Before the jacuzzi, you dumb cunt. YOU DESERVE IT.
Actually, I deserve a turkey sandwich too. Stop doddling Diosa and get to it! Don’t make me knock the rest of your teeth loose woman.
Wait, what?! Are you kidding? Is today opposite day and no one clued me in?
Your whole statement is just all kinds of bullshit. Truthfully, while I can SORT OF understand Sampiro’s state of mind, this just…I…you have completely lost my respect.
Unless, of course, you’re a DV victim yourself. Are you? Have you been naked and wet in a shower while someone has hurled insults at you and dumped everything in reach (shampoo, conditioner, gel, body wash, etc.) on you while turning on only the cold water? Have you had the phone ripped out of the wall when you tried to call 911? Have you been dragged across the floor by your hair? Have you had someone screw with the fuel line in your car? No? Then shut the fuck up.
You’re just trying to make your bj all gummy and better! Hey wait! I figured it out. Clearly Mel is obsessed with head, right? That’s why he knocked her teeth out- not out of abuse or anger, but just to make the head better, thus bringing them closer together. Why are you guys so judgmental?
I know this is an intense emotional issue for a lot of people, but please remain civil.
And people are going to continue to call what you are doing for what it is: trying to control a conversation using intimidation. People have explained what they actually meant, but because they didn’t say what you wanted them to say, you are going to continue attacking them.
Thing is, nobody cares. I know people love to defend themselves for some reason, but it’s quite clear that, if a statement says anything about shades of gray, you will completely not understand it. There’s no reason to take your posts seriously when you condemn others for not thinking the way you do.
Don’t like this judgment of the character of your posts?? Don’t go around judging other posters’ behaviors.
Anyways, to help explain to you anyways what is obviously alluding you:
A gold digger is someone who marries not for love or even convenience, but for greed. (That’s a much better term than “personal gain.”) The name itself indicates marrying for money, but the definition has been extended to include power and fame.
The relevance is solely in trying to figure out why she held on to the tapes for so long. The posters that notice this are just being skeptical of her explanation (what little there is), as, to them, it doesn’t make sense. (Sound familiar?). Her story for why she held on to them (if there even is one) doesn’t hold up. People are just trying to understand, not to judge (another concept that seems to elude you.)
It sucks, but the only plausible reason offered so far is that she was blackmailing him. Evidence that would help support this include her possible golddigger status. Someone who is willing to marry for money is often willing to extort money out of someone. It is obviously inconclusive, but it at least makes a workable hypothesis: That she let Mel hear the tapes, and she used them to blackmail him, whether for money, or just to keep him for hurting her.
And even this is hard to judge, as, if she did so because she honestly thought it was the best way to protect herself, assuming the cops wouldn’t help (something that, without some legal people jumping in rather than a self-proclaimed “Expert,” I am not willing to completely deny). But even if we stipulate that you are right–maybe she didn’t know what you know. But the more sinister observation is that she did, and willingly held on to use against him later, not because she felt threatened (legitimate), but because he did something unrelated to piss her off (illegitimate).
But, the thing is, I don’t care that I can’t judge that part without more evidence, because, as we both know, Mel’s actions trump all that. Still, I’m not about to tell the other people in the thread that they can’t discuss the other parts if those parts interest them more. Some people want more than to keep on raging against Mel. And it’s not my job to moderate them.
I know both of us would prefer if topics remained perfectly on topic, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Um, completely irrelevant. Just because we’re saying that he is trying to control people (which he clearly is), doesn’t mean we are equating his actions with the abuses you mention.
Just because you are a victim (right? You didn’t flat out say.) doesn’t mean you get to pull out that strawman, or attempt to say that only people who have experienced abuse can talk about this subject.
He’s being outright inflammatory, putting “kinda, sorta” words in Dio’s mouth that are directly in opposition to what Dio is preaching and I get a warning for telling him to shut the fuck up?
