Friends : Was Emily's request of Ross really that out of line?

I know that I'm going to upset a few fans here with this, but hear me out I know that the character of Rachel was adored by all, so when Emily made that request of Ross, we hated her character for it. But let's put it in perspective

Ross dated her and had a past with Rachel A past that later came into play with the birth of Emma. Clearly, there was still an attraction. And as long as Rachel was in the picture, there was always going to be that tension/chemistry between them.

Also, Ross said her name at their wedding. Think about the humiliation Emily had to go through

And, as stated already, Ross and Rachel later had a baby (and ended the series together), thus proving that while Rachel wasn't necessarily a threat, there would be an attraction. To me, Emily making this request of Ross, while harsh, was the best thing for their potential marriage and relationship work.

Thoughts?

Given that Emily knew they had been a couple before the whole wedding debacle, and probably was aware of the Ross and Rachel history prior to that, the request was one I didn't like. Not because of Rachel, who I don't like, but because I felt like the request came too late and at too high of a cost given the circumstances.

Emily should have made the request prior to the wedding, or at least some version of it if she was going to make the request at all. This was the period of time in which the two were negotiating what their life as a married couple was going to be, including where they'd live, who their friends would be, etc. It would have made sense at this time for Emily to have set boundaries with Ross concerning Rachel. She did not. She seemed to have no problem with Rachel.

Looking at all of the events surrounding Ross and Emily's relationship, Rachel never did anything during that period that should have changed Emily's opinion of Rachel (unless Phoebe confessed somewhere off screen about Rachel's intention to stop the wedding). It was Ross who messed up by saying Rachel's name and then again by inviting Rachel on his honeymoon.

Emily had a right to be angry with Ross by these actions, so much so that I can't see how she, even after they've had a chance to calm down and think about things in a rational way, would entertain the idea of trying to salvage the marriage. Many of us can't see why she went on with the wedding.

In order to do so, she changes everything that she and Ross previously discussed and agreed to on the condition that they would remain married and continuing working on moving past this event. Of course the big condition is that Rachel cannot be in his life anymore.

So now, even though Emily is totally justified in not trusting Ross, neither party is sure that the marriage is going to work, and Ross is in a position where he has to say yes to anything Emily requests for the foreseeable future.

We later find out that Emily's mindset at the time has her so untrusting of Ross that she expresses a desire to be with him at all hours of the day and night in an effort to monitor his actions.

The behavior immediately after the wedding where she goes into hiding and later asks for a divorce can be overlook as Emily being in shock and processing what has happened. But to still be like this later shows that the marriage won't work.

So in short, as Ross's wife, Emily should have equal say in their marriage and have the right to request that her husband not see his former girlfriend. However, she had plenty of opportunity and reason to make such demands prior to what happens at the wedding, and only chose to implement a demand after she marries him (while angry and with the intention of divorcing him), without knowing if the marriage will work, and with zero regard of how this ban impacts the rest of Ross's life.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

Emily should have made the request prior to the wedding, or at least some version of it if she was going to make the request at all.

---

Oh, for God sake. Emily had no way to know that there was a serious problem until Ross said the wrong name at the altar and then got on the plane with Rachel to go on her honeymoon the next day.

If Emily had set conditions about seeing Rachel before what happened in London, you would be saying, correctly, that Emily is nuts.

School should be back in session shortly. I hope you will ask your department chair to explain to you what a "tenure-track job" is.

Yep! My first class is the evening. Feel free to drop in :)

I agree that there was no way to know there would be a problem, but a lot of people prefer that their girlfriend or boyfriend not associate with exes, especially ones with backgrounds like Ross and Rachel.

And no, I don't think Emily is nuts for what she demanded or if she had demanded the scenario described previously. I think she's very insecure.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

but a lot of people prefer that their girlfriend or boyfriend not associate with exes,

---

You think that Emily is asking too much after what happened in London. It would be an extreme demand to do that before London. As you and others have pointed out, it is disrupting the entire group.

---

especially ones with backgrounds like Ross and Rachel.

---

Emily has no idea about the background. She has not been around Ross for very long and no one has told her.

---

or if she had demanded the scenario described previously.

---

Do you mean set conditions about seeing Rachel before they got married? Can't you imagine what you would be saying if Emily had done that?

---

I think she's very insecure.

---

Duh. Her husband has an ex-lover stuck in his head and he still wants to see her. Can you imagine anyone who would not be insecure under those circumstances?

You are blaming Emily because she did not set a disruptive and ridiculous condition before she knew what the situation was, and then, you are blaming her because she set a necessary condition after she realized the situation.

You don't seem to have any idea how little sense you make.

---

You don't seem to have any idea how little sense you make.

---

You don't seem to realize how much I laugh about how worked up you get over this issue lol.

Except that Emily had no problem with R&R 'S Friendship till Ross said Rachel's name at the altar.She shouldn't even need to ask.Ross should have thought of it on his own if he really wanted to give his marriage a real shot.

I've made the argument that Ross should have offered that and probably would have if the marriage actually looked like it was going to work. But I've also said nothing that happens after the wedding suggests any possible success at the marriage.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

I've made the argument that Ross should have offered that

---

I agree.

---

and probably would have if the marriage actually looked like it was going to work.

