tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugene Tackleberry tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 tod Jul 22 00:06:06 2004 Cadet Eugen63 responses total.
I like Rosie O'Donnell because she sent my niece a new stroller. True story. My sister bought this expensive stroller for her daughter, my niece. It was a stroller endorsed by Rosie O'Donnell. The stroller broke due to a factory defect. The warranty had expired and neither the store nor the stroller company would fix or replace it. Well Rosie O'Donnell endorsed it, so my sister wrote Rosie at her tv show address to complain that Rosie should no longer endorse those strollers. A few weeks pass by, and my sister gets a special delivery, a brand new top of the line stroller made by the same company. The sender was Rosie O'Donnell, who included a note saying she personally paid for the replacement stroller because the company didn't and should have, and that she wouldn't tolerate kids using defective equipment that carried her name or endorsement. I thought it was a pretty nice thing for her to do. :)
thanks for sharing that richard. *sniffles* i guess she's not a total twat after all!
Why did she send a stroller from the same company she endorsed, which had the defective stroller in the first place? Looks like she was just trying t ocover her ass, like
It's hard for me to see what she could have done better. I see no reason to believe the company makes junk. They made one bad stroller and then didn't go above and beyond their warranty to support it. Rosie O'Donnell didn't have to do what she did. I'm willing to give her credit.
bullshit, it was a CYA move.
oh .... mymy .. such a tempest in a teabag .... .. who's al atwitter?
... the above wa sin relation to the overall conflilct .. in teh instant case as reated by richard ... i give the prize to rosie, hersolf. she is tons better than that nasty rag.
I'm still trying to figure out what's so weird about linking the lying and cancer. Either the person on the receiving end of that comment is really stupid and believes it or really religious and believes it. Or both. But either way, if you let comments like that irk you then you've got bigger issues than Rosie.
Re #8: Susan Sontag used to call the Vietnam conflict "the cancer of America." Then Susan Sontag got cancer, and proceeded to write a book called _Cancer as Metaphor_ in which she attacked people who callously use a life-threatening disease as a metaphor without considering the feelings of the victims of that disease, and more or less apologized for doing so herself. I guess if you actually have cancer you might find it offensive when people say stuff like that. You might not even have to be something contemptible, like "stupid or really religious."
HEY> M_NET SURVIVED CANCER TOO!
I would think it would be worse if someone close to you had cancer.
You can certainly debate the appropriateness and inconsiderateness of making a "people who lie get cancer" comment. But it's really just an extreme example of something you might tell a gullible kid, such as "little boys who don't eat their peas grow tails". (Of course, someone like Calvin would think that would be cool and try it... ;-)
re6: i'm really worried about your drinking.
There is actually a bit of statistical support to the statement. Stress (causing by lying) decreases immunity. So does depression. Depression can also be caused by stress.
*rolls eyes* yeah, sindi, i'm sure she said it to be *helpful*.
I think it was a stupid thing to say. I don't know if I'd say it was hateful. Just stupid. Sort of like the comment that got Rush Limbaugh fired from ESPN.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Rush Limbaugh was on ESPN?
for a minute
You blinked, you missed it..
(http://msn.espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html has the story.)
Re: #9 Rosie's comment was probably intended as provocative sarcasm in the extreme. How truly silly to get bent over it. And to believe it... well... I guess I'd not really find such gullibility detestable as pitiable. Has Ms. Sontag also sworn off using phrases such as "death of a friendship", or "rape of the land", or "divorce from reality"? Or maybe that sensitivity will arrive only after she herself has been raped or divorced. Sounds like a pity party to me.
This response has been erased.
Re #23 'Has Ms. Sontag also sworn off using phrases such as "death of a friendship", or "rape of the land", or "divorce from reality"?' I doubt it, but if a rape victim was upset because someone said to her "Sluts get raped" would you tell her to get over it?
I am always amazed at how so many people *love* to hate women like Rosie O'Donnell, Roseanne Barr, etc. I always wondered if it is because they are kind of masculine or if it is for other reasons.
This response has been erased.
Yeah, that's it, people are afraid of strong women. I mean, if Rush Limbaugh had told a cancer victim "Liars get cancer" nobody would've minded, right? [snort]
Heh. to be fair, people love to hate Rush Limbaugh too but for different reasons. I dont wonder why people love to hate him. Just like I dont wonder why people love to hate Martha Stewart. I have an idea why. But what is it about Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr? Is it their positions on issues? Is it because of other insensitive comments? Has any of us lived a life where we have never said something insensitive to another person? O'Donnell says she apoligized later so it seems like she realizes why making a comment like that to a cancer surviver is in bad taste.
