Guys,
In seeing Laura hand over Millie's money for Jerry's birthday present to hold-up man, Lyle Delp, a question occured to me;
If Lyle had gotten away, should Laura (and Rob) have to repay Millie the $40.00, or should Millie (and Jerry) understand the circumstances, and Jerry not get a present (or maybe one not quite as nice) from Millie that year? Remember, we're talking about roughly $160.00 in today's economy.

Steve

Originally posted by SawgrassSteve
Guys,
In seeing Laura hand over Millie's money for Jerry's birthday present to hold-up man, Lyle Delp, a question occured to me;
If Lyle had gotten away, should Laura (and Rob) have to repay Millie the $40.00, or should Millie (and Jerry) understand the circumstances, and Jerry not get a present (or maybe one not quite as nice) from Millie that year? Remember, we're talking about roughly $160.00 in today's economy.

Steve

If I were in Rob and Laura's situation, I would repay the money to Millie. If I were in Millie's shoes, I would decline to accept.

Lolac
:crazy:

If I were Rob and Laura's position, I would offer the money to Millie, but would not expect her to accept. If I were in Millie's shoes, I would offer to split the loss 50-50.

I always have the same issue with "Brother, Can You Spare $25,000?"

Do you think Sally and Buddy should have had to chip in? What about swindling Mel for a contribution? I'm never quite sure how I feel about it.

I don't think they should have had to, but if they were faced with the possibility of having to write it all over again, I can see why they would rather pay up.
Mel should've been left out of it.

Steve

But they really weren't all chipping in; Rob was going to pay everyone back after he had been to the bank.

Was Rob right? Should Jerry not have organized a "group of vigilantes" to go over and kill the crabgrass on one of their neighbor's lawns?

Steve

Originally posted by SawgrassSteve
Was Rob right? Should Jerry not have organized a "group of vigilantes" to go over and kill the crabgrass on one of their neighbor's lawns?

Steve

Rob was right and I found Jerry insufferably obnoxious in that episode.

Lolac

:bash:

So did I. I was exasperated at the fact that Millie was going to go over there and help Jerry, too.

Should Laura have gone to the clubhouse to accidentally bump into Joe Coogan?
Should she have invited him to dinner before talking to Rob?
Should she have told Rob he is a Priest before he arrived?

Steve

Originally posted by SawgrassSteve
Should Laura have gone to the clubhouse to accidentally bump into Joe Coogan?
Should she have invited him to dinner before talking to Rob?
Should she have told Rob he is a Priest before he arrived?

Steve

No, no and yes.

Lolac:crazy:

Originally posted by Lolac
No, no and yes.

Lolac:crazy:

If Laura did/did not do those things the way Lolac said, there wouldn't be that episode, because there wouldn't be any comedic obstacles! Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, but sometimes the writers need to sacrafice a little morality for humor!
Sitcoms would be a lot more boring!:bored:

Kurt

Originally posted by DickVanDykeMan
If Laura did/did not do those things the way Lolac said, there wouldn't be that episode, because there wouldn't be any comedic obstacles! Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, but sometimes the writers need to sacrafice a little morality for humor!
Sitcoms would be a lot more boring!:bored:

Kurt

I agree with you, Kurt, believe it or not. In real life, Laura should not have done the things she did. But we're not dealing with real life now, are we? I love the Joe Coogan episode! Have you ever noticed how many things happen in sitcoms that don't happen in real life? For example: In "Dear Sally Rogers, she makes an appeal for a husband on "The Stevie Parsons Show," and the next morning when she arrives for work, there is a sack of mail waiting for her, including a post-card from Hawaii responding to her advertising for a husband the night before! It's funny, but not likely. I just don't want you to think that I take this stuff too seriously!