---

Oh be serious. Ross decides that he would rather moon after Rachel then be married to Emily. He has gotten what he wants. Emily is moving to New York. And then Ross asks a question to which he knows the answer and provokes the breakup.

---

But I've also said nothing that happens after the wedding suggests any possible success at the marriage.

---

Again, be serious. Emily shows up at the airport 12 hours after Ross said that the wrong name at the altar. And what does she see?

But she is still willing to move to New York as Ross's wife if he is willing to do what he has to do to give the marriage a chance. Emily is very committed to the marriage; it turns out that Ross isn't.

---

Ross decides that he would rather moon after Rachel then be married to Emily.

---

I think a lot of our disagreement on this particular issue revolves around how we interpret Ross and Rachel as a couple. I don't like Rachel, and I don't think the whole 10 years is about unrequited love.

Though they are obviously written to fall in love several times over ten seasons, they often ended things on a bad note leaving unresolved issues. Many of their plot lines (like getting married in Vegas) aren't so much about romantic intentions as they are actions under specific circumstances.

They were incredibly drunk and on vacation when they got married, and its conceivable that you could have replaced one of them with one of the other friends and yielded the same results. There were even prior episodes where it was made clear that either one or both of them weren't interested in starting anything. Ross's stupidity after the fact had more to do with him not wanting to be a failure at marriage for a third time than it did with being married to Rachel specifically.

And again, that's my take from the show. They fall in and out of love with each other, and only give it any real shot despite the petty, childish crap they would fall victim to in the past because they shared a child.

So when I am viewing the Emily and Ross situation, I don't view it from the perspective that he is majorly hung up on Rachel at that point, nor do I take his insistence to stay in NYC as having to do with Rachel (because it's about Ben). Your arguments suggest that your viewing of the show has left you with the interpretation that most every motivation Ross acts on has to do with Rachel. Neither are wrong.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

and I don't think the whole 10 years is about unrequited love.

---

Okay, nine years. Ross is always in love with Rachel. She seems to reciprocate that for a year.

---

Though they are obviously written to fall in love several times over ten seasons,

---

You are imagining that. That simply doesn't happen.

---

They fall in and out of love with each other,

---

That is complete crap. You're not paying any attention to what actually happens. Ross falls back in love with Rachel in the pilot. Eventually they get together. They are never really back together after that.

Ross always loves Rachel although sometimes he doesn't understand it. Rachel leads Ross on, but she never gets back with him until the end.

It is simply not a matter of their falling in and out of love with each other. Or breaking up and getting back together repeatedly.

People sometimes imagine that because there are other stories in which that happens, but it doesn't in this story.

---

You are imagining that. That simply doesn't happen.

---

Your opinion. There are many times throughout the show where one has renewed interest in the other which is not reciprocated (be it because someone has a partner, or someone thinks it isn't a good idea, or whatever). This is what I am referring to when I say they fall in and out of love.

Ross specifically states on at least one occasion that they are not going to get back together because he is not interested, and one of the times he says this is when he thinks they are discussing sleeping with each other.

Ross being Ross would make more of that if he was "in love" with Rachel at that point.

---

Ross falls back in love with Rachel in the pilot.

---

He certainly does, or at least has nostalgic throwback to what he felt for Rachel prior to being married. At the very least, we know that he does eventually really fall in love with current Rachel.

Pilot Ross in general is a hard topic to tackle because you have to separate who he ends up being as a character (in general) throughout the show from who he was as a man facing divorce before 30 at that specific moment in time, and keep in mind, this is about as tragic a divorce for him as it can. He's not getting a divorce because he doesn't love his wife anymore or someone cheated or they can't get along. He's getting a divorce because his wife has realized she is a lesbian.

Given that he's a romantic, we can take his words about wanting to be married as both, "I want to be back in my marriage with Carol before she realized she was a lesbian" and "I want to be married in general."

And then in walks Rachel in a wedding dress, and now you have desperate wish of being married and nostalgic love, and of course Ross is going to be interested. If the real "in love" feelings form there, well that's up for debate.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

Your opinion.

---

No, it is way beyond that. It is what happens.

It is not a subjective opinion. It is a question of fact. And it is really obvious to anyone who paid attention to what is actually happening.

There may not be one clear right answer, but there are sure as hell a lot of really wrong answers.

exactly. the fact that he doesn't even think of such a thing shows how hopeless it is.

louiseculmer wrote:

---

the fact that he doesn't even think of such a thing shows how hopeless it is.

---

Sometimes people have to be pushed to do what they know that they should do. That is the case here.

In fact, Ross knows what he should do:

---

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!

---

But it turns out that he is not a grown up.

It seemed during the Emily episode that Ross wanted to get over Rachel, and if he wants to get over Rachel, it's not at all hopeless. At the last minute, Ross decides that he would rather be able to see Rachel than be married to Emily, but there was no way that we could know that before it happened.

In retrospect, it was hopeless because Ross doesn't want to get over Rachel. I don't see how you could have known that before Ross made that decision. It could've gone either way. I suspect that Rachel telling Ross that she still loved him tipped the scale.

If Ross decides that he does want to get over Rachel, you are simply wrong about the human psychology involved. It was not at all hopeless, and I don't think it would've been that difficult.

---

Emily should have made the request prior to the wedding, or at least some version of it if she was going to make the request at all.