Maybe it was the profanity? So sorry. Let me try again.
astro, I dislike your views on this subject. I disagree vehemently with your opinion and I have less respect for you as a result. I humbly apologize for using a profanity in my last address to you. Please know that, although my previous sentiments have been somewhat invalidated, my revised response to you would likely end with, "I humbly request that you stop posting poste haste.
Bzzzzt BigT.
First, she has never been married to him. You keep saying married, there was no marriage between them. His divorce to his WIFE of 29 years just became final this year. The woman on the tapes has been having an affair with him for 3 years. So you’re wrong right away.
Also, held on to the tapes for so long? How long do you think she’s held onto them? I’m assuming you don’t really know since you didn’t know they weren’t married. How long is a long time to you? A month? Six months? A year? Two years? How long is too long in your humble estimation?
She talks about him hitting her while she was holding their child. Their child was born at the end of October of 2009 so I daresay she didn’t hold onto the tapes for too long.
As for your belief that blackmail is the only plausible explanation? Give me a break. Blackmail only works if you don’t give away the evidence for free.
I would suggest you read “The Gift of Fear” and learn a bit about violence against women. The author, who receives raves from all kinds of people on this board although they seem to forget his sage advice when they post in threads, explains that gathering evidence of abuse, threats, intimidation and other data is essential should the police need to be involved. I’m sure Oxsana will be disappointed to hear that BigT of the SDMB disagrees with her method of protecting herself.
What do you think would happen if she made these accusations about him without the evidence? Look at the ripping she’s getting HERE where people are supposed to be (?) smarter than othe sites on the internet. I don’t care if Mel does have a history of nuttery. He’s never had a history of doing THIS and a lot of people would say that she’s lying by picking an easy mark. He’s an easy mark? Sure he is! He doesn’t have the most stable history and he’s rich. People would say that she’s lying because of his past alcoholic ramblings.
So contrary to what your mistake riddled post might suggest, there are many other reasons why she might keep those tapes besides blackmail. For you to suggest that is the only plausible reason is downright laughable.
Try reading again - this time for comprehension.
If someone chooses to discuss and offer opinions about her motivations for entering into, and staying in a relationship with an abusive madman like Gibson this is well within the parameters of reasonable discourse. The notion that straying one conversational millimeter from a laser like focus on the fact that he assaulted her is tantamount to blaming the victim is abject nonsense, utterly puerile, and assumes the participants in the discussion cannot identify the assaulted person as the injured party without big cartoon “abuser” and “victim” arrows pointing them out.
Your status as a past victim of domestic violence is unfortunate, but it does not entitle you to direct or control what people can and cannot talk about in general conversation thread about an incident of domestic violence involving celebrities.
Look at what you wrote. You said people are being skeptical of her explanation and indicated what little there is to it. What is her explanation, oh wise one? Please link to the quote where you find her explanation so I may read it for myself. Please don’t tell me to find it for myself as YOU are the one who is judging that explanation.
Until then, let’s look at the next gem of knowledge you bestow upon us:
Her story (if there even is one) indicates to me that YOU DO NOT KNOW what her story is. See that? “If there even is one” means YOU DO NOT KNOW. Now, even though you do not know what her story is you have decided that it doesn’t hold up. Now, after demonstrating that you are perfectly capable of contradicting yourself all in one sentence you tell us that people are trying to understand and not judge. HUH?! You’re already judging that her story doesn’t hold up when you don’t even know what her story is.
So seriously, seriously… please do not lecture ANYONE on what concepts elude them. Your post is all anyone needs to read to realize that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about.
Wait, are you saying the fact that she didn’t erase the tapes indicates some kind of gold-digger mentality?
I would respectfully like to point out that, with abuse victims, the threat doesn’t necessarily go away when the victim throws the abuser out. In fact, quite the contrary.
I don’t think she’s a gold digger. I think she’s trying to get him locked up, to protect herself.
Not that anyone cares, but I think releasing all that to the general public is pretty low. It’s none of our business.
