Not signed in (Sign In)
Welcome to The Watercooler, the companion forum to Northern Attack and all things concerning The Office on NBC.

Guests are free to browse the forums, although you will need to register for an account if you wish to participate in the discussions or use any of the advanced features of the forum (bookmarks, history, etc).

If you already have an account, please sign in now.

The Watercooler is powered by Vanilla, the sweetest forum on the web.

Bottom of Page
3.18 The Negotiation
  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 6
  5. 7
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. >
271 to 300 of 386
Apr 11th 2007

Loaded Teapot, i think there will definitely be a few around. i know at least for the seven sisters that are still single-sex, we've been doing pretty well in attracting more applicants. my college has grown a lot even since i started (i'm a junior) and more students= more money (mo' problems). so we've improved a lot of things as well.

i love making people uncomfortable with this screen name. not sure why exactly it does that, but i have Fancy New Beesly to thank!

Apr 11th 2007

Opinions on this question seem to be split by gender so far. Does that mean the women here would have no hard feelings at all toward another woman who made a move on your guy? (Emmyjean's already answered the question.)

Apr 11th 2007

I'll just echo Emmyjean's sentiments. I would be pissed, but the woman wouldn't owe me an apology. Especially if my husband made a move back. And I wouldn't throw punches, regardless.

slutty cheerleader, that's great to hear about the schools!

Apr 11th 2007

Does that mean the women here would have no hard feelings at all toward another woman who made a move on your guy?

They wouldn't have any hard feelings at all...about slamming said "other woman" down on the ground and laying a beatdown on them ;-)

Jealousy (whether male or female) can be a powerful thing, and Roy coming after Jim like that is (and I use the term loosely) "justified" in that sense. He had a fiancee, she kissed another guy, now they're seperated. Stands to reason that he'd want a fight with Jim. But in the grand scheme of things, Jim wasn't the only reason Pam called off the wedding. He may have been the final catalyst for that, but their problems ran much deeper than another guy "making a move" on his woman (and I think Roy totally thought of Pam as "his")

Apr 11th 2007 edited

she kissed another guy

This is the crux of it. As slutty cheerleader pointed out, Pam reciprocated - Jim didn't force himself on her. She was the one in the committed relationship with Roy, not Jim. Roy didn't even go after Jim in the heat of the moment. Sometime well after Pam told him what happened, after he had time to cool down and think about it, Roy decided to still physically confront Jim about it. I don't think what Roy did, either to Pam at the bar or to Jim at work, was "justified" in any sense of the word. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been angry. I'm saying that throwing glasses and lunging at human beings is ridiculous.

Apr 11th 2007

i agree with Two-Hole Punch Jim. I would definitely be jealous if someone made a move on my man; actually, now that I think about it, it's happened before. But the difference is, he wanted nothing to do with her and actually told me about it afterward because it made him feel so awkward; with Pam and Jim, there are real feelings there AND Pam's relationship with Roy was a weak one.

Apr 11th 2007

I've already posted a couple of thoughts here about TN and the now-infamous "WTF" breakroom scene, but here's my final thought on it.

In my prior two posts, I've made the following points: Jim's breakroom response to Pam was passive-aggressive but not at all out of line, considering what happened after the Confession of Love and The Kiss. My other point was that Jim and Pam will never get back to the pre-Casino Night friendship they had. The Kiss and the Confession changed all of that. Okay, brief history over.

Looking forward, I hope that Jim can push past his ego and his hurt pride to see that Pam loves him and that she always has, in every way possible. He also knows her better than anyone and he has to know that her inherent nature isn't going to suddenly change and she'll throw herself at him and make a big to-do about how much she wants him and yadda yadda yadda. That's NOT Pam - it's not even Fancy New Beesly. Pam is meek. Pam is shy. Pam talks a big game, but she doesn't act on it. (Unless it's a prank on Dwight, natch.) Jim will have to be the one - if we want this 'love match' to stay realistic - to put himself out there. Again.
I'm pulling for them, because I think their love is that sort of ideal romantic love we all aspire to, where your best friend, soulmate and lover are the same person.

Apr 11th 2007

To say that the kiss was somehow between Jim and Roy is to relegate Pam into the 'property' category. She was 'Roy's', and Jim tried to 'take' her.

Ok, first let me say that I also don't think there was anything wrong with Jim's actions, hence my statement earlier that I don't think Jim is actually sorry about it. However, that kiss most certainly affected Roy in (what he would consider) a negative way. It led to Pam breaking up with him. And it has nothing to do with Pam "belonging" to Roy. It's like Brian said, it's that she was committed to him (and him to her). That's why part of it is between Jim and Roy. No one owes any apologies for doing what they thought was best, but they've all been hurt as a result of each other's actions, so none of them are innocent either. That's why it's called a love "triangle."