---

Why would she do this before the wedding, when Ross said Rachel's name at the altar?

if she had doubts about Ross and rachel, she should have stopped the wedding and talked to Ross about it, rqther than going through with it and then starting to give him ultimatums. But the whole thing was a waste of time anyway - it was obvious emily was never going to be a permanent fixture in Friends. The whole thing was very tiresome, and more like a silly soap opera than a sitcom. Sitcoms should be funny, not full of melodrama.

louiseculmer wrote:

---

if she had doubts about Ross and rachel, she should have stopped the wedding and talked to Ross about it,

---

A discussion at the wedding is not going to resolve anything. It is only the next day when she sees Ross and Rachel getting on the plane for her honeymoon that she really knows.

---

Sitcoms should be funny, not full of melodrama.

---

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree.

---

if she had doubts about Ross and rachel, she should have stopped the wedding and talked to Ross about it,

---

She had no reason to have doubts before the wedding WHERE HE SAID THE WRONG NAME AT THE ALTAR. Asking Ross to limit Rachel in his life before he did anything wrong would have been nonsensical.

Scarlett_Butler

And a brief recess to discuss the matter would not have resolved anything. Freudian slips show that there is something going on, but not what the person "really" thinks.

It is only the next day at the airport that Emily knows there is a very real problem.

And why couldn't Ross stop the wedding once he realized what he did why does everything have to be on Emily?

trowbridge_nancy wrote:

---

And why couldn't Ross stop the wedding once he realized what he did why does everything have to be on Emily?

---

Well, could have, but he thinks that he is over Rachel the fool and he wants to marry Emily.

I presume you remember that back in New York, Ross put a lot of effort and a lot of sincerity into persuading Emily that she is the one that he wants. Ross is no more perceptive or introspective about himself than Rachel is about herself.

savagesketch13 wrote:

---

Was Emily's request of Ross really that out of line?

---

No.

It was all common sense, and the marriage didn't have a chance without what Emily wanted. I've already written a lot about this recently, and I will try to find you a link tomorrow.

Emily would have to have been out of her mind to move to New York if Ross was still seeing Rachel.

My thoughts are this same exact topic was raised days ago and it has hundreds of replies on it, and I can't believe the same people are going to say the same thing all over again.

Cursedchild13 wrote:

---

and I can't believe the same people are going to say the same thing all over again.

---

There are frequently new people involved and some of them understand what the situation really is.

In this particular case, I am agreeing with someone who has come to the same conclusions that I have.

And anybody who doesn't agree with you just "doesn't understand." You're such an obnoxious tool.

kristen1165 wrote:

---

And anybody who doesn't agree with you just "doesn't understand."

---

No not anyone, but it does come up a lot.

I'm amazed at how many people simply have no understanding of what it is like to be in the grips of irrational, compulsive love.

---

the grips of irrational, compulsive love

---

I can agree with this point. Not everyone goes through this, so not everyone can understand the motivations of someone who does.


But
Not everyone agrees with this assessment of Ross, and it's plausible and reasonable to watch this show and have a completely different interpretation of what is going on with Ross and his feelings for Rachel.

Different interpretations of content will logically lead to differences of opinion about any number of events simply because we view character motivations differently. That doesn't mean that someone else is wrong when they argue something you disagree with or that it's crap. It's just a different interpretation.

Which, funnily enough, was part of the discussion we had in class tonight about why they have to read more than just the textbook.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

and it's plausible and reasonable to watch this show and have a completely different interpretation of what is going on with Ross and his feelings for Rachel.

---

I have never heard a different interpretation that makes any sense.

---

That doesn't mean that someone else is wrong when they argue something you disagree with or that it's crap. It's just a different interpretation.

---

Some interpretations are just crap.

---

Some interpretations are just crap.

---

And that attitude is why some people on this board can't take you seriously. It's not your view so it has no validity.

I may not agree with your view of everything we've personally discussed, but I don't think you're just plain stupid because it contradicts my view.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

And that attitude is why some people on this board can't take you seriously.

---

There there are quite a lot of people on this board that I don't begin to take seriously. I have a lot of them on ignore, and I should probably put more there.

You have become one of the people that I don't even begin to take seriously, but what you write is so mostly obviously wrong and the responses are so obvious that I am tempted to do so.

---

It's not your view so it has no validity.

---

A lot of my views came out of discussions on this board over the years. I will change my mind if I am given a compelling reason, but I will not treat nonsense as something other than nonsense just because it is someone's opinion. For example

---

Though they are obviously written to fall in love several times over ten seasons, they often ended things on a bad note leaving unresolved issues.

---

That is just nonsense. It doesn't happen unless you have such a nave view of human psychology that you think that when Ross does not recognize that he is in love with Rachel, he has fallen out of love with her. That's not the way these things work.

Or that Rachel genuinely falls in love with Ross again when he is with another woman, and just happens to fall out of love with him as soon as the woman is out of the picture.

Love can flip-flop all over the place. You can never want to see someone again one moment, and wants them desperately the next. Most people understand that it's not a matter of falling out of love and falling back in love again.

---

but I don't think you're just plain stupid because it contradicts my view.

---

Whether or not you are just plain stupid, I don't know. But I do know that you are intellectually dishonest, and I do know that you continue to push arguments that don't make any sense.

