Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member suffering succotash in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tuesday, June 10th Daily Discussion
Topic Started: Jun 10 2014, 01:46 AM (18,930 Views)
The Room Stops
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:24 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 12:02 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 11:36 AM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:14 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalkinghunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangerous, etc.
The parenthetical examples in the definition are just that -- examples. And the separate lines of text represent separate definitions, not a set of criteria that must be met. A situation does not need to adhere to all of those things in order to represent stalking. Many words in the English language have multiple meanings.

I realize that you like Marlena and want to defend her, and that's fine, but whether you agree with the use of the word or not, it is indeed appropriate to use it to describe what Marlena did during Tuesday's episode. She stalked Kate and Sami with the intention of eavesdropping on their conversation so that she would be free to talk to them about what she had learned from Gabi in confidence. Honestly, quibbling over semantics isn't going to change that fact or make it any less wrong than a doctor "accidentally" leaving a patient's confidential medical file laying out in plain sight with the intention that a specific person will find it and read it so that the doctor can then freely discuss the contents of that file with the person.
The show did not establish that Marlena was following them with an intent to find a way to expose what she knew. That is not a fact, it's up for interpretation.
Really? Marlena practically dared Sami to confess during their conversation at the police station last Tuesday, and the next time we saw either of them, Marlena was lurking in the shadows, watching Kate and Sami, stalking them, and eavesdropping on their conversation. I'm pretty sure that the writers intended there to be only one possible interpretation for Marlena's actions.
I just edited the clips, and when we first see Marlena, she was standing by a flower cart. She sees them walk away. Next time we see her, she's not hiding, not lurking, she's literally walking up to them, not hiding until she hears them talking. Not lurking, not hiding until she heard them talking about her.
Edited by The Room Stops, Jun 11 2014, 12:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Room Stops
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:08 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:56 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 11:27 AM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:14 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalkinghunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangerous, etc.
I know what stalking means. Marlena was definitely hunting them in a manner of speaking. She was attempting to catch them discussing their crime so that she could confront them about it.

How about another definition:


stalk 2 (stɔːk)

— vb
1.to follow or approach (game, prey, etc) stealthily and quietly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalk?s=t

Can anyone really argue that this isn't what Marlena did?
Hunting? No not at all. Following because she was curious about what they were up to? Yes. That is not hunting or stalking in any way. Stalking has a very negative connotation, and Marlena was not being dangerous or threatening. Sorry, we'll just have to disagree.
She knew exactly what they were up to. That's why she stalked them to the secluded section of the town square in the first place. If the scenes in question had occurred before her counseling session with Gabi, it would have been a different story entirely, but they didn't.

Rephrasing what she did with a "nicer" word like "followed" to remove any negative connotations doesn't make what Marlena did any less wrong. Call it "following" and it's still just as inexcusable. There's no way to spin Marlena as an innocent in this.
Wow, young me did a lot of wrong things apparently. I followed this cute boy from the handball court to the football area several times. He was so bad at handball, but oh so cute.

I always think of stalking as behavior, and following as something you've done once. Different country, different definition?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:34 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:08 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:56 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 11:27 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalkinghunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangeroushttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalk?s=t

Can anyone really argue that this isn't what Marlena did?
Hunting? No not at all. Following because she was curious about what they were up to? Yes. That is not hunting or stalking in any way. Stalking has a very negative connotation, and Marlena was not being dangerous or threatening. Sorry, we'll just have to disagree.
She knew exactly what they were up to. That's why she stalked them to the secluded section of the town square in the first place. If the scenes in question had occurred before her counseling session with Gabi, it would have been a different story entirely, but they didn't.

Rephrasing what she did with a "nicer" word like "followed" to remove any negative connotations doesn't make what Marlena did any less wrong. Call it "following" and it's still just as inexcusable. There's no way to spin Marlena as an innocent in this.
Wow, young me did a lot of wrong things apparently. I followed this cute boy from the handball court to the football area several times. He was so bad at handball, but oh so cute.

