Our Trading Spouses Review.

But I believe the poster who asked about the sexual issues surrounding the family bed was curious. Why would honest curiosity and attempted understanding bug you so much?
Only speaking for myself, but I get iffed, because 1) It really is a stupid question. Does the mainstream world REALLY think that he only place to have sex is in your bedroom?
WHy does it even have to be asked? What sick things are 'curious' and others thinking of?

It's time for the sons to get their own rooms.
I'm sure they appreciate that advice. I bet it's something they have not heard at all these last 2 weeks, lol

It's nice to have a room of one's own.
Maybe for you, but not for me. I hate it. I can't sleep alone and I don't want to.
It has been stated more than once by Carl as well as Luke and Kyle that they can sleep anywhere they want.
The younger son looks sad.
He looked normal to me

Buddy1 said it pretty well..
-sorry, just amazes / amuses / sickens me how some people think anything outside the mainstream accepted 'way' is wrong...


  • edited December 2004
    I've just (almost) posted our Trading Spouses Review. Before going any further, please do yourself a favor and check out our unofficial Trading Spouses page:

  • edited December 1969
    I think, the principal difference that existed between the two families was the manner in which they found happiness. Vicki and her family are loud and spontaneous, and their approach to life seems very care-free. The Abbott family seemed to find their contentment in more subtle ways, perhaps from spiritual routine. I don't think we could argue that either family has more love or contentment than the other, as that was clearly abundant in both.
    I think FOX's decision to portray things as they did wasn't so malevolent, as it was simply the most obvious narrative. It's popular entertainment. There has to be some kind of story.
    The fact that Vicki had a more aggressive nature and was forming a narrative in her own mind to explain what she saw as "crazy" behavior probably made it easier for the editors to establish that story. The fact that they could then play it off as a kind of redemption for Luke must have been irresistable to them.
    In the end, I think any thinking person could see the slant the show was putting on, and would realize there's a lot they weren't seeing.
    Anyway, let's not forget what the old adage: there's no such thing as bad publicity.
  • edited December 1969

    I read your article on all of the lies that Fox perpetuated. While I agree with you that the splicing of words is unfair, I think that you alientate a bunch of people to your cause because you only say they are "lies".

    I read your mom's comments that she wasn't upset with the Lowe girl about yoga, but rather that she was laughing at her dad trying to play the guitar. If you could edit some of your comments in your article from simply "lies" to specifically how or what they lied about, it would show more people that Fox was really out to get you guys (which I believe was the case).

    I think just saying "lies" make alot of people feel that you are just in denial, rather than knowing the "real truth".

  • edited December 1969
    theres 168 hours in a week-the show was 2 hours, minus commercials-and yet some poeple think they 'know' the real Abbotts from that amount of footage-sad how shallow some people are-I'd watch the whole 168 hours myself-the good, the bad, the ugly, then make a judgement...
  • edited December 1969
    I am in full support of the Abbotts and I know the show was only 2 hours long. Alot of people will not read the boards to find out the truths..they will just read Luke's comments and feel that he is in denial. My suggestion was just to ensure that people read the truths about the editing rather than having them rely on reading the message board.
  • edited December 1969
    That sounds great in theory, but the bottom line is that people don't WANT to know the truth - they are having MUCH more fun without it and don't care to be illuminated.

    Just today on AOL I was accused of being Leslie Abbott, then it was hinted that I was Luke, then someone said it was obvious that I had actually written this entire website and all the articles! And I'm just another "nobody" with no connection whatsoever to the Abbotts. All of this because I defended the family and shared my own personal thoughts on parenting, etc.

    So I don't blame Luke for just saying "they lied" and leaving it at that. I think those of us who see things from the Abbotts' side have all we need to know, and those who want to gripe about the Abbotts' lifestyle really have NO interest whatsoever in seeing things from any other perspective. Let them have their pathetic "fun", and next Monday they'll move on to griping about the next family Fox sets up to be the "freaks" of the week.

  • edited December 1969
    I agree about the boards. I haven't gone there for a bit. I can't believe they rip people apart solely based on what they see on TV. Not too many mature ones there.
  • edited December 1969
    dhardy123, about the "lies", you're absolutely right. I was thinking the same thing . . . "look at this guy, he can't stop whining!" I wrote that right after I saw the show. Just wanted to get my gut reactions down. At some point I'll condense my thoughts more. For now, though, I've put up what I call the "Parade of Lies", which gives a lot of specific examples of this, if you're interested.

    Susan's right, too . . . some people don't care about "reality" at all! It's just about entertainment. They don't want to hear anything else, lest it spoil their joy, laughing at these characters on their television. Not that I blame them, mind you -- people are just people.
  • edited December 1969
    I just think it helps you guys by presenting the facts.

    I have read your Parade of Lies and it is interesting but would be even better if you followed up some of the splices with what was actually said and/or what the topic was.

    Hang in there!
  • edited December 1969
    Hey Luke,

    Weird question. Where do you plan to go with the car? You gonna get a job and bring in some cash so Carl can take it and make sure you don't spread your wings any farther? :wink:
  • edited December 1969
    I might still write up a sort of "recap" of the episode and what really happened, but I haven't been really inspired to do so yet. You can probably guess why...