It seems that you are the sort of person who thinks that all non-subjective "opinions" are equal. That's just nonsense and there is no point to talking to someone like that.

I do know that you're the sort of person who will never admit that they are wrong.

I know that it is unbelievable that someone who teaches at a university does not know what a "tenure-track job" is.

---

I will change my mind if I am given a compelling reason

---

I don't care if you change your mind or not. I'm simply pointing out that you make some reaching claims (like your Ben conception story), that you admit are reaching, that you find more valid than people saying, "yeah, I watched the same thing you did and I took away something different from it."

Whole fields of study are based around the idea that several people can look at and study the same source material and come to completely different conclusions.

I find some of your arguments to be nonsense as well, and I point out what I disagree with and explain why. I just don't have to be a jerk about like you do.

---

That's not the way these things work.

---

It doesn't matter how things work in the real world when we are discussing a television show. TV shows don't work the way real life does because it wouldn't be nearly as interesting to watch.

So the idea that what I say can be dismissed because "That's not the way these things work" is laughable. It recalls the discussion we had where I pointed out that we never really know what Ross's (or Ted Mosby's ) university teaching jobs actually are because television and movies often don't discern or even care about the differences in lecturer, teacher, professor, or instructor. In real life, we know that these things have meaning, but on television we are not working within the confines of reality.

On television shows and movies (and fiction in general) people fall out of love all the time. They also fall back in love with people after falling out of love.

And frankly, even in real life people can do things that make you fall out of love with them, and there were plenty of bad screw ups between R&R that, in real life, would result in just that.

---

you are intellectually dishonest

---

You only say this because I called you out for accusing me of stuff, and then I wouldn't obey your demand to go hunt down every instance where it happened. What I did quote you swore didn't count because it really wasn't an accusation or you completely ignored in response.

---

you continue to push arguments that don't make any sense

---

1) No one forces you to respond to me.
2) Your contradictory opinion doesn't mean that my arguments don't make sense.

---

you are the sort of person who thinks that all non-subjective "opinions" are equal.

---

Oh absolutely not. An opinion/argument/thesis must have source-based support in order to have any credibility. We've both provided this, and while I would agree that would argument could be stronger than the other, neither of us are in the position to make that judgment.

And look! Another accusation!

---

I do know that you're the sort of person who will never admit that they are wrong.

---

any another!

I admit I am wrong when I am. You just can't have a wrong opinion.

---

I know that it is unbelievable that someone who teaches at a university does not know what a "tenure-track job" is.

---

It really is, especially when I 1)provided a definition, 2) provided text-based requirements to earn tenure while in a tenure-track job, 3) provided an explanation of what my specific school does when someone completes the 5th or 6th year of said tenure track job to apply for tenure, 4) discussed how regional accrediting bodies and schools set minimum standards for who can be eligible for tenure track jobs, and 5) provided links to other places that talk about this more in depth.


By the way, you never asked how my courses were going.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

I'm simply pointing out that you make some reaching claims (like your Ben conception story), that you admit are reaching, that you find more valid than people saying, "yeah, I watched the same thing you did and I took away something different from it."

---

I have two opinions that are outside of the mainstream. One is that Carol's pregnancy was deliberate, and the other is that Rachel wants to break up with Ross. I have not seen any at all convincing arguments against those positions.

My opinions explain what is happening a lot better than anything else that I know.

The rest of what I believe is also believed by a majority of people who post here, though not by the people who post the most.

This board, like the rest of the Internet, suffers from Gresham's Law of the Internet. Bad posters drive out good posters.

---

Whole fields of study are based around the idea that several people can look at and study the same source material and come to completely different conclusions.

---

Sure, there are many things that you can see legitimately in very different ways, but that does not mean that all differences of opinion are legitimate.

---

It doesn't matter how things work in the real world when we are discussing a television show. TV shows don't work the way real life does because it wouldn't be nearly as interesting to watch.

---

TV shows are accurate to human psychology or they would not be successful. That is my point. Friends is very true to human psychology which is a major reason why it was so successful.

---

On television shows and movies (and fiction in general) people fall out of love all the time. They also fall back in love with people after falling out of love.

---

Well, that is not what is happening here. Do they really fall out of love and then fall back in love in a short period of time? Usually the feelings just go underground and then come out later.

So, did Ross fall out of love with Rachel after she broke up with him, and he then fell in love with Bonnie until Rachel crooked her little finger, and then he fell out of love with Bonnie and fell back in love with Rachel until he realized he wasn't going to get back with her and then he fell out of love with her again.

And then he fell in love with Emily, until until Rachel showed up unexpectedly in London, and he fell back in love with Rachel. He is still in love with Rachel the next day or he would not have been so easily persuaded to go on his honeymoon with Rachel, but when he spots Emily he falls out of love with Rachel and falls back in love with Emily.

Back in New York he is still in love with Emily. Then Rachel says that she loves him and Ross falls out of love with Emily and back in love with Rachel, but Rachel doesn't get back with him anyway.

Is that what you believe?

---

You only say this because I called you out for accusing me of stuff, and then I wouldn't obey your demand to go hunt down every instance where it happened.

---

I never said every instance. You said something like you couldn't be bothered to defend your intellectual honesty or couldn't take the time.

As time has passed, I have become much more certain what you are. But I wasn't accusing you of anything when you said that I had accused you of things a number of times. You were simply lying when you said that.

