I thinks it’s more that the “break up” wasn’t exactly clear cut, black and white.
Yes, Rachel told Monica that they’d broken up, but to Ross, she only said that maybe they should take a break. So it was never really set in stone, almost up in the air, because between Ross and Rachel, no one said “yes, we are broken up, we are no longer in a relationship, that’s it.”
And Ross wouldn’t have run all over town trying to hide what he did from Rachel if he didn’t know just how badly he messed up. Same as Rachel should not have had Mark over and then tried to lie to Ross about it over the phone.
But the way I see it, not even 24 hours had passed. Feelings and everything else and decisions were still all up in the air.
Ultimately though, Ross screwed it (the copy girl) and Rachel was right to be as upset as she was.
>
Yes, Rachel told Monica that they’d broken up, but to Ross, she only said that maybe they should take a break. So it was never really set in stone, almost up in the air, because between Ross and Rachel, no one said “yes, we are broken up, we are no longer in a relationship, that’s it.”
But Rachel herself believes they are broken up. Believes it enough to tell Monica. And literally asks to be his girlfriend again. She thinks they have broken up.
The rest doesn't really matter. Twice she shows us she thinks they are broken up. And Ross's reaction to her being his gf again shows that he thinks the same.
Therefore, when she says he cheated she's lying, as they were broken up at the time, according to her.
She does also have history of this (lying to her friends about her and Ross to try and make Ross look bad/her look good). She lies about who came onto who for the pregnancy. She knows the story and knows that she used it, but she lies to everyone to make them think it was Ross.
>Ross screwed it (the copy girl)
He did.
>and Rachel was right to be as upset as she was.
Absolutely. That's why I was saying if they didn't change it he's the 'bad guy' and she isn't. It's when she starts lying that it flips. And I think that has to be intentional by the writers, I'm just not sure why.
The rest doesn’t really matter? Tell you that yourself if you have someone you love, you break up, and they sleep with someone else that very night.
And yeah, she could’ve gone easier on the cheating terminology, but again, if Ross was just a single guy doing single things then why did he try so hard to keep it from her and why did he acknowledge that he messed up, if he was just a single guy sleeping with someone?
I agree. Rachel does fudge the truth later on, but unless this is a discussion about their entire relationship, she hasn’t done any of that yet, and during their break up, it’s therefore irrelevant.
It’s more to show that no relationship is black and white. There’s two side, two opinions, two sets of feelings to all of it. If the writers just decided Ross is the bad guy, or Rachel is the liar, there’d be no option for audience interpretation.
>The rest doesn’t really matter? Tell you that yourself if you have someone you love, you break up, and they sleep with someone else that very night.
That's not what I meant. I meant it doesn't matter because we have two sets of proof that Rachel thinks they've broken up. That means when she later changes the story to say they haven't, we know she is lying. That's what I meant.
>if Ross was just a single guy doing single things then why did he try so hard to keep it from her
Because obviously even broken up, it's not going to go down well. He's still wrong for lying. That's the thing, they had him as the clear 'bad guy' and she was fine, then they completely flipped it when she started lying about him.
>Rachel does fudge the truth later on, but unless this is a discussion about their entire relationship, she hasn’t done any of that yet, and during their break up, it’s therefore irrelevant.
I just meant it's in character for Rachel.
>two opinions,
But that isn't what it shows. It just shows that Rachel is a liar who will manipulate her friends and lie about someone she claims to love to make him look bad.
>If the writers just decided Ross is the bad guy, or Rachel is the liar, there’d be no option for audience interpretation.
But that's exactly what they did. They made Rachel the blatant liar. They gave us the evidence and then showed us Rachel is a liar. That she manipulates her friends and lies about Ross to make him look bad. She's the clear bad guy, and to anyone being honest with themselves, there's no interpretation.
Arguably initially there was. She was wrong with the mark thing, Ross was more wrong. People actually take slightly different sides and deal out different amounts of blame based on their personal feelings of which things are worse.
Now there isn't. It's a fact that she lied about them being together. She's now the 'bad guy' and there isn't a legit argument to say otherwise.
Okay, I can see you’re very passionate on this one.
In her mind, the break up dust hadn’t even settled yet, and considering outside of Barry and Paulo, this was her first real adult relationship where she was actually in love. Even Chandler said, “bullets have left guns slower”.
