Rules for Posting

Click here for iwhyawli's tongue-in-check version of GWOP's 954,012 posting rules. If you're wondering why GWOP has so many posting rules, you're not alone.

Free Tutorial


I can't hardly wait

In another stunning move by the intellectual think tank known as Jon and Hailey, iwhyawli hears that Hailey is now planning to be interviewed by someone or something. I don't know by who or by what or when, but I'm relatively certain it's not Walter Cronkite on this week's episode of 60 minutes. I also use the term "planning" loosely as I'm confident a natural talent like Hailey has never given much forethought to anything. In fact, up until she read this blog entry, Hailey would have guessed that forethought and foreplay, which is something else she's never tried, meant the same thing.

It's hard to say whether the Hailey interview will be the world's shortest interview because she has nothing at all to say or the world's longest interview because she doesn't know when to shut up. In either case, we can bet it will be that delicious mix of abjectly painful, completely void of any substance and chock full of things to mock. I can't hardly wait.

Perhaps she'll explain her aversion to wearing a bra.

We can only hope that Hailey will shed new light on the horrible plight of unemployed party girls who are forced to live off Daddy's teat in the comfort of their "own" apartment in mid-town Manhattan. Poor Hailey. I need to cut her some slack. This recession probably has been especially rough-going for last year's batch of pot-smoking communications majors from IU with low GPAs who yet to even write a resume.

Surely we'll also hear (yet again) how the special bond between Jon and herself just happened. As in, unplanned. Ut-oh, there's that word again: unplanned. I'm detecting a theme here, Jon. Be careful. Hope you've been wearing a raincoat. This is not the time for any unplanned step-siblings or even an STD.

Oh yeah, how I could I forget. Hailey will make certain that we understand that their special bond accidentally happened AFTER the separation. No one is buying that but what's the harm in trying to float it again. After all, Jon's kids will google him someday, remember?

I'm somewhat hoping that all extramarital relationships are unplanned. Surely people don't deliberately set out to wreak havoc and heartache on eight small kids. Do they? Okay, Julie and Jodi are an exception. All the stuff they've done to the family was definitely deliberate. But this extramarital stuff never seems to take much more than some licquor (or in this case, some weed) and two people with no compass, no direction, no self-control and no self-respect.

Planning. It seems like it's really important.

BOO! Hiss!

Boo! Iwhyawli doesn't like it when there is only one new episode. I demand more filming! MORE FILMING!

:: watches Jodi's head explode ::

I was also disappointed that there was no iwhyawli t-shirt seen anywhere :: sniff sniff :: despite all those t-shirt scenes at the beach house. But then my beloved mentioned that this episode may have been filmed before the invasion of Carla's blog by GWOP's crooked house activists which is when the idea of an iwhyawli t-shirt was first conceived. :: crosses fingers ::

The new kitchen is lovely and much like my own kitchen except for the giant-size room, the giant island, the giant stove and the 100,00o linear feet of counter space :: turns green :: but I do have creme cabinets and black countertops. I also spent most of the episode thinking that the beach house kitchen was the new kitchen and also coveting the chairs in the beach house kitchen. I shouldn't multi-task when watching the show. No wonder I can't tell any of the kids apart, including Mady and Cara.

Jon proved to be a turd yet again. I'll watch the episode again more carefully but I'm pretty sure Kate didn't say a bad word about Jon once. Meanwhile, we see Jon taking several potshots at Kate. Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Yeah, I realize this episode was filmed before all the other cad moments in Jon's post-separation life, but the guy is 32 years-old. If I could offer Jon any advice at this juncture it would be to hire someone who is willing to give him some good, sound honest advice. Not a PR firm, but someone who genuinely knows how to find the high ground and behave like a decent human being. Apparently his mother isn't up to the task or he isn't listening to her.

I'll do it for free. Jon, no one wants to hear you or Kate talk smack about each other. Find something nice to say or bite your tongue. Try to remember that you're basically unemployable and have 8 kids to support. Try to be likable. Until you find some other means of income, you need to not get booted off the show.

Thoughts about Paul Petersen

I'll start by saying I know next to nothing about Paul Petersen. I don't believe I've ever seen "Father Knows Best" but I have seen "Marcus Welby, M.D." so I'll continue.

My problem with Paul Petersen is the same fundamental problem I have with all GWOPPERS. I honestly don't know what they're all so upset about and I don't think they do either.

In GWOP's thread titled Thoughts from Paul Peterson, I was certain all my questions would be answered but no such luck. Amidst all his mumb0-jumbo about Lee Ann Rimes, Jackie Coogan the "Principle of Disaffirmance", a biological imperative to reproduce and beasts of burden, what he wants still wasn't clear.

If he's pissed that Donna Reed and Robert Young never taught him how to write a coherent paragraph, okay, I'd understand that. Otherwise, is he pissed about "parental theft" or is he pissed about "the loss of eight children's freedom and privacy"? He mentions both and then some during the course of one very long, never-ending rambling mess.

If I had to guess, I'd guess Paul Petersen is mostly pissed about parents who fritter away the money made by their famous kids. I'd be pissed about that too. If there aren't laws to protect the income earned by child stars , there should be*. But then why does Paul Petersen also mention the 'freedom and privacy' stuff? Can there be child stardom without some loss of freedom and privacy? Isn't that loss of freedom and privacy the very thing, at least in part, that a child star (or any celebrity) is compensated for? Yet Paul asserts "there's no house big enough" blah, blah, blah...
yeah, excuse me while I get my tissues.

Which is it, Paul ? Your position is either: a) anti-child stardom where there is no loss of freedom/privacy and no opportunity for "parental theft" or b) you're okay with child stardom as long as there are laws protecting the child's income.

You can't argue both positions, Paul. You'll only wind up talking in circles and people like Maria Shriver or any other [jodi]politician with a heart for children[jodi] will never take you seriously. Even worse, you wind up on gwopwop with iwhyawli making fun of you.

* Paul's need for legal guardians , however, is just wacky crackpot talk.