---

What I did quote you swore didn't count because it really wasn't an accusation or you completely ignored in response.

---

I just don't see suggesting that you like Rachel has an accusation. It is one of the main reasons that people dump on Emily, and I was looking for an explanation of why you were taking positions that don't make any sense.

---

And look! Another accusation!

---

One that is based on what you are saying.

---

any another!

---

and another that is based on copious examples of your behavior.

---

It really is, especially when I 1)provided a definition, 2) provided text-based requirements to earn tenure while in a tenure-track job, 3) provided an explanation of what my specific school does when someone completes the 5th or 6th year of said tenure track job to apply for tenure, 4) discussed how regional accrediting bodies and schools set minimum standards for who can be eligible for tenure track jobs, and 5) provided links to other places that talk about this more in depth.

---

You understand a lot about tenure, but you still don't have a clue what a "tenure track job" is. One of the things that you quoted makes it clear that it is not just any job but a very specific category of job.

---

It starts with getting a tenure-track academic appointment, no small accomplishment in a tight academic job market.

---

That is what I have been trying to tell you and that what you are not getting.

The context was you were saying that Ross would be giving up almost his entire life by agreeing to Emily's demands, and I asked if he would be giving up almost his entire life if he moved out of the New York area for a tenure-track job.

If you seriously think that anything that you have written addresses what a "tenure track job is, you must be really, really dumb. I prefer the explanation that it is just another example of your dishonesty.

---

Carol's pregnancy was deliberate

---

Which I disagreed with - though we both agree that regardless of the how, Susan is not a bad person.

---

Rachel wants to break up with Ross

---

Early RachelI totally buy this.

---

My opinions explain what is happening a lot better than anything else that I know.

---

The thing is, you are the one stating the opinion, and then going on to say that your opinion is superior. That you personally find your own opinion the best opinion isn't exactly an unbiased analysis.

---

The rest of what I believe is also believed by a majority of people who post here, though not by the people who post the most.

---

Majority opinion doesn't equate to correct or superior opinion. It's also hard to know what the majority opinion is anyway since even when people pick a side around here, their reasoning differs.

---

that does not mean that all differences of opinion are legitimate

---

I can agree with this to a point. There will be varying degrees of expertise, specific sources, etc. that will determine what opinion holds the most weight.

As we are using the same source in this case and none of us have a PhD. in Friends (unless I missed something) then I refer back to my previous statement that we can't legitimately claim that our own opinions are more valid because its the opinion we like best.

---

TV shows are accurate to human psychology or they would not be successful.

---

Not all the time and certainly not every one. Behaviors and motivations are often exaggerated when they do reflect human psychology. What we often get on Friends is a fantasy version of what it's like to be in your mid-late twenties while falling in love and getting your perfect dream job and learning to be an independent adult.

Does it reflect real things people can connect to? Yes. Navigating early adulthood is something that was and continues to be something people can relate to.

---

Is that what you believe?

---

No. I believe that Ross was forced to move on from Rachel after their break up which he does. A lot of his willingness to go back to her when he is with Bonnie can be attributed to not getting any real resolution from the break up because he still doesn't think he was in the wrong, nostalgia over what he had with Rachel, or the fact that he was closer to Rachel as friends than he was dating Bonnie. Rachel wanted to give their relationship a shot during that point, he wanted that more than Bonnie, so he goes after it.


I simply don't believe he was in love with Rachel when he got engaged to and then married Emily. So there was no falling in and out of love here period. And yes, after his marriage to Emily ends, Ross goes through the process of moving on from Emily and eventually falls back in love with Rachel during the series.

---

You said something like you couldn't be bothered to defend your intellectual honesty or couldn't take the time.

---

I still can't be bothered to go hunting through threads on a Friends message board. I deal with primary sources on a daily basis at work. I don't come home and do the same on a message board about Friends.

---

I just don't see suggesting that you like Rachel has an accusation

---

Then in the interest of putting that particular argument to rest, I will accept that it was not intended as an accusation.

---

That is what I have been trying to tell you and that what you are not getting.

---

No, I get what you're saying. It's just that I covered what you were saying in one of the earliest posts where we discussed this, and since then have been talking about the specific details of academic tenure track positions.

If it wasn't phrased to your liking, I can't do anything about that, but it's clear that I know what a tenure track job is separately from what tenure is since I have described, more than a couple of times, a position that places the person "on track" to be eligible for tenure. I even mentioned some of the ways that the decision to award tenure is based on in a tenure track position.

At this point, I honestly don't know if we're both saying the same thing and there is something being lost in translation, if you actually don't know what you're talking about in this situation, or if you're trying to troll me. I suspect it's probably the more nefarious of options since you seem to like using this discussion to provoke me.

Either way, I'm done with the tenure discussion unless it pertains specifically to the show.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

Early RachelI totally buy this.

---

Oh, wow. You are the first person who has indicated any agreement. So, you agree that it didn't matter what Ross did because Rachel wanted to break up with him. Whether this was conscious or unconscious I don't know, but Rachel's behavior was driven by a desire to find a way to break up with Ross in which it was his fault.

---

That you personally find your own opinion the best opinion isn't exactly an unbiased analysis.

---

No, it depends on the arguments that I use, and in this case, the explanatory power of the hypothesis.