I always think of stalking as behavior, and following as something you've done once. Different country, different definition?
Nope, stalking is definitely thought of as dangerous BEHAVIOR here too. If Marlena was stalking Kate and Sami, she would be doing it all the time, and in a threatening way which might cause Sami and Kate to go to the police and get a restraining order. :blulaugh:
Edited by Rosebud, Jun 11 2014, 12:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
six
Member Avatar


The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:34 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:08 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:56 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 11:27 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalkinghunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangeroushttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalk?s=t

Can anyone really argue that this isn't what Marlena did?
Hunting? No not at all. Following because she was curious about what they were up to? Yes. That is not hunting or stalking in any way. Stalking has a very negative connotation, and Marlena was not being dangerous or threatening. Sorry, we'll just have to disagree.
She knew exactly what they were up to. That's why she stalked them to the secluded section of the town square in the first place. If the scenes in question had occurred before her counseling session with Gabi, it would have been a different story entirely, but they didn't.

Rephrasing what she did with a "nicer" word like "followed" to remove any negative connotations doesn't make what Marlena did any less wrong. Call it "following" and it's still just as inexcusable. There's no way to spin Marlena as an innocent in this.
Wow, young me did a lot of wrong things apparently. I followed this cute boy from the handball court to the football area several times. He was so bad at handball, but oh so cute.

I always think of stalking as behavior, and following as something you've done once. Different country, different definition?
There's more than one definition of stalk, and Marlena's actions falls under one of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 12:44 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:34 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:08 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:56 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalkinghunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangeroushttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalk?s=t
She knew exactly what they were up to. That's why she stalked them to the secluded section of the town square in the first place. If the scenes in question had occurred before her counseling session with Gabi, it would have been a different story entirely, but they didn't.

Rephrasing what she did with a "nicer" word like "followed" to remove any negative connotations doesn't make what Marlena did any less wrong. Call it "following" and it's still just as inexcusable. There's no way to spin Marlena as an innocent in this.
Wow, young me did a lot of wrong things apparently. I followed this cute boy from the handball court to the football area several times. He was so bad at handball, but oh so cute.

I always think of stalking as behavior, and following as something you've done once. Different country, different definition?
Nope, stalking is definitely thought of as dangerous BEHAVIOR here too. If Marlena was stalking Kate and Sami, she would be doing it all the time, and in a threatening way which might cause Sami and Kate to go to the police and get a restraining order. :blulaugh:
By you maybe. That word gets used pretty frequently in contexts where danger and police aren't involved.

Why is the distinction such a big deal?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM
Rosebud
Jun 10 2014, 08:18 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 10 2014, 02:54 PM
As expected, Julie annoyed the hell out of me today. Nothing that Gabi or Hope told her sunk into that thick, Nick-loving skull of hers, and she continues to make excuses for him and act like he was the victim instead of the abuser. It's going to be a long time before I can start to feel anything other than disdain for her. I wouldn't be surprised if newer viewers don't even realize that Julie is related to Will and Arianna. Hell, she seems to have forgotten herself.

Marlena also annoyed me today -- I can't help thinking that what she is doing is borderline unethical, if not blatantly so. I've suspected since her conversation with Gabi that she was going to either break Gabi's trust or manipulate the situation to find a loophole so that she would be free to talk about the river incident with Sami and Kate, so I'm not surprised that the latter happened, but the fact remains that it does feel like a manipulation to me.

And just once, I want to hear a character thank another character for not confessing a crime to them and consequently burdening them with the task of keeping it quiet instead of constantly hearing characters whine about how the person who committed the crime should have confided in them about it.
Marlena overheard Sami and Kate, and did nothing unethical today.
She stalked them for the express purpose of overhearing them so that she would be able to loophole her way out of being bound to respect Gabi's confidentiality. I stand by my assessment that what she did was borderline unethical, if not blatantly so.
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM
Rosebud
Jun 10 2014, 08:18 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
She stalked them for the express purpose of overhearing them so that she would be able to loophole her way out of being bound to respect Gabi's confidentiality. I stand by my assessment that what she did was borderline unethical, if not blatantly so.
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
If? He has done stuff like that. So have all the other doctors. I think this is less problematic than the other ways they've found around it. For me, though, I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying because it was Kate and Sami's secret, too. Now if she goes and finds a way to tell someone who actually doesn't already know, then I think that would be a little more in line with the ethics you're talking about.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 11 2014, 12:50 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 12:44 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:34 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:08 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalkinghunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangeroushttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalk?s=tbefore her counseling session with Gabi, it would have been a different story entirely, but they didn't.