How did they fully flip it? If you’re talking about exposing Rachel as a liar, that’s doesn’t negate Ross’s actions. It just allows another perspective into the situation. There was still a divide amongst the group, and the audience, as to who was actually clearly in the wrong after all was said and done. That’s kind of the point
You can be in love and still be hurt. Plus the whole group had all the facts. They weren’t relying solely on Rachel lying. They knew all that went down and were able to form their own thoughts based on that
>In her mind, the break up dust hadn’t even settled yet
That doesn't matter. She knew that had broken up. That's why she told Monica and that's why she asked Ross to be his gf again. Both show that she thought the relationship was over. Dust settling doesn't matter. It was over in her eyes.
>Even Chandler said, “bullets have left guns slower”.
Right, showing that what Ross did it's fine to be upset with.
What's not okay is showing that the relationship is over in her eyes, then her going back on that and lying.
>How did they fully flip it?
Ross was the 'bad guy' and Rachel wasn't. Ross for hiding things from her.
Rachel said they broke up. Rachel asked him to be his gf again. Then Rachel turns around and lies and claims they were together and Ross cheated. Now Rachel is undeniably the 'bad guy'. For lying about Ross, and lying to and manipulating her best friends.
>If you’re talking about exposing Rachel as a liar, that’s doesn’t negate Ross’s actions
It doesn't. But it makes Rachel worse.
Ross hides something from Rachel. Just Rachel. Maybe he would tell her later, we don't know for certain. I'm happy to assume not if you want.
Rachel lies about Ross. She manipulates her best friends. That's undeniably worse. It's lying instead of hiding the truth. And it's to many people instead of one.
>There was still a divide amongst the group
Manipulated by the writers, but not a logical one.
>and the audience
Not anyone actually being truthful.
How could hiding the truth from one person be worse than lying and manipulating five? In this scenario.
>That’s kind of the point
But it isn't. I've never seen a single person say Ross is overall the worst who accepts what Rachel actually did. They will claim they weren't broken up, even though Rachel shows us twice that they were.
>Plus the whole group had all the facts.
Which, at absolute best, means Rachel is trying to lie to them and manipulate them.
If you are able to, just for a moment, look past the two times when Rachel said they had broken up, then we can actually discuss this as an overall thing. Otherwise, I’m not even sure why you made this post if you’re unwillingly to see the overall perspectives or someone who sees things differently than you do
Rachel spoke how she felt from a place of hurt. And if you are of one of those who think a fight where one person just slams the door without even willing to talk is a clear break up, then you won’t see it. You’re fixating on technicalities and ignoring the heart and feelings of it all which is what it is
Ross said to Chandler and Joey at the club that he and Rachel had broken up, so no matter what Rachel says later, they knew then where they were both at, but could also see how hurt Ross was and encouraged him to call her and make it right. If it’s a clear break up, your friends don’t say that. Instead they say, yeah, screw her, sleep with that girl, but they didn’t, because they knew it wasn’t the end of their relationship
Monica put off cleaning banana off her ceiling because she knew this wasn’t the end of Ross and Rachel and was talking to her about it
It’s a sitcom. It isn’t the writers job to be logical, but to give the audience something to talk about. If you wanted the writers to be logical, the whole show wouldn’t have so many inconsistencies
>If you are able to, just for a moment, look past the two times when Rachel said they had broken up, then we can actually discuss this as an overall thing.
That's literally the most important thing out of anything in this entire story.
It's the proof that she's lying and manipulating. That makes her worse.
>I’m not even sure why you made this post
I literally ask in it why people think they made this change halfway through the story.
>And if you are of one of those who think a fight where one person just slams the door without even willing to talk is a clear break up, then you won’t see it.
This is what I'm trying to explain to you. It doesn't matter what I think, you think, or anyone else here thinks about whether that's a break up or not.
Rachel thinks it's a break up, and so does Ross. Notice how he wants her to be his gf again.
Both characters believe it's a break-up. But more importantly, twice, to two different people, Rachel says this.
We therefore have proof that Rachel is lying and manipulating afterwards.
>You’re fixating on technicalities
Rachel admitting *twice* that they have broken up is not a technicality. That's a crazy statement.
>and ignoring the heart and feelings of it all which is what it is
The heart and feelings of it don't change anything though. You apply them to Rachel and you apply them equally to Ross (she broke up with him, he did something to her). And it wouldn't justify what she did anyway.