---

Majority opinion doesn't equate to correct or superior opinion. It's also hard to know what the majority opinion is anyway since even when people pick a side around here, their reasoning differs.

---

I wondered about that, and I actually conducted a survey a few years ago. Except for thinking that Rachel should get over Chloe, I was always in the majority.

---

I refer back to my previous statement that we can't legitimately claim that our own opinions are more valid because its the opinion we like best.

---

As always, a position stands or falls on the arguments that are used. As always, that is a matter of judgment.

---

I still can't be bothered to go hunting through threads on a Friends message board.

---

You just lied about what I was saying, and aren't even ashamed of it.

---

A lot of his willingness to go back to her when he is with Bonnie can be attributed to not getting any real resolution from the break up

---

Willingness? He was quite eager. You don't think he still in love with Rachel; you think he just wants "resolution?"

---

Rachel wanted to give their relationship a shot during that point, he wanted that more than Bonnie, so he goes after it.

---

Nonsense. Rachel set conditions that she knew that Ross would never meet because she did not really want to get back with him. She just wanted to get rid of Bonnie.

---

I simply don't believe he was in love with Rachel when he got engaged to and then married Emily.

---

Oh, be serious. He thinks that he's not in love with Rachel, but when she shows up unexpectedly he makes the Freudian slip at the altar. That really should tell you something. The next day Rachel very easily persuades Ross to leave London without Emily. That should also tell you something. If it doesn't, then there's not much point to talking to you.

If you really don't understand that passions such as Ross's here don't just go away, maybe ever they just go underground until they get another chance then you are just not going to understand what is happening here. Ross wants Rachel more than any other woman for the entire 10 years. If Rachel isn't available, he will look at other women, but as soon as Rachel seems to be available he will go right back to her.

---

but it's clear that I know what a tenure track job is

---

you made it clear that you had no idea what I meant when I asked if Ross would be giving up almost his entire life if he moved for a tenure-track position outside the New York area.

You seem to think that all academic appointments can lead to tenure. That is just wrong. For a department to advertise a tenure-track job, they have to have an authorization a line from the administration to potentially give someone tenure.

The line is for a specific candidate. If the candidate does not achieve tenure, the line disappears it cannot just be transferred to someone else.

Departments cannot just add tenured positions at will. Ask your department chairman, or if you would prefer, I will do so.

---

So, you agree that it didn't matter what Ross did because Rachel wanted to break up with him.

---

I actually do because the reason they finally get together is because of a tape where he was going to take her to prom when it looked like her date wasn't going to show up. She got caught up in the moment while watching and decided to pursue a relationship with him. She also very easily broke up with him and pushed all the blame on him for the end of their relationship despite her role in the whole thing.

If pressed, I honestly don't think Rachel truly loves Ross until much later in the series when she's grown up a bit.

---

I was always in the majority.

---

Just out of curiosity, how long ago and has the posting population changed much? Do you know what age ranges you were polling then? Genuinely curious.

---

You just lied about what I was saying, and aren't even ashamed of it.

---

No, I took what you were saying as an accusation. You say it wasn't.

---

you think he just wants "resolution?"

---

I listed resolution as one of many reasons, not the lone reason.

---

Rachel set conditions that she knew that Ross would never meet because she did not really want to get back with him.

---

Would Rachel have set those conditions if she had not been given time alone while Ross was breaking up with Bonnie? With the way it was written, it seemed like it's possible that Rachel developed these conditions after getting what she wanted.

She certainly believed Ross the next morning when he said he agreed with the conditions (that he had not read), and he was going to go along with them until she started pushing (whichreally Rachel? Rub salt in the wound much?)

---

She just wanted to get rid of Bonnie.

---

Oh she totally wanted to get rid of Bonnie.

---

he makes the Freudian slip at the altar

---

He does this because Rachel shows up out of nowhere right before the wedding after weeks of being very blunt and loud about how she isn't attending.

I would argue the bad jokes and repeated use of her name in place of Emily's after the original slip better illustrates your point.

---

You seem to think that all academic appointments can lead to tenure.

---

Where did I say or imply that exactly? The closest I got to that was when I was discussing how TV and MOVIES handle academic appointments (Ted Mosby being an architecture instructor but also being a professor, having tenure as my example).

I explicitly said that it was a difficult thing to deal with in hypotheticals because TV and Movies don't adhere to real life rules about academia or tenure track positions within academia. I believe I even suggested that Ross could, under tv rules, get hired as an instructor and also have a tenure track position and be called professor because those words are used interchangeably within the mediums of tv and movies.

To take that and try to apply it to real life is being dishonest on your end, but I am very specifically not referencing real life in that discussion.

Of course not all academic jobs are tenure track. I never said they were. If we are looking at just teaching faculty, adjuncts, instructors, and lecturers aren't even tenured or tenure track unless the school they are at goes against what everyone else does.

---

it cannot just be transferred to someone else.

---

I don't believe I ever claimed this either. What I said was that many places will fire those who fail to be given tenure after applying.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

She also very easily broke up with him and pushed all the blame on him for the end of their relationship despite her role in the whole thing.

---

Yes, exactly.

---

If pressed, I honestly don't think Rachel truly loves Ross until much later in the series when she's grown up a bit.

---

It is hard to know what is going on inside Rachel's head. Ross certainly loves Rachel vastly more than she loves him and that gives her the leverage that she uses.