Apr 11th 2007

I'm pulling for them, because I think their love is that sort of ideal romantic love we all aspire to, where your best friend, soulmate and lover are the same person.

This gave me the warm fuzzies, BigTunaFishing. Considering it's cold and rainy here today, it's perfect for right now. And your whole post is wonderful. I agree with all of it.

Apr 11th 2007

Aw, thanks LoadedTeapot...pretty much everything about the Jim/Pam dynamic gives me the warm fuzzies. :)

Apr 11th 2007

She was the one in the committed relationship with Roy, not Jim. Roy didn't even go after Jim in the heat of the moment.

But the question wasn't whether Roy should have attacked Jim at any time. Of course he shouldn't have. It was whether any person is right to get physical with another person who is engaged. It's a pretty strong statement to say they are. And if Jim was wrong to kiss her, it's irrelevant whether she reciprocated. It just makes her wrong too. One more thing she screwed up by not ending a meaningless relationship.

Apr 11th 2007

It was whether any person is right to get physical with another person who is engaged.

In most circumstances, I'd say no. But given that this is TV, and it's Jim and Pam, and Roy's a jerk, and Pam shouldn't be with him anyway, and Jim was making a last-ditch effort with her...I'm cutting them a lot of slack and saying it's OK. I don't think the fact that she reciprocated is irrelevant; however, my point is that I'd think Roy would be angrier with Pam than with Jim, seeing he has (supposedly) strong emotional ties to her and she's technically the one who betrayed him (and that's not a Pam-bash. She did willingly share a kiss with another guy, though. And I think she should have). I think his "anger" with Jim is somewhat misdirected, since there were bigger issues in the Pam/Roy relationship that needed to be addressed, and although Jim was one of those issues, his presence and being certainly highlighted other ones that had little to do with him.

Apr 11th 2007

I will say that I agree with Brian in the sense that there IS a difference between the confession and the kiss. I always look at things from different angles, as any obsessive person is wont to do. ;)

If Pam hadn't reciprocated Jim's feelings, and she honestly didn't feel about him the way he felt about her, then she would have probably been alternately touched and mortified by the confession, but would have had a perfect right to get good and mad at the kissing part. It would have gone something like, "Look, I told you no, and no means NO. Get off me." The confession is far less intrusive than the kiss, either in terms of Pam's personal space OR the engagement that was already a longstanding committment.

But I still don't necessarily think Jim was 'wrong'. I mean, if he'd weighed all the possible outcomes (including the idea that Pam would get pissed, tell Roy and Roy would come and kick his butt) and still decided to do it, then hey. His choice. But this is another reason why I kind of have a problem with Jim being pissy at Pam because Roy confronted him about it. Didn't he think about that BEFORE he did it in the first place? Sheesh.

Apr 11th 2007

LT I agree totally. My original point was the extremely narrow one that I could see why Roy was mad at Jim. I'm done taking Roy's side even to that extent. I have to go shower the icky feeling off now.

Can I just ask the obvious? Why didn't Pam just say no when Jim asked if she was really going to marry Roy? Wouldn't that have made things so much better?

Didn't he think about that BEFORE he did it in the first place? Sheesh.

Nope. Instead he high-tailed it out of town.

Apr 11th 2007

this is another reason why I kind of have a problem with Jim being pissy at Pam because Roy confronted him about it.

While this may be part of why Jim was pissy with Pam, I think his breakroom attitude was his frustration and anger regarding the much bigger picture. Sure, he was probably annoyed that she told Roy about Casino Night, but I don't think that was the big reason for his negative interaction with her in this episode. He's angry about many things, and I think the fact that he almost got beat up is a relatively minor blip on his Why I'm Upset With Pam Radar.

Apr 11th 2007

The confession is far less intrusive than the kiss, either in terms of Pam's personal space OR the engagement that was already a longstanding committment.

I have to disagree...hearing from your best friend that he's in love with you is a little more intense and intrusive than having him kiss you - especially when the kiss comes AFTER he's already dropped the L-bomb. :) Emotional confessions beat physical intimate acts (save for intercourse) every time.

Apr 11th 2007

I see where you're coming from, BigTunaFishing, but I'm just talking about what is 'appropriate'. Emotional confessions are way more...well, emotional. But people react to physical confrontation more strongly than emotional confrontation. It's like the difference, to me, between someone telling you they hate you, and someone just up and slapping you.

Apr 11th 2007

Right Emmyjean...I guess it all depends on your perspective. I should have been clearer. I'm weird - I feel less 'impacted' by physical acts than emotional ones. :)

Apr 11th 2007

Have to say, I liked this episode, despite the heartbreaks. I sure hope we can have more of Ryan/Kelly/Toby before the season is over. Andy is finally back, and his fight to stay calm will just make him more emotionally combustible. Is Andy staying for next season? I sure hope so, because all this gooshy stuff between Jim and Dwight will make it hard for Jim to pick on Dwight all the time. With Andy he can spread out the pranks a bit more.