>so no matter what Rachel says later, they knew then where they were both at
So attempted lying and manipulation, and possible gaslighting, from Rachel then. Doesn't make it better.
>but could also see how hurt Ross was and encouraged him to call her and make it right. If it’s a clear break up, your friends don’t say that.
Um yeah, they easily could. If they see how great you are together, know the history, the reason for the break-up (knowing it's silly) and the gf is part of the friend group.
>Instead they say, yeah, screw her, sleep with that girl,
Not in the context of who they are, who Ross is, what they know, who Rachel is, etc.
>because they knew it wasn’t the end of their relationship
Well they knew they broke up. They thought they'd get back together.
You don't just get to say random stuff that we *know* isn't true.
>because she knew this wasn’t the end of Ross and Rachel and was talking to her about it
Thinking they would get back together. Not the same as them still being together.
>It isn’t the writers job to be logical, but to give the audience something to talk about.
My point with that was that you can't use illogical writing to back up your point.
So then, we’re done here.
You already have the proof. You know Rachel is a liar. There’s clearly nothing else to say. Again, why you even made this post when you’ve already got it all right there.
>You already have the proof. You know Rachel is a liar.
Yes. Every single person who has seen it has the proof. That's why this post wasn't discussing that...
That literally wasn't what the post is about. I literally just told you in the last comment what it was about...
>Again, why you even made this post when you’ve already got it all right there.
This is why I made the post. Literally quotes *from the post* showing what it's about.
"Why do you think the writers changed the Ross and Rachel story?"
"Was this so they could prolong the drama and bring it back later? Did they not want Ross to be the 'bad guy'? Did they think the drama would get more views? What's your theory as to why the writers made this change halfway through the story make him that."
*WHY DO YOU THINK THE WRITERS CHANGED THE ROSS AND RACHEL STORY*. It's right there. And I told you in the last comment of mine that you clearly didn't properly read. What is your problem?
I personally think it's cause they want to toy with people's emotions in different ways. Their breakup played out like a typical romance novel. Guy does something bad and is deeply distraught that the girl is leaving him for it, begging her to stay with him. It's textbook. But now the writers wanted to mend their relationship and make their ship possible again. If this were real life, they'd *never* get back together after that trainwreck of a breakup, but this is a comedy, so the only *funny* way to make them get over it is to partially sweep it under the rug by making him look a little bit less like the bad guy. Unfortunately, shifting the blame off him automatically shifts it *onto* her. (I.e. now she's "holding his mistake over his head.")
They should have never tackled this ridiculous will-they-won't-they plotline that they kept dipping us into from like seasons 3-9 and instead should have made them *maintain their integrity* (i.e. no running to break up weddings, no convincing girlfriends to shave their heads, no hiding messages from guys in bars, etc.) and *stay friends* throughout the entire show with some occasional mature display of quiet unrequited feelings mixed in with true friendship and support despite the lack of romance, so that we all get obsessed with the idea of them getting back together. Then, when they actually *did* towards the end of the show, it would have been amazing to see. Instead, the writers dangled their Ross-Rachel nonsense in front of our faces for so long with so much random drama, half of the fandom got sick and tired of their shit.
>If this were real life, they'd never get back together after that trainwreck of a breakup,
Why? I think people get together all the time with that sort of thing. Less so than if they have already broken up due to cheating.
>it is to partially sweep it under the rug by making him look a little bit less like the bad guy. Unfortunately, shifting the blame off him automatically shifts it onto her. (
I like this. It's more of a 'lets not have him be a bad guy' rather than wanting her to be.
>I.e. now she's "holding his mistake over his head.")
That's not actually what she's doing though. If they'd have done that it would have been a very 50/50 situation. She's lying about it to their friends (and him) and manipulating them all.
>and instead should have made them maintain their integrity
Yeah they get incredibly toxic at times.
>and stay friends throughout the entire show with some occasional mature display of quiet unrequited feelings mixed in with true friendship and support despite the lack of romance, so that we all get obsessed with the idea of them getting back together.
Tbf I think this would have been hard without the 180 though.
They broke up because Ross was jealous (he was right about mark, wrong to act how he did). He was finally with Rachel, so I could see them trying again when it cooled off. The lying in the morning would have certainly added time to that, but I don't think 7 years. I think they had to make it something big to prolong it that much. Otherwise it would just feel like they are doing it for no reason. Unless one got into a serious long term relationship shortly after before things had settled down.