Lolac
:kiss:

Originally posted by Lolac
Have you ever noticed how many things happen in sitcoms that don't happen in real life? For example: In "Dear Sally Rogers, she makes an appeal for a husband on "The Stevie Parsons Show," and the next morning when she arrives for work, there is a sack of mail waiting for her, including a post-card from Hawaii responding to her advertising for a husband the night before! It's funny, but not likely. I just don't want you to think that I take this stuff too seriously!

Lolac
:kiss:

I never thought about that postcard from Hawaii in "Dear Sally Rogers!" That should go on our continuity thread.

The reason I said "Please don't anyone take this the wrong way..." in my last post was because I didn't want anyone getting mad at me for putting comedy and humor over morals and ethics.

Don't you wish real life was more like sitcoms? I know I do! Life would be so much more enjoyable and funnier. (Is that a word?:confused: ) As Buddy said once, "That's the trouble with real life, no punch lines." Thank God for sitcoms! :notworthy :tv:

Kurt

DickVanDykeMan,
One of the reasons I asked that question is because as my girlfriend and I were watching that episode, when the scene came up where Laura went to the clubhouse, my girlfriend gasped, shook her head, and said, "She should not do that!" So it made me curious about some of her other actions in that episode. Should Laura have even kept the sonnets and hid them in the first place? It also made me wonder what others of you thought of some of these things.
Although she's been described by some as the perfect wife, I have to admit however, it does make her a little less perfect, and therefore more human (I know, I know, she's not real).

Steve
PS, Lolac, I don't take this show too seriously either, but I do love it, as I know you do too!

In ep #51, "My Husband Is A Check-Grabber," Laura thought it was wrong for Rob to pay for dinner for his friends when he did. "Rob, they had dinner, we just had coffee, and anyway, Buddy fully expected to pay!"
Was Laura correct, or was she just being stingy?

Steve

I think Laura was right. I know I would get upset too if my husband paid for everyone else's dinner if all we had was a drink. Now, if we ate a full course dinner and paid for it, that would be a different story. We pay for our family and friends meals sometimes and they do the same for us. There's nothing wrong with that. Just make sure you have more than just a drink before bringing out that wallet, especially today. Restaurants are a lot more expensive!

Originally posted by SawgrassSteve
In ep #51, "My Husband Is A Check-Grabber," Laura thought it was wrong for Rob to pay for dinner for his friends when he did. "Rob, they had dinner, we just had coffee, and anyway, Buddy fully expected to pay!"
Was Laura correct, or was she just being stingy?

Steve

It wasn't necessary Rob paid for the check, but it was very genorous that he did. I think Laura was over-reacting a little, but Laura tends to over-react to things. (Over-reacting is one of Laura's comedic flaws, along with jealousy!) If she didn't over-react, then we wouldn't have this episode. Just my 2 cents...

Kurt

IMO, Laura was not overreacting at all. It is ridiculous that Rob should pay for dinner for 4 people, when he and Laura only had coffee. Nowadays, at a restaurant as nice as the one at which they were eating dinner, Rob would probably be picking up a $100 check, or more. If Rob were this generous with his money, I am sure that he is constantly doing more things such as this; thus, I can see why Laura would be upset.

Who was really at fault for the terrible accident Rob got into with his XKGJFK400 Roadster?
Millie's for butting and telling Laura to keep quiet?
Laura's for not telling Rob sooner about the cause of the original scratch? (Oops, I mean, "not a scratch, a scrrrrraaaatch!")
Or Rob's, since he was the one behind the wheel when he crashed it, "Once going in, and once backing out?!"

Steve

I thought I'd revive this thread. I think Rob was at fault in Steve's question. It doesn't matter what anyone else had done, he was behind the wheel when this accident happened. Of course, he wouldn't have been behind the wheel if Laura had told the truth from the beginning, but the fact of the matter is, he was behind the wheel and wasn't watching where he was going.

Now I have one for you: How do you feel about Laura asking Rob to take a dive in "Body and Sol?" Do you think she was right in telling Rob not to risk getting beat up by taking a dive or do you think she was wrong? Everytime I watch this episode (which I did today), I have thoughts about this. Before I tell you what my thoughts are, I want to hear yours.