Rephrasing what she did with a "nicer" word like "followed" to remove any negative connotations doesn't make what Marlena did any less wrong. Call it "following" and it's still just as inexcusable. There's no way to spin Marlena as an innocent in this.
Wow, young me did a lot of wrong things apparently. I followed this cute boy from the handball court to the football area several times. He was so bad at handball, but oh so cute.

I always think of stalking as behavior, and following as something you've done once. Different country, different definition?
Nope, stalking is definitely thought of as dangerous BEHAVIOR here too. If Marlena was stalking Kate and Sami, she would be doing it all the time, and in a threatening way which might cause Sami and Kate to go to the police and get a restraining order. :blulaugh:
By you maybe. That word gets used pretty frequently in contexts where danger and police aren't involved.

Why is the distinction such a big deal?
Beats me, I just thought it was funny that what she did was construed as stalking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


lysie
Jun 11 2014, 01:01 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
If? He has done stuff like that. So have all the other doctors. I think this is less problematic than the other ways they've found around it. For me, though, I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying because it was Kate and Sami's secret, too. Now if she goes and finds a way to tell someone who actually doesn't already know, then I think that would be a little more in line with the ethics you're talking about.
I said "if" because I was thinking more about this episode than anything that happened in the past. I basically just meant that this conversation would have likely gone a different way if it had been about Daniel instead of Marlena.

I understand what you're saying about it being Sami and Kate's secret as well as Gabi's, but that doesn't really make it any better, IMO. If we go back to last Tuesday's episode, Sami really shouldn't have even known what Marlena and Gabi had talked about in the first place, but Marlena made a point of making that abundantly clear in her own way. That was where she found a way to tell someone who didn't already know (what she and Gabi had discussed), IMO. And she knew that after she made it clear to Sami that she knew about the river incident, it would just be a matter of time before Sami would warn Kate. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it like that, I could actually easily argue that Marlena was laying the groundwork last Tuesday for what happened this Tuesday. She set a trap and waited for Sami to walk into it.

This reminds me of those games that people play when they're sworn to secrecy -- "You promised Soandso that you wouldn't say anything, so blink once for yes and twice for no in response to the following questions, and I'll guess the secret so that you're not technically saying anything to me about it." Except that Marlena's sworn to secrecy as a professional responsibility, not just as a friendly one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM
Rosebud
Jun 10 2014, 08:18 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
She stalked them for the express purpose of overhearing them so that she would be able to loophole her way out of being bound to respect Gabi's confidentiality. I stand by my assessment that what she did was borderline unethical, if not blatantly so.
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
Why would she need to get confirmation from them? Did she really doubt what Gabi told her? I doubt it. I think she simply wanted to find out why her daughter continues to do stupid stupid things. Getting the confirmation from the horse's mouths was just a bonus. It's not like she knew they would say what they did to each other in public. Anyone could have overheard them. They are idiots.
Edited by Rosebud, Jun 11 2014, 02:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 01:52 PM
lysie
Jun 11 2014, 01:01 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
If? He has done stuff like that. So have all the other doctors. I think this is less problematic than the other ways they've found around it. For me, though, I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying because it was Kate and Sami's secret, too. Now if she goes and finds a way to tell someone who actually doesn't already know, then I think that would be a little more in line with the ethics you're talking about.
I said "if" because I was thinking more about this episode than anything that happened in the past. I basically just meant that this conversation would have likely gone a different way if it had been about Daniel instead of Marlena.