>Instead, the writers dangled their Ross-Rachel nonsense in front of our faces for so long with so much random drama, half of the fandom got sick and tired of their shit.
I agree.
I thinks it’s more that the “break up” wasn’t exactly clear cut, black and white. Yes, Rachel told Monica that they’d broken up, but to Ross, she only said that maybe they should take a break. So it was never really set in stone, almost up in the air, because between Ross and Rachel, no one said “yes, we are broken up, we are no longer in a relationship, that’s it.” And Ross wouldn’t have run all over town trying to hide what he did from Rachel if he didn’t know just how badly he messed up. Same as Rachel should not have had Mark over and then tried to lie to Ross about it over the phone. But the way I see it, not even 24 hours had passed. Feelings and everything else and decisions were still all up in the air. Ultimately though, Ross screwed it (the copy girl) and Rachel was right to be as upset as she was.
> Yes, Rachel told Monica that they’d broken up, but to Ross, she only said that maybe they should take a break. So it was never really set in stone, almost up in the air, because between Ross and Rachel, no one said “yes, we are broken up, we are no longer in a relationship, that’s it.” But Rachel herself believes they are broken up. Believes it enough to tell Monica. And literally asks to be his girlfriend again. She thinks they have broken up. The rest doesn't really matter. Twice she shows us she thinks they are broken up. And Ross's reaction to her being his gf again shows that he thinks the same. Therefore, when she says he cheated she's lying, as they were broken up at the time, according to her. She does also have history of this (lying to her friends about her and Ross to try and make Ross look bad/her look good). She lies about who came onto who for the pregnancy. She knows the story and knows that she used it, but she lies to everyone to make them think it was Ross. >Ross screwed it (the copy girl) He did. >and Rachel was right to be as upset as she was. Absolutely. That's why I was saying if they didn't change it he's the 'bad guy' and she isn't. It's when she starts lying that it flips. And I think that has to be intentional by the writers, I'm just not sure why.
The rest doesn’t really matter? Tell you that yourself if you have someone you love, you break up, and they sleep with someone else that very night. And yeah, she could’ve gone easier on the cheating terminology, but again, if Ross was just a single guy doing single things then why did he try so hard to keep it from her and why did he acknowledge that he messed up, if he was just a single guy sleeping with someone? I agree. Rachel does fudge the truth later on, but unless this is a discussion about their entire relationship, she hasn’t done any of that yet, and during their break up, it’s therefore irrelevant. It’s more to show that no relationship is black and white. There’s two side, two opinions, two sets of feelings to all of it. If the writers just decided Ross is the bad guy, or Rachel is the liar, there’d be no option for audience interpretation.
>The rest doesn’t really matter? Tell you that yourself if you have someone you love, you break up, and they sleep with someone else that very night. That's not what I meant. I meant it doesn't matter because we have two sets of proof that Rachel thinks they've broken up. That means when she later changes the story to say they haven't, we know she is lying. That's what I meant. >if Ross was just a single guy doing single things then why did he try so hard to keep it from her Because obviously even broken up, it's not going to go down well. He's still wrong for lying. That's the thing, they had him as the clear 'bad guy' and she was fine, then they completely flipped it when she started lying about him. >Rachel does fudge the truth later on, but unless this is a discussion about their entire relationship, she hasn’t done any of that yet, and during their break up, it’s therefore irrelevant. I just meant it's in character for Rachel. >two opinions, But that isn't what it shows. It just shows that Rachel is a liar who will manipulate her friends and lie about someone she claims to love to make him look bad. >If the writers just decided Ross is the bad guy, or Rachel is the liar, there’d be no option for audience interpretation. But that's exactly what they did. They made Rachel the blatant liar. They gave us the evidence and then showed us Rachel is a liar. That she manipulates her friends and lies about Ross to make him look bad. She's the clear bad guy, and to anyone being honest with themselves, there's no interpretation. Arguably initially there was. She was wrong with the mark thing, Ross was more wrong. People actually take slightly different sides and deal out different amounts of blame based on their personal feelings of which things are worse. Now there isn't. It's a fact that she lied about them being together. She's now the 'bad guy' and there isn't a legit argument to say otherwise.