Lolac
;)

Lolac,
To be certain of my answer, I watched this episode first. I'd forgotten how funny this episode is! Thanks for asking about it.
On first glance it seemed wrong to me for Laura to suggest such a thing. You either fight to win, or refuse to fight. But I'd forgotten that Rob had promised Laura he wouldn't fight any more, and was then blackmailed by a superior into doing so. That being the case, I think she was perfectly justified in telling Rob to "take a dive." Besides, it's not like she said it to make money, as "the gangsters" would have done. She said it to keep Rob's face from "being broken." :)

Steve

Originally posted by SawgrassSteve
Lolac,
To be certain of my answer, I watched this episode first. I'd forgotten how funny this episode is! Thanks for asking about it.
On first glance it seemed wrong to me for Laura to suggest such a thing. You either fight to win, or refuse to fight. But I'd forgotten that Rob had promised Laura he wouldn't fight any more, and was then blackmailed by a superior into doing so. That being the case, I think she was perfectly justified in telling Rob to "take a dive." Besides, it's not like she said it to make money, as "the gangsters" would have done. She said it to keep Rob's face from "being broken." :)

Steve

:rofl: I like your answer, Steve!

Now let me give you my view. This comes from the perspective I have as a black belt and having a son who is also a black belt, even though I have always had these feelings whenever I've watched this episode.

I think Laura's attitude shows a gross lack of faith in Rob. I think she's telling him she thinks he's a wimp and a weakling and she has no faith in his ability to rise to the occasion. That can be so demoralizing to a man, I think. When my son was training for his black belt, there were many times when he was sparring with someone with much greater ability than he, that I wanted to tell him to not do it, to be careful, etc. But I held my peace. Instead, I told him he could do it, don't show your fear, get in there and give it your best shot. At one point, he was terrified of testing for his black belt and he wanted to quit. I told him if he quit out of fear that he would never have any kind of self-respect. I encouraged him to get his black belt and if he didn't like the martial arts after he met his goal, he would be allowed to quit. Well, he got his black belt and guess what? He LOVES it! And he is one of the best fighters in his age group.
Now, do you think if I had told him to "take a dive," that would still be the case? I think not.
I think Laura sent a pathetic message to Rob about her feelings about him, by telling him to take a dive. I think she was being selfish and disrespectful to Rob and that has always bothered me.
However, like Steve, I think it is such a funny episode!! I love the way Rob staggers around the ring when he's fighting Boom Boom Bailey! I love that episode, Laura's attitude not withstanding.

Lolac

:wave:

Lolac,
Good points. Although I never mentioned it before, I too come from a martial arts background. Chinese as opposed to Korean. Traditional Hung Gar and Wing Chun schools didn't have belt rankning when I started, and many still don't, but suffice it to say I've been an assistant instructor in both forms at two different schools. Primarily in kicking technique.
My point is I understand where you're coming from. On one hand you're right. Laura had no confidence in "Pitter Patter Petrie" to defeat "Boom Boom Bailey" in the ring, and didn't mind saying so. And it did demoralize Rob to an extent. She is "certainly no Lily Palmer." But I would say the difference between their situation and ones your son (and I) have faced, is that there was a much greater potential for Rob to be seriously hurt by his opponent.
Rob was not merely slightly outmatched, but grossly outmatched, and he was not really in fighting shape to begin with (Ow Sol, that hurt!). Plus, the fight was for spectacle, not training, as his previous bouts had been. Things I'm sure neither of our martial arts disciplines would have allowed. Had Bailey not already been sick before he got into the ring (and therefore, overconfident), Laura's fears would have come true, and everyone knew it. The odds started at 11/1 for Bailey to win, and they went up!
She was just afraid for Rob.

I understand your point. Lolac ;)