    As far as the car is concerned, see this post...
  • edited December 1969
    Just for the record, I didn't find anything wrong with the article on lies, and I don't think it made you look like you or the family is in denial.
  • edited December 1969
    Anyone know how these shows did ratings wise?
    Half of me wants them to have done well, for the exposure to the good the Abbotts showed, and the other half hopes it was buried deep down on the charts, because of the falseness...
  • edited December 1969
    well, far as I can figure out, part one finished 53rd, part 2 43rd for their respective weeks-not bad for Fox-ABC is suing them btw, for stealing the idea for the show from their own 'Wife Swap'...
  • edited December 1969
    I heard that TS (at the time when we were on) was the second to highest rated show that day. I think Amazing Race or Everybody Loves Raymond was first.
  • edited December 1969
    (JustAMuse here)

    Susan wrote:

    That sounds great in theory, but the bottom line is that people don't WANT to know the truth - they are having MUCH more fun without it and don't care to be illuminated.

    So true! Just today, on the Fox board, a woman actually said that to me. I could not believe it. I was trying to get people to chill and stop acting like a mob, and she told me to "shut up". Then, told me that I had no right interfering with their entertainment, and they do not care about being reasonable, etc.
  • edited December 1969
    Ah, the mob mentality...mass ignorance...of such things genocides are made...and it starts just like this.

    as for ratings, well, in my world, "Everybody Loves Carl', and nobody gives a damn about Raymond!
  • edited December 1969
    LOL I'm called an Abbott Groupie over there, :lol:

    Groupies sleep with rocks stars don't they? Luek is legal but I'd go to jail for touching Kyle. Plus I'm married and live too far away to be a groupie. Darn! lol
  • edited December 1969
    I'm single, I live closer, and I'll touch anybody who comes close enuf...

    such a fine line between groupie & stalker...
  • edited December 1969
    OK, I've posted a new and improved version of the Parade of Lies. This one I'm rather proud of, I must say, if for no other reason than it's formatted so nicely (all through CSS, baby!) It's at (where else) http://www.playingbyear.com/ts/


    P.S. - Such a fine line between someone who likes to chat and has a lot of free time and a stalker, judging by the emails I've gotten. Hmm...

    Oh, and I'll be your groupie, Frizzy! :wink:
  • edited December 1969
    Well, Luke, hotties like you and I have to expect a certain number of deranged fans and such...we have a responsibility to our public. but where does that responsibility end?
    It's the price one pays for beauty. Took me years to get comfortable with it...
  • edited December 1969
    Luke, I just read your updated page... very good. I noticed that you asked for help to stop this from happening to other families.

    My advice: get a lawyer. Get a high profile lawyer that could get face time on the cable news talk shows (except FOX news of course) and sue them for damages. Expose them nationally. Even if you signed a contract that gave T/S the right to edit the footage any way they wished, that shouldn't give them the right to do so maliciously. If you were to show a jury the scenes shown by T/S and then the source footage in context, do you think the jury would agree that T/S deliberately distorted reality in such a way to cause harm to your family?
  • edited December 1969
    No lawyer in his right mind will even look at this case, only the money hungry. The judge will throw this case out to discourage other petty reality tv cases. plus FOX has a deep unlimited pocket to hire worlds best attorneys or even just pay off the abbotts to silence them.
  • edited December 1969
    I'm sorry, but my lawyer has requested that I offer no comment. :D
  • edited December 1969
    I hate this lawsuit oriented society we have now, but it's almost unavoidable

    -for instance, i'm in a battle against Winco to have their posted signs changed from 'shoes required in store BY LAW' to one that reflects that this is merely a store policy-there is no law, no health code, etc requiring this-I've provided proof to them, I've had conatct with everyone form city councilmen to the state senate majority leader about it, and still they wont budge.
    Some say, let it go, shop somewhere else, but thats letting them get away with lying...so, it may go to a lawsuit situation, where i'm david to their goliath...I'll also be trying to get a stronger law passed against posting such misleading signs (theres one already on the books, apparently, which no one enforces)
    -all this time & effort just because they wont honor a reasonable request, and say 'we were wrong, please come in our store and spend money to help us survive in this poor ecnomy'...nobody has commn sense these days
  • edited December 1969
    "We agreed to do the show only upon their continuous assurance that this 'reality' show would be a truthful, albeit condensed, reflection of who we are."

    Sounds like fraud to me. Not all law suits are about money. Some are about setting the record straight.

    If the Abbott family feels they have been harmed i.e. exploited and slandered, what harm would come from consulting a lawyer?
  • edited December 1969
    paying the lovely lawyer's fees
  • edited December 1969
    [cite] dairyberry808:[/cite]paying the lovely lawyer's fees

    It's called "pro bono". The lawyer gets paid only if he wins the case.
    The courts are there to protect ones rights and provide justice. If one is wronged, the best recourse is the court system. It's the only thing T/S and FOX will respect. If you want national exposure to give your side of the story, a law suit is the only thing the media will respect. You have to admit, it makes for a great expose on a news magazine show.
  • edited December 1969
    What lawyer will take it on pro bono? Also, it's probably in the contract signed and in that case most lawyers won't touch it. You should watch vh1 All access reality secrets revealed and you'll find out the fox always does tons of editing on their stuff anyway. :D :D
  • edited December 1969
    I've been 'pro bono' for years-and i was very glad that Cher finally admitted what an important influence he was on her career, when she spoke at his funeral.
Sign In or Register to comment.