She goes to considerable effort to prevent Ross from making a permanent relationship with another woman, but she doesn't get back with him herself.

---

She certainly believed Ross the next morning when he said he agreed with the conditions

---

I don't believe that for a minute. She knew all along that Ross would never agree to those conditions.

---

(whichreally Rachel? Rub salt in the wound much?)

---

She doesn't want to get back with Ross, and that is the way to get Ross to quit so it is not her fault.

---

it seemed like it's possible that Rachel developed these conditions after getting what she wanted.

---

I don't believe that Rachel had planned ahead, but she doesn't want to get back with Ross and she thought a way around that.

---

Just out of curiosity, how long ago and has the posting population changed much? Do you know what age ranges you were polling then? Genuinely curious.

---

https://www.surveymonkey.com/analyze/v46Qm6ZSLzBJkWlRpfnGC_2Fsndos19qxA3LVcxQdJiRI_3D

I'm not interested in arguing whether or not the survey has any value. It did confirm my suspicion that the people who actually post do not represent a majority opinion.

---

No, I took what you were saying as an accusation. You say it wasn't.

---

I was referring to this:

---

You seem to accuse me of quite a number of things because you dont like my position on this.

---

Not my speculation about your liking Rachel. You should've been able to document that easily at that point, but you knew that you were lying and couldn't.

---

He does this because Rachel shows up out of nowhere right before the wedding after weeks of being very blunt and loud about how she isn't attending.

---

Well, yeah, but if he weren't still in love with Rachel, why would that have any effect on him. Part of Ross's mind guesses correctly why Rachel came to London even though she hasn't said anything.

---

Where did I say or imply that exactly?

---

Here

---

Yes. I have [a tenure-track job].

---

That is flatly impossible and demonstrates that you don't have a clue what a tenure-track job is.

---

So first of all, I said some sort (or type) of full time instructor which could include any of the titles mentioned above.

---

That is also untrue. A lecturer or instructor is not a tenure-track job. They are essentially always on the level of assistant professor.

---

Of course not all academic jobs are tenure track. I never said they were.

---

It sounded to me like you were saying that. In any event, you have no understanding that tenure-track jobs are difficult to come by even though you quoted something that pointed that out.

---

What I said was that many places will fire those who fail to be given tenure after applying.

---

Almost all will. That is the usual practice.

---

I believe I even suggested that Ross could, under tv rules, get hired as an instructor and also have a tenure track position and be called professor because those words are used interchangeably within the mediums of tv and Movies.

---

It was a hypothetical question based on what would happen in the real world, not in the world of a sitcom.

---

Take that and try to apply it to real life is being dishonest on your end, but I am very specifically not referencing real life in that discussion.

---

The question was whether or not you think that Ross would be giving up almost his entire life if he took a tenure-track job outside of the New York area. That has nothing to do with what the series doesn't understand about academic matters.

You claim that Ross would be giving up almost his entire life if he agreed with what Emily wanted. But people give up that all the time for a tenure-track job, and Ross almost undoubtedly would have if he did not see the prospect of tenure in the New York area.

But he is not willing to do that for Emily.

I did not have any trouble finding the quotes above from your previous posts. And you wouldn't have if you could have documented your claims.

---

It is hard to know what is going on inside Rachel's head

---

My guess is not much outside of Rachel herself.

---

that is the way to get Ross to quit so it is not her fault

---

Rachel is a woman who was literally responsible for setting an apartment on fire and tried to blame Phoebe for it. I'm sure she didn't need any actual reason to blame him.

---

why would that have any effect on him

---

I imagine because I would be very surprised and happy if one of my best friends suddenly showed up at my wedding after aggressively saying they weren't going to. No one can blame a guy for being happy that his friend showed up at his wedding.

---

That is flatly impossible and demonstrates that you don't have a clue what a tenure-track job is.

---

You have no idea what my employment contract says or what my title is, so you actually can't make this claim with any legitimacy.

---

That is also untrue. A lecturer or instructor is not a tenure-track job. They are essentially always on the level of assistant professor.

---

1) "Some sort (or type) of full time instructor" was used to designate a position in which someone's full time job was to teach. It was not used as the actual position title.

2) A lecturer and instructor aren't the same as an assistant professor, or they aren't at any of the places I have attended, worked, or taught. Assistant professor is above those titles but below associate professor.

---

you have no understanding that tenure-track jobs are difficult to come by

---

Oh I am well aware, and increasingly, it's difficult to be awarded tenure even if you have a tenure track position because universities would rather pay adjuncts than tenured professors ever since enrollments took a plunge eight years ago.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

I imagine because I would be very surprised and happy if one of my best friends suddenly showed up at my wedding after aggressively saying they weren't going to. No one can blame a guy for being happy that his friend showed up at his wedding.

---

Ross said the wrong name at the altar out of happiness? Yeah, sure.

Maybe part of him was happy because maybe Rachel showed up because she still loved him look at his face before he says the wrong name but it sure as hell wasn't happiness that his friend had managed to make it that turned his attention from his bride to someone else at that critical moment.

Do you actually hear what you are writing?

[Ross did not first spot Rachel from the altar. He had had a brief, awkward conversation right before that. Rachel was very nervous.

