January Jones gives birth to baby boy, but who is the daddy?

[Deckerd]

There's a difference between saying 'you're tacky' and 'speculating about this is tacky'.

 

[scotpens]

Remember, some people are born bastards — others spend their lives becoming one.

. . . Unwed? UNWED? What century are you from? Nobody uses either of those terms in the 21st century apart, it seems, from one throwback.

There’s nothing wrong with using a perfectly neutral word that simply means “not married.” Now, using the phrase “out of wedlock” or describing a pregnant, unmarried female as a “fallen woman” would be rather old-fashioned.

What, no The father is February Fox jokes? I'm disappointed.

Who the hell is February Fox?

So, what did she name the kid — August March?

 

[Thestral]

Tacky thread is tacky. Not Tachy thread, although that might help for once...

That said, I've never seen Jones in anything but X-Men:FC, and I thought she was terrible as Emma Frost.

 

[Professor Zoom]

What's with all the January Jones hate? I've only seen her in Mad Men but she doesn't seem that bad of an actress. For that matter, what's up with Betty Draper? I didn't get the hate at first but then she ended up being a complete psycho. Is there more to the character that I'm missing?

She's awful in X-men First Class...

Explain to us all what this means and why it is important.

I just mentioned it because that's what the thread is about? A person who doesn't know who their father is or who is born to an unwed mother is a bastard.

Well, the kid just MIGHT know who the father is. She knows. She's just not telling.

 

[sidious618]

By all accounts January Jones is not a very nice person yet after this...

She's a dumb blond with a bastard kid. Not exactly the most shocking thing in Hollywood. At least she can afford to raise him.

And she truly is dumb. That was presented to the world in all its grandeur when she made the mistake of agreeing to host Saturday Night Live. The fact that her idea of acting is to walk around with a distant, ditzy look in her eye -- a look she maintains even in interviews and publicity shots -- only proves to make it more obvious.

Explain to us all what this means and why it is important.

I just mentioned it because that's what the thread is about? A person who doesn't know who their father is or who is born to an unwed mother is a bastard. It's what the word, you know, means. As in the actual definition of the word. As in why it is sometimes used as a profanity about a person, even though the word itself isn't one.

God forbid someone bring up what the thread is about.

But she is quite dumb. You should probably look that word up, too, since apparently lots of people in this thread have no idea what words actually mean. Hint:As a public figure, she had a child without a parent.

Don't hint - tell us what this is connected to being 'quite dumb'.

Dumb means lacking intelligence or good judgement. If you can't figure it out from there, the term fits you as well.

...I'm starting to get on her side! This is some serious hate right here.

 

[Checkmate]

Apparently people don't know what "hate" means, either...

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

I know I hate the show H8R. That's for sure.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You didn't just ask "who cares." You insulted the OP by calling him "tacky" and accusing him of a sense of entitlement:

It's no one's business except hers and the fathers, she's perfectly capable of affording to raise the child on her own if that's her choice, and speculating about people cheating on their spouses with little or no evidence is rather tacky.

It's just kind of a weird thing to care about. It's like you're treating it like it's a scandal, as if we're still stuck in the Fifties or something.

There's any number of reasons she may want to keep it private and none that justify the sense of entitlement....

Now, perhaps, you didn't intend for your statements to convey a sense that you were offended but, at least to me, they come off that way.

And you're not the only poster who jumped on OP.

Again, it's a message board about show business. What's so horrible about discussing a celebrity?

As your own quoting of my posts shows, I said his speculation without evidence on Matthew Vaughn cheating was tacky and that his sense of entitlement as if the public is owed an explanation of who the father is was strange. Neither are personal insults of him, but instead descriptions of the content of his posts in the thread.

I don't think you are "personally offended" by what we're discussing any more than I am, because like me you don't have a dog in this fight. It's a discussion about a celebrity I've never met. I was rather surprised by the sort of retro attitude of demanding to know the father and treating a woman becoming a single mother by choice (if that's what she's doing) as some sort of unprecedented situation in this day and age, especially amongst celebrities who can afford it.

There's nothing horrible about discussing a celebrity, and if any of this discussion on our end qualifies as "horrible," "insulting," or "personally offensive" to you than perhaps you need to adjust your expectations a bit. Asking questions and disagreeing with the premise or attitude of the OP is pretty much par for the course here.

 

[Amaris]

She's a dumb blond with a bastard kid.

Who is the father?

Exactly.

No, you said the child was a bastard. I'm asking you who the father is, since you apparently seem to know.

Who said there was a problem. Just stating another, you know, obvious statement in a thread revolving around the topic.

You called someone's child a bastard child and ranted on her fidelity. People who don't have a problem tend not to do things like that.

No idea, which makes me ignorant. But she is quite dumb. You should probably look that word up, too, since apparently lots of people in this thread have no idea what words actually mean. Hint: As a public figure, she had a child without a parent.

She has a child without a parent, and you know this how? It sounds like nothing but speculation. Angry, bitter, speculation.

And people on a Star Trek message forum aren't supposed to voice opinions, regardless? I had no idea that was one of the rules.

People on a Star Trek message board talk about lots of things, but when someone starts screeching about bastard children, and it's not their own, well, things have taken an odd turn.

I'm sure you have mountains of evidence you're just ready to reveal that I do not, correct? Or is that your opinion?

Your statement here is nonsensical. You ask me to prove a negative, and then state whether it's my opinion or not? No, the burden of proof is on you, since you have summarily judged this woman and made claims that require evidence to support it.

 

[Checkmate]

No, you said the child was a bastard. I'm asking you who the father is, since you apparently seem to know.

Yes, I can see how that makes perfectly logical sense. Oh wait, no I can't. Again I have to ask: Do you know what the word means? Because, much like Inigo Montoyo believed of Vizzini, I don't think you do.

She has a child without a parent, and you know this how? It sounds like nothing but speculation. Angry, bitter, speculation.

Riiiiight. I just pulled it out of thin air. Completely random, it was. Yes sir. Why, I have no idea where anyone could have come up with such a thing. Oh wait, there's that article that was referenced in the first post about her not revealing who the father is. And considering she's single, a mother, and that the definition of the word 'bastard' means a child born to unmarried parents... nah, you're right. It's just random speculation.

I'm sure you have mountains of evidence you're just ready to reveal that I do not, correct? Or is that your opinion?

Your statement here is nonsensical. You ask me to prove a negative, and then state whether it's my opinion or not? No, the burden of proof is on you, since you have summarily judged this woman and made claims that require evidence to support it.

Actually I was just pointing out how hypocritical you were being, especially when asking such an insipidly stupid question to begin with.

How about you go back to judging women in those "Babe of the Week" threads. That's much classier.

 

[Amaris]

Yes, I can see how that makes perfectly logical sense. Oh wait, no I can't. Again I have to ask: Do you know what the word means? Because, much like Inigo Montoyo believed of Vizzini, I don't think you do.

It is not my problem if you do not understand what I'm saying, and while I will do my best to explain in a thorough and comprehensive manner, it will not always be successful. Please follow this train of thought:

1] You declare the child to be a bastard.
2] You can only do this if you know who is the father of the child, and
3] You would also have to know the disposition of said father. Whether he has chosen not to remain in her or the child's life.

You made a declarative statement. I was asking you how you knew the father. Logically, you would have to know if your statement is accurate, and I do not think you would purposely state something that is a falsehood. Am I correct in assuming that?

Riiiiight. I just pulled it out of thin air. Completely random, it was. Yes sir. Why, I have no idea where anyone could have come up with such a thing. Oh wait, there's that article that was referenced in the first post about her not revealing who the father is. And considering she's single, a mother, and that the definition of the word 'bastard' means a child born to unmarried parents... nah, you're right. It's just random speculation.

Actually, yes, your post fits the definition of speculation.

speculation
noun

1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject:
2. a single instance or process of consideration:
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation:
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.

Otherwise, you would have stronger evidence to cite beyond the circumstantial. Do you?

Actually I was just pointing out how hypocritical you were being, especially when asking such an insipidly stupid question to begin with.

My statement is perfectly rational. I asked you to cite evidence of your conclusions. It is perfectly reasonable for one to ask for evidence when such claims are made. Your retort made the logical fallacy of asking me to prove a negative. I asked for evidence. You asked for evidence of my asking for evidence, which is pure nonsense. My question is bereft of hypocrisy. It does, however, remain unanswered.

How about you go back to judging women in those "Babe of the Week" threads. That's much classier.

On what criteria am I judging those women? You do realize I have a reputation for nearly always voting a "thumbs up" for each week, and that I usually explain my reasons based on non-visual criteria, such as intelligence, personality, and talent, going so far as explaining that "looks" aren't the most important aspect of a person. Did you not know this? There is nothing wrong with making a judgment when the judgment is fair based on reasonable criteria.

It seems your judgment of my activities was in haste, just as that same judgment indicates throughout this thread. This is becoming a pattern. Perhaps it would be best to step back and look at what you have posted so far?

 

[the G-man]

I don't think you are "personally offended" by what we're discussing any more than I am, because like me you don't have a dog in this fight....There's nothing horrible about discussing a celebrity, and if any of this discussion on our end qualifies as "horrible," "insulting," or "personally offensive" to you than perhaps you need to adjust your expectations a bit. Asking questions and disagreeing with the premise or attitude of the OP is pretty much par for the course here.

You concede I'm not offended but then end your post suggesting I adjust my expectations for the board if I am offended.

Nice attempt at verbal judo there.

I agree there's nothing wrong with disagreeing or questioning an OP. I simply noted that the disagreement here seemed more...disagreeable...than is typically the case and pointed out why I felt it was misplaced.

It seems to me that, if you weren't offended, but are disinterested in the topic, the better course would be to ignore the thread, not tell the OP why he's wrong to start the topic.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You concede I'm not offended but then end your post suggesting I adjust my expectations for the board if I am offended.

Nice attempt at verbal judo there.

No judo. Being personally offended (which is what you said) implies that I take it as some kind of attack on myself/people I care about or my lifestyle. I don't. I can still find the premise of the topic worthy of voicing my objection to without being upset by it.

But it's really not worth arguing semantics or how offended you think I was instead of just taking me at my word.

 

[doubleohfive]

Yes, I can see how that makes perfectly logical sense. Oh wait, no I can't. Again I have to ask: Do you know what the word means? Because, much like Inigo Montoyo believed of Vizzini, I don't think you do.

It is not my problem if you do not understand what I'm saying, and while I will do my best to explain in a thorough and comprehensive manner, it will not always be successful. Please follow this train of thought:

1] You declare the child to be a bastard.
2] You can only do this if you know who is the father of the child, and
3] You would also have to know the disposition of said father. Whether he has chosen not to remain in her or the child's life.

You made a declarative statement. I was asking you how you knew the father. Logically, you would have to know if your statement is accurate, and I do not think you would purposely state something that is a falsehood. Am I correct in assuming that?

Riiiiight. I just pulled it out of thin air. Completely random, it was. Yes sir. Why, I have no idea where anyone could have come up with such a thing. Oh wait, there's that article that was referenced in the first post about her not revealing who the father is. And considering she's single, a mother, and that the definition of the word 'bastard' means a child born to unmarried parents... nah, you're right. It's just random speculation.

Actually, yes, your post fits the definition of speculation.

speculation
noun

1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject:
2. a single instance or process of consideration:
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation:
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.

Otherwise, you would have stronger evidence to cite beyond the circumstantial. Do you?

Actually I was just pointing out how hypocritical you were being, especially when asking such an insipidly stupid question to begin with.

My statement is perfectly rational. I asked you to cite evidence of your conclusions. It is perfectly reasonable for one to ask for evidence when such claims are made. Your retort made the logical fallacy of asking me to prove a negative. I asked for evidence. You asked for evidence of my asking for evidence, which is pure nonsense. My question is bereft of hypocrisy. It does, however, remain unanswered.

How about you go back to judging women in those "Babe of the Week" threads. That's much classier.

On what criteria am I judging those women? You do realize I have a reputation for nearly always voting a "thumbs up" for each week, and that I usually explain my reasons based on non-visual criteria, such as intelligence, personality, and talent, going so far as explaining that "looks" aren't the most important aspect of a person. Did you not know this? There is nothing wrong with making a judgment when the judgment is fair based on reasonable criteria.

It seems your judgment of my activities was in haste, just as that same judgment indicates throughout this thread. This is becoming a pattern. Perhaps it would be best to step back and look at what you have posted so far?

 

[the G-man]

You concede I'm not offended but then end your post suggesting I adjust my expectations for the board if I am offended.

Nice attempt at verbal judo there.

No judo. Being personally offended (which is what you said) implies that I take it as some kind of attack on myself/people I care about or my lifestyle. I don't. I can still find the premise of the topic worthy of voicing my objection to without being upset by it.

But it's really not worth arguing semantics or how offended you think I was instead of just taking me at my word.

I'm perfectly willing to take you at your word regarding your own emotions and/or intent. At this point I was merely explaining how your words could be interpreted otherwise.

 

[doubleohfive]

 

[Checkmate]

1] You declare the child to be a bastard.
2] You can only do this if you know who is the father of the child

See, there you go again. You clearly have no idea what the word or even the concept means. Not knowing who the father is is a key component. And worse, even if the identity of the father was known it wouldn't change the fact that he's still a bastard child.

It's mind-boggling that you people can't grasp that. "Bastard" is no more a profane term than "unwed" is when used properly, the latter of which bewilderingly set someone else off, too.

On what criteria am I judging those women? You do realize I have a reputation for nearly always voting a "thumbs up" for each week...

How is that not judging?! You just... you just... in the same breath, you just.... Oh, Jesus Christ.

 

[doubleohfive]

Who do I have to blow to get off this newsfeed?

 

[Amaris]

See, there you go again. You clearly have no idea what the word or even the concept means. Not knowing who the father is is a key component. And worse, even if the identity of the father was known it wouldn't change the fact that he's still a bastard child.

No, you don't know who the father is. Now, I did have to dig around in some gossip rags, but yes, I do see she's single. So you believe that gives you the right to call her child a bastard. Putting aside the very negative connotations associated with the term, why do you care? What business is it of yours?

It's mind-boggling that you people can't grasp that. "Bastard" is no more a profane term than "unwed" is when used properly, the latter of which bewilderingly set someone else off, too.

No, you used a charged term to describe the child of a mother whom you insulted to no end, here. What is mind boggling is your desire to delve into personal lives that are none of your concern, and make summary judgments against them.

Here is what I'd like you to do. I'd like you to go to Compton, walk down the street, and the first black man you see, I want you to call him a Negro. It may boggle your mind and bewilder you the end result that may come about. I mean, you're just using a perfectly legitimate word, after all.

How is that not judging?! Jesus Christ.

I didn't say I wasn't judging. In fact, if you'll read what I said:

On what criteria am I judging those women? You do realize I have a reputation for nearly always voting a "thumbs up" for each week, and that I usually explain my reasons based on non-visual criteria, such as intelligence, personality, and talent, going so far as explaining that "looks" aren't the most important aspect of a person. Did you not know this? There is nothing wrong with making a judgment when the judgment is fair based on reasonable criteria.

It seems your judgment of my activities was in haste, just as that same judgment indicates throughout this thread. This is becoming a pattern. Perhaps it would be best to step back and look at what you have posted so far?

I bolded the relevant portions. At no point did I say I do not judge. What I did say was that when I judge, I do so fairly, and on criteria that is reasonable. Please pay attention. Your posts, however, are harsh and very judgmental regarding a woman you don't even know, about a personal life of which you have no business prying.

It would be like if I wrote an op-ed piece about you in your local paper, throwing charged epithets at you, whether true or false, and wondering why you would ever get so troubled when the neighbor asks about your illicit affair with a crack dealer downtown. Bewildering, to be sure!

 

[RoJoHen]

Just for the sake of participating in this ludicrous thread, January Jones' baby is, in fact, a bastard...if we go by the old timey definition of the word. I don't know why we need to do that, though; that definition is pretty archaic and has an incredibly negative connotation in this day and age. While you are technically correct, Checkmate, we still need to allow for the evolution of language. Word meanings change over time.

Of course, this is all operating on the assumption that January Jones is unmarried. Maybe she has a secret husband that she doesn't want anyone to know about.