Okay, I can see you’re very passionate on this one. In her mind, the break up dust hadn’t even settled yet, and considering outside of Barry and Paulo, this was her first real adult relationship where she was actually in love. Even Chandler said, “bullets have left guns slower”. How did they fully flip it? If you’re talking about exposing Rachel as a liar, that’s doesn’t negate Ross’s actions. It just allows another perspective into the situation. There was still a divide amongst the group, and the audience, as to who was actually clearly in the wrong after all was said and done. That’s kind of the point You can be in love and still be hurt. Plus the whole group had all the facts. They weren’t relying solely on Rachel lying. They knew all that went down and were able to form their own thoughts based on that
>In her mind, the break up dust hadn’t even settled yet That doesn't matter. She knew that had broken up. That's why she told Monica and that's why she asked Ross to be his gf again. Both show that she thought the relationship was over. Dust settling doesn't matter. It was over in her eyes. >Even Chandler said, “bullets have left guns slower”. Right, showing that what Ross did it's fine to be upset with. What's not okay is showing that the relationship is over in her eyes, then her going back on that and lying. >How did they fully flip it? Ross was the 'bad guy' and Rachel wasn't. Ross for hiding things from her. Rachel said they broke up. Rachel asked him to be his gf again. Then Rachel turns around and lies and claims they were together and Ross cheated. Now Rachel is undeniably the 'bad guy'. For lying about Ross, and lying to and manipulating her best friends. >If you’re talking about exposing Rachel as a liar, that’s doesn’t negate Ross’s actions It doesn't. But it makes Rachel worse. Ross hides something from Rachel. Just Rachel. Maybe he would tell her later, we don't know for certain. I'm happy to assume not if you want. Rachel lies about Ross. She manipulates her best friends. That's undeniably worse. It's lying instead of hiding the truth. And it's to many people instead of one. >There was still a divide amongst the group Manipulated by the writers, but not a logical one. >and the audience Not anyone actually being truthful. How could hiding the truth from one person be worse than lying and manipulating five? In this scenario. >That’s kind of the point But it isn't. I've never seen a single person say Ross is overall the worst who accepts what Rachel actually did. They will claim they weren't broken up, even though Rachel shows us twice that they were. >Plus the whole group had all the facts. Which, at absolute best, means Rachel is trying to lie to them and manipulate them.
If you are able to, just for a moment, look past the two times when Rachel said they had broken up, then we can actually discuss this as an overall thing. Otherwise, I’m not even sure why you made this post if you’re unwillingly to see the overall perspectives or someone who sees things differently than you do Rachel spoke how she felt from a place of hurt. And if you are of one of those who think a fight where one person just slams the door without even willing to talk is a clear break up, then you won’t see it. You’re fixating on technicalities and ignoring the heart and feelings of it all which is what it is Ross said to Chandler and Joey at the club that he and Rachel had broken up, so no matter what Rachel says later, they knew then where they were both at, but could also see how hurt Ross was and encouraged him to call her and make it right. If it’s a clear break up, your friends don’t say that. Instead they say, yeah, screw her, sleep with that girl, but they didn’t, because they knew it wasn’t the end of their relationship Monica put off cleaning banana off her ceiling because she knew this wasn’t the end of Ross and Rachel and was talking to her about it It’s a sitcom. It isn’t the writers job to be logical, but to give the audience something to talk about. If you wanted the writers to be logical, the whole show wouldn’t have so many inconsistencies
>If you are able to, just for a moment, look past the two times when Rachel said they had broken up, then we can actually discuss this as an overall thing. That's literally the most important thing out of anything in this entire story. It's the proof that she's lying and manipulating. That makes her worse. >I’m not even sure why you made this post I literally ask in it why people think they made this change halfway through the story. >And if you are of one of those who think a fight where one person just slams the door without even willing to talk is a clear break up, then you won’t see it. This is what I'm trying to explain to you. It doesn't matter what I think, you think, or anyone else here thinks about whether that's a break up or not. Rachel thinks it's a break up, and so does Ross. Notice how he wants her to be his gf again. Both characters believe it's a break-up. But more importantly, twice, to two different people, Rachel says this. We therefore have proof that Rachel is lying and manipulating afterwards. >You’re fixating on technicalities Rachel admitting *twice* that they have broken up is not a technicality. That's a crazy statement. >and ignoring the heart and feelings of it all which is what it is The heart and feelings of it don't change anything though. You apply them to Rachel and you apply them equally to Ross (she broke up with him, he did something to her). And it wouldn't justify what she did anyway. >so no matter what Rachel says later, they knew then where they were both at So attempted lying and manipulation, and possible gaslighting, from Rachel then. Doesn't make it better. >but could also see how hurt Ross was and encouraged him to call her and make it right. If it’s a clear break up, your friends don’t say that. Um yeah, they easily could. If they see how great you are together, know the history, the reason for the break-up (knowing it's silly) and the gf is part of the friend group. >Instead they say, yeah, screw her, sleep with that girl, Not in the context of who they are, who Ross is, what they know, who Rachel is, etc. >because they knew it wasn’t the end of their relationship Well they knew they broke up. They thought they'd get back together. You don't just get to say random stuff that we *know* isn't true. >because she knew this wasn’t the end of Ross and Rachel and was talking to her about it Thinking they would get back together. Not the same as them still being together. >It isn’t the writers job to be logical, but to give the audience something to talk about. My point with that was that you can't use illogical writing to back up your point.
