017 13:26:14 GMT -5
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... You have to poke the doll in the belly to make it sing. Mine are still in the packages, but there's a hole in the front. She sings the first line of When You Wish Upon A Star. For some reason I thought you could have her sing different songs when she's out of the box. But I was told by fans at Carmel that out of the box it's still the same song, just goes on longer. I never bought one when they were $36, only when Toys 'R' Us sold them 3 for $15. They're just sitting on a closet shelf, doing nothing. I've wondered if they might be worth something some day. My neighbor has a Farrah Fawcett doll that's worth about $200. The Jackie dolls won't be worth anything until years after I'm dead. I'm not likely to still be around when Jackie turns 30. I'm taking the dolls to my next local concert, Redondo Beach, and giving them away to kids. If anyone going to that concert has a grandchild that likes Jackie and would like one, let me know. I'd like to repeat some input I gave on one of the old defunct forums after the doll came out. I happen to LIKE dolls and have done some serious reading about them and their merchandising as collector's items as well as playthings. IMHO the Jackie doll succeeded as neither, for the following reasons. Glenn Mandeville, one of the leading writers about Barbie and other play dolls, many of which have gone on to become collectors' items themselves, states that in his opinion NO doll since Barbie has really been successful if they were a radically different size because they simply didn't fit in with the other dolls in a little girl's collection; they couldn't wear Barbie clothes, fit into Barbie-sized cars, furniture, or houses, etc. This oddball wasn't made by Mattel or any other recognized manufacturer, but was instead a knock-off using no then-existing body molds, ensuring it wouldn't fit any other available doll clothes. Most other "celebrity" dolls I've seen include Brooke Shields from the 1970's; Brittney Spears and Christina Aguliera from the 1990's; and more recently, Hillary Duff and others, all of which have used Barbie-sized bodies. The problem with the Jackie doll when released was that since Jackie was still very much a child, an adult Barbie-type body was even more inappropriate than the one they did use. There were certainly other Mattel-type dolls that could've been copied such as Barbie's "little sister" Skipper or the then-popular Mary-Kate and Ashley dolls (which were by Mattel and used Skipper bodies), but they were by necessity small so maybe less noticeable. The doll itself not only failed to look much like the then-ten or eleven-year-old Jackie, but was awkward and ungainly out-of-the-box. It's very poorly articulated and doesn't pose well at all. In addition it's wearing no known Jackie fashion - the knee-length dress most closely resembles the one she wore at David Foster's first Fight Night in Las Vegas, but without the panty hose or tights she wore with it. Though a seemingly unimportant feature, for that reason it might not appeal to adult collectors who want it more closely resemble Jackie. The body is oddly a pubescent one, complete with budding breasts, more like Jackie a couple of years later; the arms and legs are skinny and tubular, not at all realistic for any age! Boxed, it doesn't look too bad, except for the most important part, the face. Part of the trouble is with the hairstyle, pulled back unlike any she's ever worn - removed from the box and untied so it can fall and frame her face it looks much better and more like Jackie. In summary, this appears to have been a rush job produced without anything like careful thought, only desiring to get something - anything - before a hopefully buying public to capitalize on Jackie's recent popularity. The only redeeming feature is the box, the design of which is attractive and uses good then-current publicity photos of Jackie taken for Dream With Me. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to convince targeted buyers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 13:47:15 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. Sorry, Gordie, I just can't see how choosing which songs should be on a Jackie album is a child-rearing decision. Nor is deciding that fans can't make vids at her concerts; nor are the characteristics of a Jackie doll we've discussed. Sure, the number of gigs & the general direction of her career could be considered in the context of child-rearing, but not most of the details we've discussed. Anyway, Jackie will be 18 in a matter of months, & all this talk about child-rearing will be irrelevant. Jackie will be responsible for her own career. It's true that our debates don't affect what Jackie does. But you think fans of any artist shouldn't have these debates at all? What's the fun in that? LOL! I reread my post in light of your response and realize that I could have been more clear. I agree that not all decisions made by Mike and Lisa concern both career and child-rearing implications simultaneously. However, some do; for example, a decision might be needed regarding the timing and promotion of releasing an album. The timing and promotion (which might require Jackie's direct input) could be in conflict with family obligation, perhaps involving another sibling or even vacation plans. An event for Jackie might need to turned down or rescheduled if it interfered with family plans. Decisions that involved both family and career will always lean toward family first.
Some of these decision might result in having a detrimental affect on Jackie's career, however at the time the decision was made it may not have been clear as to the extent of detriment. Hindsight is 20 /20.
I will not go into ID'ing any poster or posts but will simply state that there have been some negative posts that at least border on affecting both child-rearing and career that IMO were not warranted.
|
|
|
Post by agog on Jun 5, 2017 13:52:34 GMT -5
Would this qualify as quality information? Alfred the second asks: Would this qualify as quality information? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Alfred it wouldn't. It's just politics. Again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 14:23:35 GMT -5
The issue of criticizing the Evanchos needs resolution.
I don't have to know the history of this forum to recognize that there is an underlying and long standing animosity here held by a few toward Jackie's parents, particularly her mother. In my opinion that does not represent the ethos of a fan forum created to support and encourage Jackie. Rather, it seems an inherent contradiction. The Evanchos are in my view as loving and mutually supportive as any family I know, perhaps more so considering the extraordinary challenges they have met together. An offense to one is an offense to the other. To me, it's absurd to suppose Jackie would be appreciative of "concern" for her from someone who maintains an attitude of disapproval toward her mother or father, who each have devoted themselves to supporting Jackie's dream, besides being protective parents. "Concern for Jackie's interest" seems disingenuous to me and simply used as a justification to excuse or perpetrate the animosity. I see no benefit in this for Jackie. It seems to me that the "freedom" to disapprove is considered paramount to any regard for Jackie's sensitivities.
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Jun 5, 2017 14:33:37 GMT -5
Personal or abusive criticism of Jackie or her family is out of bounds IYAM. But criticism of how the Evanchos have managed the business of Jackie's career, as long as it's respectful, is fair game. I agree with Rick about this. Completely agree. I myself have blocked members who have made cruel comments about Juliet. But just the other day I pointed out that Jackie's official web site is being neglected. Am I not a genuine fan, then, because I criticized management? If not blocked >>> it perhaps means you are of open mind and care
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Jun 5, 2017 14:40:04 GMT -5
Would this qualify as quality information? Alfred the second asks: Would this qualify as quality information? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Alfred it wouldn't. It's just politics. Again. Lets Pray for Alfi , politics is his love of life above all things .BTW my doll sings " Lovers " , should I kept it ? Ps the answer is of course all of above
|
|