I understand what you're saying about it being Sami and Kate's secret as well as Gabi's, but that doesn't really make it any better, IMO. If we go back to last Tuesday's episode, Sami really shouldn't have even known what Marlena and Gabi had talked about in the first place, but Marlena made a point of making that abundantly clear in her own way. That was where she found a way to tell someone who didn't already know (what she and Gabi had discussed), IMO. And she knew that after she made it clear to Sami that she knew about the river incident, it would just be a matter of time before Sami would warn Kate. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it like that, I could actually easily argue that Marlena was laying the groundwork last Tuesday for what happened this Tuesday. She set a trap and waited for Sami to walk into it.

This reminds me of those games that people play when they're sworn to secrecy -- "You promised Soandso that you wouldn't say anything, so blink once for yes and twice for no in response to the following questions, and I'll guess the secret so that you're not technically saying anything to me about it." Except that Marlena's sworn to secrecy as a professional responsibility, not just as a friendly one.
I don't think it was intentional last week. I thought it might be when I initially read the summaries, but I don't think it played out even close to anything I read. Deidre even mentioned during her chat the way she glared at Sami, and I really didn't find it that significant. But admittedly, that could all be a really wrong interpretation (it kind of reminds me of Cafe, and how it was obvious in the writing and spoilers where it was going, but I just COULD NOT see it onscreen). We're in a weird place right now where I actually almost like the way Marlena is being written better than I like how Deidre is playing it. Anyway, at this point I don't think it's been quite as deliberate as you're saying, but I could see why you'd think that. I doubt we'll know for sure because I don't see there being any follow up. That's one of the frustrations of having the character on so little. We get very little of her POV.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 11 2014, 01:01 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
If? He has done stuff like that. So have all the other doctors. I think this is less problematic than the other ways they've found around it. For me, though, I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying because it was Kate and Sami's secret, too. Now if she goes and finds a way to tell someone who actually doesn't already know, then I think that would be a little more in line with the ethics you're talking about.
Yea, if she was purposely "stalking" them to find a "loophole" so she could break her confidentiality clause with Gabi, why when she heard what she did didn't she run to the police and report it. IMO she saw an opportunity to confront her ridiculously immature daughter who ends up in jail somehow every other year.

It's not like Marlena knew Gabi was going to tell her something about Sami, but there it was and I don't expect Marlena to just let that go without talking to Sami about it. Not that it ever does any good with that woman.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 01:52 PM
lysie
Jun 11 2014, 01:01 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
If? He has done stuff like that. So have all the other doctors. I think this is less problematic than the other ways they've found around it. For me, though, I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying because it was Kate and Sami's secret, too. Now if she goes and finds a way to tell someone who actually doesn't already know, then I think that would be a little more in line with the ethics you're talking about.
I said "if" because I was thinking more about this episode than anything that happened in the past. I basically just meant that this conversation would have likely gone a different way if it had been about Daniel instead of Marlena.

I understand what you're saying about it being Sami and Kate's secret as well as Gabi's, but that doesn't really make it any better, IMO. If we go back to last Tuesday's episode, Sami really shouldn't have even known what Marlena and Gabi had talked about in the first place, but Marlena made a point of making that abundantly clear in her own way. That was where she found a way to tell someone who didn't already know (what she and Gabi had discussed), IMO. And she knew that after she made it clear to Sami that she knew about the river incident, it would just be a matter of time before Sami would warn Kate. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it like that, I could actually easily argue that Marlena was laying the groundwork last Tuesday for what happened this Tuesday. She set a trap and waited for Sami to walk into it.

This reminds me of those games that people play when they're sworn to secrecy -- "You promised Soandso that you wouldn't say anything, so blink once for yes and twice for no in response to the following questions, and I'll guess the secret so that you're not technically saying anything to me about it." Except that Marlena's sworn to secrecy as a professional responsibility, not just as a friendly one.
Haha, Sami only had to look at Marlena and she knew Marlena knew what Gabi said to her. How is that Marlena's fault? Sami did something wrong and it's Marlena's fault again for knowing about it and looking at Sami with accusatory eyes? And that little meeting with Marlena outside the room was the beginning of Marlena's unethical determination to trap them? For what purpose?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 01:56 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
Why would she need to get confirmation from them? Did she really doubt what Gabi told her? I doubt it. I think she simply wanted to find out why he daughter continues to do stupid stupid things. Getting the confirmation from the horse's mouths was just a bonus. It's not like she knew they would say what they did to each other in public. Anyone could have overheard them. They are idiots.
I said nothing about Marlena seeking confirmation, so I'm not sure where that question came from. I said she stalked Sami and Kate and eavesdropped on their conversation so that she could freely confront them about what they had done.