Apr 11th 2007

I have been spending the better part of the hour, in between making Rice Krispy treats and doing the dishes, trying to decide whether I'd rather have someone slap me in the face or say "I hate you." So far, I think the verbal assault is winning by a hair, if for no other reason than because the slap would seem almost slapstick (no pun intended) comical. I might even laugh right afterwards from being so shocked. But with the "I hate you," there's no room for interpretation there. Of course, this is a little different than Jim and Pam's situation, but it's been an interesting way for me to occupy an hour.

Apr 11th 2007

To say that the kiss was somehow between Jim and Roy is to relegate Pam into the 'property' category. She was 'Roy's', and Jim tried to 'take' her.

Late to the party, but I vote with the boys: saying that this creates an issue between Jim and Roy does not turn it into a gender thing. Making a move on an attached person does naturally bring the significant other into it, because he or she does stand to lose something; not the person, but the relationship.

Apr 11th 2007

making Rice Krispy treats

Great, Loaded Teapot, now I want some Rice Krispy treats and I'm stuck at work and I can't have any!!! Waaaahhh...

Apr 11th 2007

Opinions on this question seem to be split by gender so far.

Well, I'm with the girls on this one. In fact this:

To say that the kiss was somehow between Jim and Roy is to relegate Pam into the 'property' category. She was 'Roy's', and Jim tried to 'take' her.

is exactly what I've been thinking, just in clearer words than I could find for it. I can understand Roy's rage, but Jim doesn't owe him shit. Pam is Pam's, not Roy's or Jim's. Period.

Apr 11th 2007

And as TheRealBenFranklin (former president, ever heard of him?) said...

And it has nothing to do with Pam "belonging" to Roy. It's like Brian said, it's that she was committed to him (and him to her).

Exclamation Point.

Apr 11th 2007

I think Jim was technically wrong for kissing her after Pam affirmed the supposed strength of her engagement to him, but it was quite possibly the most romantic thing I've ever seen on TV. I do not think that Jim owes Roy an apology, either. Not after all this time. Especially in light of the fact that Pam may have kissed back but she turned Jim down and Jim left the city. Even when Jim came back, no one could argue that he was in Pam's romantic way again. If Jim were going to apologize, he should have done it before he left. He owes nothing to Roy now. At the very most he might have acknowledged or accepted Roy's post-lunge apology.

I think I would rather be told I was hated than to be slapped. I think it would take a lot longer to forget the feel of the hand on my face than the sound of the words. But for nice things? I would rather be told I was loved than be kissed, especially in Pam's situation.

Apr 11th 2007

And it has nothing to do with Pam "belonging" to Roy.

It has everything to do with belonging to Roy, and you can say it doesn't as often as you want, but that's not going to make it any more true. A committment is between two people -- in this case, Pam & Roy -- and to assume that an outside party like Jim has any obligations toward Roy because of his behavior vis a vis Pam is to imply ownership. And I'd say that Roy's actions completely and totally imply that he owned Pam and Jim tried to steal her. It's as though Pam has no agency, and doesn't know well enough for herself who she wants to be with.

Apr 11th 2007

A committment is between two people -- in this case, Pam & Roy -- and to assume that an outside party like Jim has any obligations toward Roy because of his behavior vis a vis Pam is to imply ownership. And I'd say that Roy's actions completely and totally imply that he owned Pam and Jim tried to steal her. It's as though Pam has no agency, and doesn't know well enough for herself who she wants to be with.

I feel like I just went back in time 5 years to my Contract Law class. Wow, well done DwightfromtheFuture!

Apr 11th 2007 edited

You can say it does as often as you want, but that's not going to make it any more true. See how that stalls the dialogue? Besides, if I decide you're a bad guy, it's OK for me to put the moves on your woman? And you'd have no problem with me because I don't owe you anything? Besides Pam's mostly to blame for allowing Roy to treat her the way he did. Maybe she does need an agent.

Apr 11th 2007

Besides Pam's mostly to blame for allowing Roy to treat her the way he did. Maybe she does need an agent.

At first, this upset me. "Oh, no," I thought. "Not some of that 'Women are weak and have to have a man save them' crap." But thinking on it again, I agree that someone (of either gender) in a relationship that is bad for them might need someone else to step in and help put an end to it, if they're too weak or scared to make the first move alone.

Apr 11th 2007

I said I could understand Roy's anger, and I don't think I'd be without it in his situation, either. But to focus your anger on the other man does seem to imply either:

  1. You own the woman, or

  2. The woman is unable to decide for herself or control herself or keep from being manipulated by a man, the true actor, the only possible actor.

The first sentence I wrote was uncalled for, and I apologize.

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 6
  5. 7
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. >
271 to 300 of 386
Top of PageBack to discussions