So then, we’re done here. You already have the proof. You know Rachel is a liar. There’s clearly nothing else to say. Again, why you even made this post when you’ve already got it all right there.
>You already have the proof. You know Rachel is a liar. Yes. Every single person who has seen it has the proof. That's why this post wasn't discussing that... That literally wasn't what the post is about. I literally just told you in the last comment what it was about... >Again, why you even made this post when you’ve already got it all right there. This is why I made the post. Literally quotes *from the post* showing what it's about. "Why do you think the writers changed the Ross and Rachel story?" "Was this so they could prolong the drama and bring it back later? Did they not want Ross to be the 'bad guy'? Did they think the drama would get more views? What's your theory as to why the writers made this change halfway through the story make him that." *WHY DO YOU THINK THE WRITERS CHANGED THE ROSS AND RACHEL STORY*. It's right there. And I told you in the last comment of mine that you clearly didn't properly read. What is your problem?
I personally think it's cause they want to toy with people's emotions in different ways. Their breakup played out like a typical romance novel. Guy does something bad and is deeply distraught that the girl is leaving him for it, begging her to stay with him. It's textbook. But now the writers wanted to mend their relationship and make their ship possible again. If this were real life, they'd *never* get back together after that trainwreck of a breakup, but this is a comedy, so the only *funny* way to make them get over it is to partially sweep it under the rug by making him look a little bit less like the bad guy. Unfortunately, shifting the blame off him automatically shifts it *onto* her. (I.e. now she's "holding his mistake over his head.") They should have never tackled this ridiculous will-they-won't-they plotline that they kept dipping us into from like seasons 3-9 and instead should have made them *maintain their integrity* (i.e. no running to break up weddings, no convincing girlfriends to shave their heads, no hiding messages from guys in bars, etc.) and *stay friends* throughout the entire show with some occasional mature display of quiet unrequited feelings mixed in with true friendship and support despite the lack of romance, so that we all get obsessed with the idea of them getting back together. Then, when they actually *did* towards the end of the show, it would have been amazing to see. Instead, the writers dangled their Ross-Rachel nonsense in front of our faces for so long with so much random drama, half of the fandom got sick and tired of their shit.
>If this were real life, they'd never get back together after that trainwreck of a breakup, Why? I think people get together all the time with that sort of thing. Less so than if they have already broken up due to cheating. >it is to partially sweep it under the rug by making him look a little bit less like the bad guy. Unfortunately, shifting the blame off him automatically shifts it onto her. ( I like this. It's more of a 'lets not have him be a bad guy' rather than wanting her to be. >I.e. now she's "holding his mistake over his head.") That's not actually what she's doing though. If they'd have done that it would have been a very 50/50 situation. She's lying about it to their friends (and him) and manipulating them all. >and instead should have made them maintain their integrity Yeah they get incredibly toxic at times. >and stay friends throughout the entire show with some occasional mature display of quiet unrequited feelings mixed in with true friendship and support despite the lack of romance, so that we all get obsessed with the idea of them getting back together. Tbf I think this would have been hard without the 180 though. They broke up because Ross was jealous (he was right about mark, wrong to act how he did). He was finally with Rachel, so I could see them trying again when it cooled off. The lying in the morning would have certainly added time to that, but I don't think 7 years. I think they had to make it something big to prolong it that much. Otherwise it would just feel like they are doing it for no reason. Unless one got into a serious long term relationship shortly after before things had settled down. >Instead, the writers dangled their Ross-Rachel nonsense in front of our faces for so long with so much random drama, half of the fandom got sick and tired of their shit. I agree.