The first shot of Marlena in Tuesday's episode was of her standing in place and watching Sami and Kate, as though she had been in that very spot for a while. There was no movement to suggest that she had just arrived as Kate and Sami were walking away. Therefore, I believe that we were meant to conclude that Marlena had eavesdropped on Kate and Sami's entire opening conversation -- including the part where Sami said to Kate, "Do you really think we should do this here?" -- and that we were meant to further conclude that she had gotten the impression that they were headed to a more secluded area to continue their conversation "in private" so that they could discuss the river incident. So yes, I do think that she knew -- or at least suspected -- that they were about to discuss what they had done -- maybe not in public, but somewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 01:56 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
Why would she need to get confirmation from them? Did she really doubt what Gabi told her? I doubt it. I think she simply wanted to find out why he daughter continues to do stupid stupid things. Getting the confirmation from the horse's mouths was just a bonus. It's not like she knew they would say what they did to each other in public. Anyone could have overheard them. They are idiots.
I said nothing about Marlena seeking confirmation, so I'm not sure where that question came from. I said she stalked Sami and Kate and eavesdropped on their conversation so that she could freely confront them about what they had done.

The first shot of Marlena in Tuesday's episode was of her standing in place and watching Sami and Kate, as though she had been in that very spot for a while. There was no movement to suggest that she had just arrived as Kate and Sami were walking away. Therefore, I believe that we were meant to conclude that Marlena had eavesdropped on Kate and Sami's entire opening conversation -- including the part where Sami said to Kate, "Do you really think we should do this here?" -- and that we were meant to further conclude that she had gotten the impression that they were headed to a more secluded area to continue their conversation "in private" so that they could discuss the river incident. So yes, I do think that she knew -- or at least suspected -- that they were about to discuss what they had done -- maybe not in public, but somewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
Edited by Rosebud, Jun 11 2014, 02:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mouse Mom


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:56 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 11:27 AM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:14 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 10:14 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalking
She followed them from one place to another, and that's stalking? I don't think so. Following,sure but not stalking. I'll quote the other posters definition of stalking for you:

stalk
verb

: to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangerous, etc.
I know what stalking means. Marlena was definitely hunting them in a manner of speaking. She was attempting to catch them discussing their crime so that she could confront them about it.

How about another definition:


stalk 2 (stɔːk)

— vb
1.to follow or approach (game, prey, etc) stealthily and quietly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalk?s=t

Can anyone really argue that this isn't what Marlena did?
Hunting? No not at all. Following because she was curious about what they were up to? Yes. That is not hunting or stalking in any way. Stalking has a very negative connotation, and Marlena was not being dangerous or threatening. Sorry, we'll just have to disagree.
She was stalking, she was hunting. She was hunting for information to ultimately hurt them and by virtue of that, she was dangerous to them. It ain't rocket science people. When you follow someone around and don't make your presence known in order to find some way to get the dirt on someone, it is stalking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 01:56 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
Why would she need to get confirmation from them? Did she really doubt what Gabi told her? I doubt it. I think she simply wanted to find out why he daughter continues to do stupid stupid things. Getting the confirmation from the horse's mouths was just a bonus. It's not like she knew they would say what they did to each other in public. Anyone could have overheard them. They are idiots.
I said nothing about Marlena seeking confirmation, so I'm not sure where that question came from. I said she stalked Sami and Kate and eavesdropped on their conversation so that she could freely confront them about what they had done.

