Is it just me or did it seem as if everybody was being intentionally vague in the first story? Phil keeps says that his kids are being "lied to" about him, but neither he nor the kids (or the ex-wife) ever elaborate on what said "lies" entail. Everything is discussed in generalities. Even more puzzling is that neither Maury nor the audience ever seem to inquire about this. Phil does come across as unpleasant and condescending at times, but without more specific context about how and why he believes his ex turned the children against him, it's hard to know whether his attitude is justified. I wonder if there was some type of pending litigation going on and everyone had to sort of talk around the specific issue for legal reasons, but then why come on the show at all?
@wearingskirtsdiary6 ай бұрын
It's very odd I'm 12 minutes in to the show and I already agree with your comment. There's no information being given in this story.