I could argue the exact opposite. The majority of religious people I know have had the kindest type of behavior, and Catholics even more so. And most of the assholes I meet are atheists or agnostics. I speculate it is because of their lack of belief in any eternal consequences, but I don’t know. I only know my own observations that it seems to be true.
Thing is, I would know that that is going to be offensive to many people, and start a religious debate. I really don’t think it’s a good idea to make generalizations based on personal experiences. As is commonly said here, the plural of anecdote is not data. I would be interested in an actual correlation–but that would be for a different thread.
We’ve heard that religious people are assholes and we’ve heard that atheists are assholes. Now for the truth: People are assholes.
This thread reminds me of the Menendez case. For those too young to remember it, it was a case where two rich, spoiled brothers murdered their parents and then went on a spending spree.
On the surface of it, it was a slam dunk in the matter of public opinion: The kids were spoiled and evil, and the parents were innocents. And we all agreed, and (most of us) still agree, that the sons should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for their horrific crimes.
Now during the Menendez trials, the defense brought in some witnesses including the defendants themselves, who offered up testimony about the Menendez home life, which was extremely damning to the parents. It included recounts of severe, on-going physical and emotional abuse from the father, coupled with a docile mother who did nothing to protect her kids, which explained why a child might turn on his own parent. Were these stories of abuse the truth, a bunch of lies or something in between? Only they know for sure. I will say that the testimony did make ME stop and wonder what went on in that house to cause these young men to turn their own home into a bloodbath.
Now just because I occasionally wonder if the father repeatedly raped his own sons doesn’t mean that the sons still weren’t 100% guilty of murder. They were, by their own admission. What they did was inexcusable. However, it’s still a very interesting case because, if you are to believe the Menendez brothers’ defense, the parents were not the loving parents that they were portrayed to be. And, even more interesting is the possibility that all four key players were BOTH victim and abuser.
In the Gibson case, it’s a slam dunk that Gibson is 100% guilty of being an abusive jerkwad and he should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. Conceded. NO ONE is disputing that. But moving beyond that obvious point, some of us have moved on to speculate about HER character and her motives for staying, given that she wasn’t a young girl without resources. That doesn’t mean that we don’t believe she was a victim. She certainly was. But it’s also true that one can be BOTH a victim and a (abuser, extortionist, provacateur, asshole) in the same breath.
So was she trying to extort money or a marriage proposal from him? Was she saving the tapes to protect her child for a future child custody battle? Was she in real fear for her life and trying to leave behind evidence in case she turned up dead?
We don’t know. But it’s perfectly fair, in the Cafe Society, to gossip about it.
Moving thread from Cafe Society to The Pit
Ellen Cherry
Cafe Society Moderator
No, it’s just baseless, irrelevant, gratuitous, victim blaming, misogynist bullshit.
The vast majority of people you meet are religious, and pretty much ALL people are assholes, therefore, the majority of assholes you meet are religious.
What you are displaying is confirmation bias, and probably a little bit of prejudice. You don’t like atheists just BECAUSE they are atheists, so you look for and remember assholery in them, while ignoring it in religious people. Certainty of righteousness and eternal reward has been one of the most dangerous and destructive things in human history. Doubt has been one of the most constructive and has NEVER caused harm…
The suggestion that fear of eternal consequences has anything to do with whether people are assholes is complete crap, by the way. The guys who flew the planes into the World Trade center believed in eternal consequences.
Let me ask you this, is fear of eternal consequences the only thing that stops YOU from trying to be a good person? Are people really being “kind” if they’re only acting a certain way out of fear? How do you explain all the non-believers who are kind without any belief in supernatural reward or punishment at all?
As was noted previously: no one knows that she did this.
If the tapes were brought to the police, any number of hands touched them. If they were brought to a lawyer, any number of people could have copied it.
Since both she and radaronline are denying that she is the source of the leak, I think accusations that she IS the source of the leak are going to require something to back them up.