They've explained why it's a gripe and I'm explaining why the reasoning doesn't make sense.

She appeared in about 20 episodes across 10 years; what was her longest unbroken string of appearences? 5 or 6 episodes in total (similar to Tag and Charlie)?

Long enough to make an impact and serve a story arc, but not long enough to overstay her welcome. I'd class her as recurring in the same vein as Susan and Carol - well enough liked by the key players to be brought back for a few episodes here and there, but not well enough to have a long unbroken run of appearences like Mike.

Part of it was probably the fact she was there in the first season, before the main 6 had become as close knit as they had after many years on the show.

That's right, I meant to include that as well.

As were the actors playing Carol, Susan, Judy, Jack and Gunther now I think about it.........

Richard was there in season 2, and Tom Selleck complained of feeling left out on set as well

Absolutely this. Especially in the later ones - don't know if the character changed or I just "grew up" but he was easily the best by the end

Source?

Wikipedia, which is possibly inaccurate seeing as I can't see why the main 6 would ignore a much more respected actor

You're taking it a bit too seriously. It's none of your business what other people see as a gripe. You either agree it disagree but that doesn't mean the gripe itself is wrong. Move on.

You're taking it a bit too seriously with your strangely argumentative tone.

I'm discussing the topic with another poster.

Move on.

One thing that never made sense to me was the cover-ups Monica and Chandler used when their affair was secret. There was the time when Rachel heard them talking on the phone. Monica said she was about to call Chandler Mr Bigot rather than Mr Big[Something Else] which didn't explain 1) why they were talking on the phone, the Friends hardly ever do that 2) why Monica said on the phone that she would lie to Rachel and say she was doing laundry instead of going to see Chandler. Rachel wasn't the smartest but she's not stupid enough to fall for that.

Then there was the scene where Joey was fed up of covering for Monica and Chandler and told the group that she had slept with him and was now stalking him. They were shocked but it was never mentioned again. Then when it was revealed that she was actually sleeping with Chandler, everybody went nuts over it.

I blame the scriptwriters.

In series 1 and 2 the gang always used to get really annoyed and made fun when Mr Heckles from downstairs complained he could hear them moving around and making loads of noise, yet in another episode (series 3 i think?) Monica and Rachel are angry about their "unbelievably loud upstairs neighbour" who they can hear moving about and talking. Phoebe and later on, the guys even go up there to yell at him. Hypocrites much?!

Yea the Mr Bigot thing was quite stupid but I think at that point Rachel was finally putting the pieces together herself anyway ... totally agree that it was weird about them all believing Monica slept with Joey like it was no big deal. Chandler and Monica were very selfish during that time anyway letting Joey being humiliated like that just because they were seemingly so overcome with lust that they couldnt controlled themselves enough to cover their tracks.

Good gripe well spotted

This is more of a question than a gripe, but having watched The One With The Stoned Guy on Comedy Central earlier, is that Steve guy the same guy who Phoebe sets Rachel up with in The Blind Dates episode? If so, surely Rachel would have remembered him in The Blind Dates episode

same actor for sure,not sure about character

It is the same guy - although it's never explicitly stated I remember reading somewhere that it's the same guy.

As for Rachel remembering - the two events are several years apart. I wouldn't necessarily remember someone I met once several years ago. WE (the audience members who paid enough attention to create a thread of this length) remember, and it's a nice in-joke; but it doesn't mean the wider audience, nor the characters, should be expected to remember.

My biggest gripe is that people are still going on about it.

My second biggest gripe is people quoting from it in 2013.

My third biggest gripe is people thinking it was some kind of window on their own lives, highly unlikely (but Friends fans are always keen to go on a rant about how wrong that statement is).

It was definitely the same guy, he mentions to Rachel how he has lost his restaurant etc when Phoebe sets her up with him

I wouldn't say she would remember him either, Its similar to argument from last week of Phoebe not remembering her brother being the person who dropped the condom in her case, though there was a lot less time between that and meeting her brother then in between Rachels meetings with Steve.

My main gripe with the show was Phoebe, who was just filler, and REALLY annoying. I know this weon't be a popular view, but almost everything she said annoyed the crap out of me Then there was Ross, who got so whiney by the end I loathed him. I think Rachel should have ended up with Joey. OK, I said it, and I will now take cover

OK, another query that's not a gripe at all! I just thought I'd ask here as this is the current active Friends thread.

In the episode where Monica has a Ms Pacman arcade game and Chandler assigns rude three-letter words next to all the high scores, there's a conversation along the lines of:
Monica: That word isn't rude...
Chandler: It is if you put it together with that one there.
Monica: Well[...]you won't be getting one of those from me later!

Is it possible to work out what those two words were? Juvenile, I know!

My guess was always that the word was job, and he'd knocked the W off of blow...

Surely someone who offered Monica a job and was high at the interview would be memorable for Rachel?!

Excuse me but I was the one who posted MY gripe about Phoebe and her brother, why are you saying it was an argument when there's no argument?
My gripe is bonafide, the fact others decided to give the situation a non existent, supposition based background doesn't make them correct.

Was it supposed to be the same character? Bit part actors tend to get reused a lot in the same shows.

Did Rachel even meet the stoned guy?