The first shot of Marlena in Tuesday's episode was of her standing in place and watching Sami and Kate, as though she had been in that very spot for a while. There was no movement to suggest that she had just arrived as Kate and Sami were walking away. Therefore, I believe that we were meant to conclude that Marlena had eavesdropped on Kate and Sami's entire opening conversation -- including the part where Sami said to Kate, "Do you really think we should do this here?" -- and that we were meant to further conclude that she had gotten the impression that they were headed to a more secluded area to continue their conversation "in private" so that they could discuss the river incident. So yes, I do think that she knew -- or at least suspected -- that they were about to discuss what they had done -- maybe not in public, but somewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
I'm calling it stalking because it was. You might associate the word with negative connotations, but it has other definitions that have nothing to do with threats and danger, and using it to describe what Marlena did is appropriate, even if, for the sake of argument, she "only" stalked them to the secluded section of the town square after accidentally stumbling upon them in the more public section of it.

We went from seeing Marlena and Sami at the police station at the end of last Tuesday's episode to seeing Marlena watching Sami (who was with Kate) at the beginning of this Tuesday's episode with no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dany_E
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:12 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 01:56 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
I said nothing about Marlena seeking confirmation, so I'm not sure where that question came from. I said she stalked Sami and Kate and eavesdropped on their conversation so that she could freely confront them about what they had done.

The first shot of Marlena in Tuesday's episode was of her standing in place and watching Sami and Kate, as though she had been in that very spot for a while. There was no movement to suggest that she had just arrived as Kate and Sami were walking away. Therefore, I believe that we were meant to conclude that Marlena had eavesdropped on Kate and Sami's entire opening conversation -- including the part where Sami said to Kate, "Do you really think we should do this here?" -- and that we were meant to further conclude that she had gotten the impression that they were headed to a more secluded area to continue their conversation "in private" so that they could discuss the river incident. So yes, I do think that she knew -- or at least suspected -- that they were about to discuss what they had done -- maybe not in public, but somewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
I'm calling it stalking because it was. You might associate the word with negative connotations, but it has other definitions that have nothing to do with threats and danger, and using it to describe what Marlena did is appropriate, even if, for the sake of argument, she "only" stalked them to the secluded section of the town square after accidentally stumbling upon them in the more public section of it.

We went from seeing Marlena and Sami at the police station at the end of last Tuesday's episode to seeing Marlena watching Sami (who was with Kate) at the beginning of this Tuesday's episode with no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
I can't agree. All definitions of stalking have a negative connotation. Stalking implies prey. And if you're "prey", you're threatened and in danger.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


Dany_E
Jun 11 2014, 03:16 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:12 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotsomewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
I'm calling it stalking because it was. You might associate the word with negative connotations, but it has other definitions that have nothing to do with threats and danger, and using it to describe what Marlena did is appropriate, even if, for the sake of argument, she "only" stalked them to the secluded section of the town square after accidentally stumbling upon them in the more public section of it.

We went from seeing Marlena and Sami at the police station at the end of last Tuesday's episode to seeing Marlena watching Sami (who was with Kate) at the beginning of this Tuesday's episode with no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
I can't agree. All definitions of stalking have a negative connotation. Stalking implies prey. And if you're "prey", you're threatened and in danger.
Definitions -- straight out of online dictionaries -- have already been provided in this thread that do not necessarily have a negative connotation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


S loves EJ
Jun 11 2014, 08:38 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 07:36 AM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 12:17 AM
lysie
Jun 10 2014, 06:39 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepand
I think it's totally an actor choice. I don't believe for one minute that script writers give two shits about any character's name. And they would totally not be consistent about it, considering how many different writers there are and have been through the years.
And all the Dimera actors separately decided to do it? ^o)

The inconsistency can be explained by there being more than one script writer. There's also at least one script writer who thinks younger relatives should use titles to refer to older relatives and others who don't.

Whether it´s on the actors or the writers I think EJ calling Sami Samantha is an Ejami thing in the same way as John calling Marlena doc or Bo hope Fancy Face is their thing. I think it makes the women feel special.
Except it's not really just an EJ thing. Stefano, Tony, sometimes John and even Nicole on occasions call her Samantha.

Although admittedly Nicole usually does that when she is mocking EJ.

Oh and Roman calls doc doc too.
Edited by concerned, Jun 11 2014, 04:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply