Home » Tuck Talk » Chapter by Chapter » Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up
Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8002] Sun, 14 July 2013 22:02 Go to next message
Ellen Hayes  is currently offline Ellen Hayes
Messages: 684
Registered: September 2002
Senior Member
at long last.


Ellen
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8005] Mon, 15 July 2013 01:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Erin Halfelven  is currently offline Erin Halfelven
Messages: 712
Registered: September 2002
Location: Surf City, USA
Senior Member
Administrator
Cool! Going to go read. Smile
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8006] Mon, 15 July 2013 01:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
Quick note to the rest of the tuckfen: I feel that it's highly unlikely for Ellen to reveal what Tucker family secrets exist, let alone what they actually are. The first part of finding out a secret is finding out that the secret exists; for example the first part of finding out the construction details of a stealth aircraft is finding out that stealth aircraft actually exist in the first place.

Of course, with this family there's probably a briefing book in secure storage somewhere, and I'm not gonna speculate on exactly what 'secure storage' means in this application.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8007] Mon, 15 July 2013 07:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
Hmmm. Jill's family issues seem worse than previously suggested; way more serious than "had a family fight and moved out, is renting Susan's room."
I mean, they are bringing Lanier. On a Sunday. That's SERIOUS stuff.

Now I want more than ever to read those "missing" chapters...


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8009] Mon, 15 July 2013 14:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
There's also the question of the level of adoption. At one level Jill's family breakdown is so severe that the Tuckers have stepped up to take her in; the other involves the legal system with termination of parental rights by both mother and father and the granting of those rights to the Tuckers. I don't know what might trigger the parental rights termination but I think it'd be something that would reach the level that Child Protective Services would be called in. Having the house busted as a meth lab might do it.

I applaud the Tuckers on their restraint if the precipitating incident was abuse of Jill, especially sexual abuse. In that case her parents would be lucky to be alive.

On a lighter note:

J. Random Asshole: "Didja see that Tucker kid? Whatta fag, little gold bow earrings."
Girlfriend: "I think it's sweet; he and his girlfriend are wearing the same thing 'cause it's her birthday. Would you do that for me?"
Asshole: "Hell no; everybody would think I'm a fag."
Girlfriend: "You're not a fag, you're just an asshole. And you leave that sweet guy alone."


J. Random Guy: "Didja see that Tucker kid? Little gold bow earrings?"
Girlfriend: "I think it's sweet; he and his girlfriend are wearing the same thing 'cause it's her birthday. Would you do that for me?"
Guy: "I don't have pierced ears."
Girl: "You can get 'em pierced at the mall; I'll hold your hand if you're afraid of needles."
Guy: "I couldn't wear 'em during a game 'cause the helmet would hurt."
Girl: "How about we find some matching clip-ons? Would you wear those?
Guy: "It'd feel wierd, but yeah."

Starts a new level of commitment slightly higher than the girl wearing the guy's letter jacket and slightly lower than her wearing his class ring.

[Updated on: Mon, 15 July 2013 14:16]

Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8010] Mon, 15 July 2013 16:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
mkemp wrote on Mon, 15 July 2013 15:14

There's also the question of the level of adoption. At one level Jill's family breakdown is so severe that the Tuckers have stepped up to take her in; the other involves the legal system with termination of parental rights by both mother and father and the granting of those rights to the Tuckers. I don't know what might trigger the parental rights termination but I think it'd be something that would reach the level that Child Protective Services would be called in. Having the house busted as a meth lab might do it.

I applaud the Tuckers on their restraint if the precipitating incident was abuse of Jill, especially sexual abuse. In that case her parents would be lucky to be alive.


I doubt it was sexual abuse; Jill seems too OK with herself for that -- she's even doing "friend-with-privileges" stuff with Mike, which I expect *Mike* would refrain from if she had been sexually abused, and Tuck wouldn't have taken it so in stride. I mean, I don't think Ellen would play it as a "Yeah, it happened, but I got over it" thing. It might be other sorts of abuse, however -- in particular, her reaction to being told (21:25) suggests a lack of emotional connection to her parents, which she is not finding with the Tuckers.

I can't track right now the previous instances when we got hints of a bad sitch with Jill. I think I remember older brothers being mentioned, and that she had a real concern about her savings being "appropriated" by other family members before she could buy her motorcycle.

Update: OK, trying to track a few by using Google. A big one seems to be chapter 65. I'll add other relevant ones as they are found.

[Updated on: Mon, 15 July 2013 16:45]


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8014] Tue, 16 July 2013 15:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lurker
Messages: 197
Registered: May 2004
Senior Member
From Have a Private Tuck@11:36

Well, it WAS probably the least likely room to be bugged in the entire place, especially since we'd removed our equipment. On the other hand, I'd never have asked Mr. Dobson to take off for a few minutes so we could use his office to have a very private discussion.
Nor would I have let them, if I'd been him and someone else had been me. Well-
But he had, and when the door shut, Mike motioned me closer, until we were about six inches away from each other's faces, and said, "I called your dad, and-"


As much as Dobson "looks after" Tuck, what gives? I've always viewed Dobson a bit more formal in dealing with students...
Also, Tuck could've ASL'd with Mike if privacy was absolute in a public setting. Why would Ellen place the conversation in Dobson's office?
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8015] Tue, 16 July 2013 15:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Erin Halfelven  is currently offline Erin Halfelven
Messages: 712
Registered: September 2002
Location: Surf City, USA
Senior Member
Administrator
Dobson's relationship with Tuck is special, they keep each other's secrets. So, that explains why in context but as story craft: this is a reminder of that special relationship and so I expect Ellen is going to bring Dobson back into the story in some important role soon.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8016] Tue, 16 July 2013 16:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ellen Hayes  is currently offline Ellen Hayes
Messages: 684
Registered: September 2002
Senior Member
lurker wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 20:09

Also, Tuck could've ASL'd with Mike if privacy was absolute in a public setting.

Because absolutely no one else in the entire world 'speaks' ASL, right? So it's secure. {/sarcasm}
lurker wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 20:09

Why would Ellen place the conversation in Dobson's office?

So it could be private.

It's also possible that Mike is learning wuxia arts of persuasion and salesmanship through some sort of contagion from Debbie's friends.

Ellen
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8017] Wed, 17 July 2013 01:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
Remember Betty?
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8018] Wed, 17 July 2013 02:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ellen Hayes  is currently offline Ellen Hayes
Messages: 684
Registered: September 2002
Senior Member
mkemp wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 06:11

Remember Betty?

I think I do, yes, having written her... *pokes mkemp in the shoulder repeatedly*

Ellen
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8019] Wed, 17 July 2013 10:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
Ellen Hayes wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 23:24

mkemp wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 06:11

Remember Betty?

I think I do, yes, having written her... *pokes mkemp in the shoulder repeatedly*

Ellen



Ow! Ellen, I didn't mean you; it was mainly a reply to lurker (should have replied to that post with a quote), and a reminder to the other Tuckfen. I know you remember every comma that you've written.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8020] Wed, 17 July 2013 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lurker
Messages: 197
Registered: May 2004
Senior Member
Wow! A challenge! Let's see if my Wushu is up to this... Razz
Ellen Hayes wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 13:33

lurker wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 12:09

Also, Tuck could've ASL'd with Mike if privacy was absolute in a public setting.

Because absolutely no one else in the entire world 'speaks' ASL, right? So it's secure. {/sarcasm}

Using a bit of a crossover of two universes as my knowledgebase, Seasons and Canon, the core relationship between Tuck and Mike should be the same. In Ep 10 of Tuck Seasons, Mike and Tuck used a cipher to communicate. I'd expected Tuck and Mike would have had a special code to discuss things in public, using a little bit of cipher and noun substitutes (ala Windtalkers) thrown-in while communicating in ASL. Unintelligible even if intercepted.
How about a code name for Uncle Lanier such as "Archangel" or Zero, Jill could be "pi" until she officially becomes "Seven" or whatever the next assigned family number might be.

BTW, I suspect the family secrets are the communications, codes and unique things the family uses for emergencies and security, befitting the Tucker family paranoia - which is why Uncle Lanier is involved. (Now Ellen might have to rewrite her chapters to prove I'm wrong! Laughing )

Ellen Hayes wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 13:33

lurker wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 12:09

Why would Ellen place the conversation in Dobson's office?

So it could be private.

It's also possible that Mike is learning wuxia arts of persuasion and salesmanship through some sort of contagion from Debbie's friends.

Ellen



Well, I just learned something I didn't pick up from reading the chapter. That it may have been Mike who asked Dobson for the office....

mkemp wrote on Tue, 16 July 2013 22:11

Remember Betty?


Yes I do, which is why I thought Mike would have thought it peculiar to use Dobson's office, let alone ask Dobson, since Mike doesn't know about Betty. I don't believe neither Tuck nor Debbie (nor even Jack) would've "outed" Dobson.

edit: fixed strange timestamp (Ellen responded 5 1/2 hours before my post - she must be a time traveller - don't mess with her! She might go back and erase your existence.... Confused )

[Updated on: Wed, 17 July 2013 20:05]

Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8021] Thu, 18 July 2013 04:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ellen Hayes  is currently offline Ellen Hayes
Messages: 684
Registered: September 2002
Senior Member
lurker wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 21:56

edit: fixed strange timestamp (Ellen responded 5 1/2 hours before my post - she must be a time traveller - don't mess with her! She might go back and erase your existence.... Confused )


Anyone who has posted here (not spammed here) would be so far down the target priority list that they don't have to worry about direct temporal warfare.

Indirect effects... *shrugs* Who can say? But I'll try and preserve a copy of Tuck on my person - yay for USB flash drives - and to preserve the Internet as well; which might reduce the splash effects on readers.

Ellen
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8022] Thu, 18 July 2013 04:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ellen Hayes  is currently offline Ellen Hayes
Messages: 684
Registered: September 2002
Senior Member
lurker wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 21:56

In Ep 10 of Tuck Seasons, Mike and Tuck used a cipher to communicate. I'd expected Tuck and Mike would have had a special code to discuss things in public, using a little bit of cipher and noun substitutes (ala Windtalkers) thrown-in while communicating in ASL. Unintelligible even if intercepted.

That's rather hard to set up - Mike and Tuck created the cipher system before Tuck left - and doing a voice code is quite a bit harder because you have to remember things.

lurker wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 21:56

BTW, I suspect the family secrets are the communications, codes and unique things the family uses for emergencies and security, befitting the Tucker family paranoia - which is why Uncle Lanier is involved.

Among other things.

lurker wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 21:56

(Now Ellen might have to rewrite her chapters to prove I'm wrong! Laughing )

You don't REALLY want me to put everything on hold to do a major rewrite, do you?

Ellen
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8023] Thu, 18 July 2013 15:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
lurker wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 13:56

...Jill could be "pi" until she officially becomes "Seven" or whatever the next assigned family number might be.

Is this before Star Trek: Voyager?

And on an only slightly related note - I think it entirely plausable that the spouse of any of the Tucker kids would not be initiated into the Mysteries of the Tuckerverse (now that would make for some really interesting fanfics; cue whap upside the head from Ellen.)
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8026] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
mkemp wrote on Thu, 18 July 2013 16:56

lurker wrote on Wed, 17 July 2013 13:56

...Jill could be "pi" until she officially becomes "Seven" or whatever the next assigned family number might be.

Is this before Star Trek: Voyager?


Well, Seven would be pretty high on the geek radar at the time: "Scorpion part 2" debuted on September 3, 2007, and the narrative is on March 5, 2008. Meaning that for Tuck & Co. Seven is barely six months old, and her first TV season hasn't finished yet. Latest episode to air was "The Killing Game" -- a two-parter which premiered both parts March 4.

mkemp wrote on Thu, 18 July 2013 16:56

And on an only slightly related note - I think it entirely plausable that the spouse of any of the Tucker kids would not be initiated into the Mysteries of the Tuckerverse (now that would make for some really interesting fanfics; cue whap upside the head from Ellen.)
Well, yeah, it depends essentially on how far will the Tucklings stray from the parental mindset. As children are wont to do. If, say, Susan finds a comfortable career as a doctor and marries another doctor (rather common), the new couple might become too "establishment" to care about Bill's eccentricities -- and Susan might keep some details from her husband in order to not bother him.


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8029] Thu, 18 July 2013 22:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne  is currently offline Anne
Messages: 355
Registered: April 2012
Senior Member
I some how expect that if TuVal gets serious about someone they will be indoctrinated into the family secrets. If for no other reason than that TuVal is very paranoid....!
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8030] Fri, 19 July 2013 00:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
Sir Lee wrote on Thu, 18 July 2013 17:10


mkemp wrote on Thu, 18 July 2013 16:56

And on an only slightly related note - I think it entirely plausable that the spouse of any of the Tucker kids would not be initiated into the Mysteries of the Tuckerverse (now that would make for some really interesting fanfics; cue whap upside the head from Ellen.)

Well, yeah, it depends essentially on how far will the Tucklings stray from the parental mindset. As children are wont to do. If, say, Susan finds a comfortable career as a doctor and marries another doctor (rather common), the new couple might become too "establishment" to care about Bill's eccentricities -- and Susan might keep some details from her husband in order to not bother him.


I don't think that Susan's house would be a full-fledged Tuckerbunker but I'd find it entirely plausible that they'd have a commercial-grade burglar alarm and serious fire drills. Owning and practicing with firearms is likely, given her history.

Brian, on the other hand, is highly likely to be within 20% as eccentric as Bill.

On the gripping hand, Tu-Val is completely impossible to predict.

And on a slightly related note, I find it interesting that both Jack and Dobson are making appearances.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8037] Fri, 19 July 2013 22:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne  is currently offline Anne
Messages: 355
Registered: April 2012
Senior Member
Taking another tangent; Isn't the fact that Val/Tuck cannot have children a contributing factor to the breakup with Travis. In some ways (though it wouldn't reflect reality so well) I thought that having Travis back in Val's life would be a good thing.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8038] Fri, 19 July 2013 22:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
Anne wrote on Fri, 19 July 2013 23:24

Taking another tangent; Isn't the fact that Val/Tuck cannot have children a contributing factor to the breakup with Travis. In some ways (though it wouldn't reflect reality so well) I thought that having Travis back in Val's life would be a good thing.

I would *think* that going in, both of them would know that pregnancy wasn't an option.


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8039] Fri, 19 July 2013 23:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne  is currently offline Anne
Messages: 355
Registered: April 2012
Senior Member
Hmm... That is the issue (or was the issue in part) that is that Tu/Val did not want to tell Travis what was bothering herm... In this case Val/Tuck is upset at the Parkers' and at dance practice afterward. Again is s/he going to discuss this with someone (like Sheila) who can help herm deal with the emotional upset. Just because it is raining and you cannot do anything about the rain doesn't necessarily make the flooding it causes any less upsetting.... To twist Tuck's metaphor out of shape. Or sometimes there are bees that you don't expect in places where you least expect them.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8048] Sun, 21 July 2013 11:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
Quote:

"Don't get rude, young lady," she told me.

Looks as if Val's showing through the Tucker presentation a little, at least for people who aren't used to him.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8053] Sun, 21 July 2013 19:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne  is currently offline Anne
Messages: 355
Registered: April 2012
Senior Member
mkemp wrote on Sun, 21 July 2013 08:40

Quote:

"Don't get rude, young lady," she told me.

Looks as if Val's showing through the Tucker presentation a little, at least for people who aren't used to him.


Actually Val shows through a lot. Tuck is regularly addressed as Ma'am at restaurants.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8054] Sun, 21 July 2013 20:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
About Jill:

I think... I think I have a working theory that covers most of the salient points. I think that Jill's mom is dead, and Stepdad and/or stepbrothers had a hand on it -- probably not intentionally; neglect, or some accident involving drunkenness, but something that could not be easily proven.

1. If stepdad never bothered to formally adopt her, he wouldn't have parental authority.

2. With no mother at home, Jill would have *no* reason to want to go back there.

3. If the steps were responsible in any way for the death of Jill's mother but were somehow skating on it, that would explain why Bill would get involved in some sort of punishment, and why Lanier would get involved too.


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8055] Sun, 21 July 2013 21:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Desiree99  is currently offline Desiree99
Messages: 24
Registered: March 2013
Location: So Cal
Junior Member
Sounds very reasonable to me. But i am just a crazy redhead.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8057] Mon, 22 July 2013 01:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
Anne wrote on Sun, 21 July 2013 16:05

mkemp wrote on Sun, 21 July 2013 08:40

Quote:

"Don't get rude, young lady," she told me.

Looks as if Val's showing through the Tucker presentation a little, at least for people who aren't used to him.

Actually Val shows through a lot. Tuck is regularly addressed as Ma'am at restaurants.

Yeah, but this is at school. Potentially dangerous.

I think that Tuck's going to be pretty much forced to transition to Valerie simply because of the difficulty presenting as a guy.

Nasty thought on a totally different topic - maybe the abdominal mass is a leftover bit of the male part of Eugene's mosaicism. They find icky stuff in some tumors.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8064] Mon, 22 July 2013 17:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Sir Lee wrote on Thu, 18 July 2013 17:10

Well, Seven would be pretty high on the geek radar at the time: "Scorpion part 2" debuted on September 3, 2007, and the narrative is on March 5, 2008.


You mean September 3, 1997, and March 5, 1998.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8065] Mon, 22 July 2013 20:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
Yeah, I meant 199*. Sometimes I think something and my typing fingers do something else...


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8362] Sun, 20 October 2013 22:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LuLou  is currently offline LuLou
Messages: 73
Registered: August 2007
Member
Just finished another full read-through, and may have caught a continuity error: Isn't Debbie's Little named Karen Stockman, not Gina?

Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8372] Mon, 04 November 2013 00:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne  is currently offline Anne
Messages: 355
Registered: April 2012
Senior Member
LuLou wrote on Mon, 21 October 2013 02:35

Just finished another full read-through, and may have caught a continuity error: Isn't Debbie's Little named Karen Stockman, not Gina?



I'm sure you're correct but I cannot find the reference.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8373] Tue, 05 November 2013 14:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hyuri  is currently offline Hyuri
Messages: 2
Registered: March 2013
Location: California
Junior Member
Anne wrote on Mon, 04 November 2013 05:23

LuLou wrote on Mon, 21 October 2013 02:35

Just finished another full read-through, and may have caught a continuity error: Isn't Debbie's Little named Karen Stockman, not Gina?

I'm sure you're correct but I cannot find the reference.

I got bored, and thought others might find this useful:


Eugene Tucker - Kelly Bergquist (tuck76.txt:806)

George Spaulding - Bob Cason (tuck83.txt:288-289
Michael Johansson - James Cooper (tuck76.txt:855)
"Book" (Allen LNU) - Matt Wilson (tuck79.txt:467)
"someone" (Dan LNU?) - Paul Grant (tuck123.txt:1098)

Deborah Carstairs - Karen Stockman (tuck106.txt:928-929)
Kim Chassell - Gina Schaeffer (tuck121.txt:349)
Kathy Collins - Cory Garner (tuck91.txt:273-288)
Jill LNU - Anne Marie Huston (tuck89.txt:654-659)
Amanda LNU - Sally Shu (tuck121.txt:349)
Julia Peterson - Janet Williams (tuck91.txt:372-377)
Sabrina LNU - Valerie Faciszewski (tuck88.txt:122-136)
Pam LNU - Bridgette Alderson (tuck91.txt:670)

? - Sean Alderson (Bridgette-Pam's-Little's twin brother, unclear if Little or simply attached)

[Updated on: Mon, 22 September 2014 10:52]

Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8374] Tue, 05 November 2013 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne  is currently offline Anne
Messages: 355
Registered: April 2012
Senior Member
Oh Yeah if no one else appreciates it I do!
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8375] Wed, 06 November 2013 07:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Desiree99  is currently offline Desiree99
Messages: 24
Registered: March 2013
Location: So Cal
Junior Member
Well I do as well thank you Smile Smile
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8434] Mon, 18 August 2014 21:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne  is currently offline Anne
Messages: 355
Registered: April 2012
Senior Member
Hyuri wrote on Tue, 05 November 2013 14:38

Anne wrote on Mon, 04 November 2013 05:23

LuLou wrote on Mon, 21 October 2013 02:35

Just finished another full read-through, and may have caught a continuity error: Isn't Debbie's Little named Karen Stockman, not Gina?

I'm sure you're correct but I cannot find the reference.

I got bored, and thought others might find this useful:


Eugene Tucker - Kelly Bergquist (tuck76.txt:806)

George Spaulding - Bob Cason (tuck83.txt:288-289
Michael Johansson - James Cooper (tuck76.txt:855)
"Book" (Allen LNU) - Matt Wilson (tuck79.txt:467)
"someone" (Dan LNU?) - Paul Grant (tuck123.txt:1098)

Deborah Carstairs - Karen Stockman (tuck106.txt:928-929)
Kim Chassell - Gina Schaeffer (tuck121.txt:349)
Kathy Collins - Cory Garner (tuck91.txt:273-288)
Jill LNU - Anne Marie Huston (tuck89.txt:654-659)
Amanda LNU - Sally Shu (tuck121.txt:349)
Julia LNU - Janet Williams (tuck91.txt:372-377)
Sabrina LNU - Valerie Faciszewski (tuck88.txt:122-136)
Pam LNU - Bridgette Alderson (tuck91.txt:670)

? - Sean Alderson (Bridgette-Pam's-Little's twin brother, unclear if Little or simply attached)


Julia's last name is Peterson, I'm fairly sure, I can't find the reference right now but it is mentioned either at the conference where Tuck and Debbie break up or earlier when Jill and Kim take Tuck to the 'support group' that ends up having Julia's father as the leader....
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8435] Tue, 19 August 2014 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
Anne wrote on Mon, 18 August 2014 21:36

Julia's last name is Peterson, I'm fairly sure, I can't find the reference right now but it is mentioned either at the conference where Tuck and Debbie break up or earlier when Jill and Kim take Tuck to the 'support group' that ends up having Julia's father as the leader....

You are right, and yes, it was at the "support group" thing that Tuck & Co. discovered her surname.


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Tuck Post-Valentine's #7 up [message #8452] Mon, 22 September 2014 11:19 Go to previous message
Hyuri  is currently offline Hyuri
Messages: 2
Registered: March 2013
Location: California
Junior Member
Sir Lee wrote on Tue, 19 August 2014 17:31

Anne wrote on Mon, 18 August 2014 21:36

Julia's last name is Peterson, I'm fairly sure, I can't find the reference right now but it is mentioned either at the conference where Tuck and Debbie break up or earlier when Jill and Kim take Tuck to the 'support group' that ends up having Julia's father as the leader....

You are right, and yes, it was at the "support group" thing that Tuck & Co. discovered her surname.


Mm, correct. `grep "Julia[[:space:]][[:upper:]] *.txt"` couldn't find that, which may explain some of the other missing names as well but I doubt it.

Though I can't find anything that actually confirms that she shares her parents' surname....
Previous Topic:Tuck Post-Valentine's +8 now up
Next Topic:After Valentines special
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Sep 20 00:09:44 EDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02458 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 2.7.7.
Copyright ©2001-2007 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software