When Ross is asked the critical question at the altar, he has known for a short period of time that Rachel is there. Part of his unconscious mind figures out, correctly, why Rachel is there, and thus the Freudian slip.]

---

You have no idea what my employment contract says or what my title is, so you actually can't make this claim with any legitimacy.

---

I believe you describe yourself as lecturer or instructor. You have never described yourself as Assistant Professor, so you not have a tenure-track job. Also, you have not finished a PhD.

---

1) "Some sort (or type) of full time instructor" was used to designate a position in which someone's full time job was to teach. It was not used as the actual position title.

---

A full-time job is not by any means necessarily a tenure-track job. It usually isn't.

---

2) A lecturer and instructor aren't the same as an assistant professor, or they aren't at any of the places I have attended, worked, or taught. Assistant professor is above those titles but below associate professor.

---

Are you being really dense on purpose? That is what I've been trying to tell you. A lecturer or instructor is not a tenure-track job. Assistant professor typically is.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

To take that and try to apply it to real life is being dishonest on your end, but I am very specifically not referencing real life in that discussion.

---

I believe that my hypothetical question should have been clear to you, and I have no idea what it wasn't, but let me try it this way.

Imagine a person, Russ, who is in exactly the same situation as Ross except that he isn't in a sitcom. He has exactly the same social relationships. Identical in every way except he is not in a sitcom.

If Russ were to take a tenure-track job at a prestigious university outside of the New York area, would you say that he was giving up almost his entire life by leaving his apartment, his furniture, and his friends behind? That is what Ross is giving up if he agrees with Emily's demands.

I believe almost all academics would take such a tenure-track job if they did not see the prospect of tenure in the New York area, so it is really not giving up almost your entire life. Normally people have to go to where the tenure-track job is, and that can be anywhere, so there is nothing unusual in that happening.

I remember a friend being hired to a tenured position at the University of Nebraska. It is not what he would've preferred, but he took it.

And my response to this question was, and continues to be, if "Russ" wants to accept a tenure track position and work as an academic in a university setting, and he is not already doing so, then he should take it.

If "Russ" still works in a museum at this point and wishes to do that the rest of his life, then he should not accept that position.

If "Russ" is at the point where he has a university position already, is it also tenure track position and if so, will the tenure benefits, should he be awarded tenure, be as good or better than what he would get through the other tenure track job? If it is not a tenure track position, then he should accept the job. If it is a tenure track position with similar or better benefits, then he may want to turn down the job.

My Grad school advisor is Polish and took an American tenure track position. I know very well that we go where the offer is.

The-Doll-Face wrote:

---

And my response to this question was, and continues to be, if "Russ" wants to accept a tenure track position and work as an academic in a university setting, and he is not already doing so, then he should take it.

---

Even though it would mean "giving up almost his entire life?" Assuming the job is outside the New York area, he is giving up what Emily wants him to give up actually somewhat less. But you regard what Emily wants as excessive and unworkable.

Ross was still at the museum when Emily was around. He was kicked out of the museum later in that season and he was out of full-time work for a year. He was then offered a part-time job at NYU and was told that it might turn into something permanent.

What Emily wants Ross to do is what people routinely do when they moved to another area. It is not as if her conditions were somehow "cruel and unusual." They happen all the time.

That is the point I've been trying to make. In my hypothetical question, I gave Ross a strong incentive to take such a job, and you might have understood what I was saying if you had had any idea what a tenure-track job is at that point.

So have we established that Ross is not willing to give up for the woman that he loves what he would almost undoubtedly give up for a tenure-track job? Right?

That was my first thought when I saw thid thread too. I was thinking along the lines off "Oh no. Not another one only a few days after that other one looked like it was finally gonna die."

Once upon a time there was a magical place where it never rained. The end.

Yes.

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

savagesketch13

You can find this subject been the death in the thread Could You Really Blame Emily?

imdb.com/board/10108778/board/view/264511520?d=264511520#264511520

You might want to glance at it. You can make up your own mind about which of us is not making any sense.

Why oh why is there yet ANOTHER Emily thread??!!

Yes Emily was being unreasonable- how can Ross give up his LIFE and belongings that make up his entire living??!!

But it's not her fault she felt the way she did as Ross treated her like a complete kn ob starting with the wedding and continuing with the honeymoon and then rachel having dinner with them when Emily was on the phone.

She was asking too much-but it is Ross (and rachel a weeny bit) who caused her to feel that way. Emily cannot be blamed and it's really annoying how everyone makes her out to be some sort of monster when all she did was innocently (and stupidly) fall in love with a douche, and a douche who has a jealous and selfish ex sniffing around willing to ruin her wedding.



**cArNiVaLs oF fAyGo**

This

the trouble is the request comes after emily has gone through with the marriage. The time to give him ultimatums about Rachel would have been before they got married. She should have called the wedding off and had it out with him. but ross himself, if he really loved Emily, would be more interested in spending time with her than hanging around with Rachel. He wouldn't need ultimatums. The whole thing is pretty hopeless really.

But I always found the whole Ross and Emily story unconvincing anyway - it was far too sudden, and he'd barely known her any time at all before they were getting married.

louiseculmer wrote:

---

the trouble is the request comes after emily has gone through with the marriage.

---

Oh, for God sake. Read

www.imdb.com/board/10108778/board/view/265153645?d=265156072#265156072