This response has been erased.
Rosie O'Donnell got famous in the first place for saying outrageous things. No surprise that she says outrageous things even in private.
Re: 25's: I doubt it, but if a rape victim was upset because someone said
to her "Sluts get raped" would you tell her to get over it?
Well, not quite. If I said anything it would probably be that
sometimes sluts do get raped but what does that have to do with you?
I'm always amazed at the power people willingly extend to assholes when
they take to heart rude and inaccurate comments.
32: Change "power" to "sympathy" and maybe you won't be so amazed. (I hope.) slynne: "Has any of us lived a life where we have never said something insensitive to another person?" I'm not saying that. That isn't the point. The point is that calling the cancer victim hypersensitive or "pity-party-prone" is silly, to put it kindly. And letting yourself be forced into that position because you're afraid people are criticizing Rosie because she's a "strong woman" is beyond silly. In the first place, Rosie is not a "strong woman," she's a vulgar bully, like Rush. In the second place, even if she was Abby Wambach (look her up) and even if some people really *were* on her case because she's a strong independent woman, that's still no reason to sneer at the cancer victim, fer chrissake. "O'Donnell says she apoligized later so it seems like she realizes why making a comment like that to a cancer surviver is in bad taste." Precisely. Even Rosie knows better.
32 again: What if she answered, "I'm a slut"? I hope you'd agree she didn't deserve to get raped, despite that fact. I hope you'd sympathize with her being upset that somebody said that to her. And I certainly hope you wouldn't say, "Oh, well, in *that* case, you're just being hypersensitive."
Yes, I'd agree sluts don't deserve to be raped. Sheesh. Although this conversation is highly unlikely anywhere but during a Grex discussion. ;-) I don't think we're really seeing this all that differently, Michael. Rosie's comment was pushing the limits of courtesy and she probably regretted saying it the moment she saw the shock register on the faces of those hearing it. But people have to accept some responsibility for how much worth they put on rude and inaccurate comments. Even if the comment hits home. Especially if the comment hits home.
"Either the person on the receiving end of that comment is really stupid and believes it or really religious and believes it. Or both." You said it, not me.
re #35: > Rosie's comment was pushing the limits of courtesy Whether or not you believe it was tactless enough to be unforgivable, I think you'd find it really hard to find any reasonable person who would consider a remark like that to be anything other than WELL beyond the limits of courtesy.
resp:29 I liked Rosie-- the more I hear I hear about Rosanne Barr/Arnold whatever, the more I think she is a neurotic stuck-up bitch. Martha Stewart is a control freak. And maybe America doesn't understand the fallacy of the supermom-- have financial success *and* be a homemaker... I dunno. She said something about if she was a man, her disliked personality traits would be admired. No. I think she set herself up to be perfect, and something maybe she wasn't. No doubt I think she is a shrewd businesswoman. Perfect homemaker? Probably not. I wouldn't doubt her husband left her because she was too controlling. No, the facade is crumbling.
But it's true, cross my heart. If someone believes they can get cancer by lying then they are stupid. Or they believe in a pretty angry god. Or both. That statement isn't controversial.
#39: No, it's condescending and insulting to the cancer victim. It pretends to assume that the reason she was shocked and offended by Rosie's callous remark is that she actually believed she could get cancer by lying, because she is either stupid or religious. (I say "pretends" because I doubt you really believe that.)
Let me fix that: No, it's condescending and insulting to the cancer victim. It pretends to assume that the reason she was shocked and offended by Rosie's callous remark is that she actually believed she could get cancer by lying, period. It doesn't matter what flavor of idiot you're pretending to think she is.
But if the cancer patient didn't believe it why let Rosie jerk her around? I don't think we're going to agree afterall. ;-)
Mary's blase attitude would be appropriate if humans lived as lone animals and neither needed nor cared about anyone else's thoughts. But humans aren't, verbal cruelty does hurt, and Rosie deserves the bad press (and then some).
hold me.
Needy people get cancer! #42: I know you don't seriously think the only reason anyone would take offense at Rosie's callous remark is that they believed it was literally true. You're pretending to think that, for whatever reason.
<applies a pair of tongs to happyboy, at arm's length> Happy now?
#0 leaves a lot of information out. Was she speaking metaphorically and just forgot that this woman was a cancer surviver. Was this something said in anger with the intention of being hurtful? I have not met Rosie O'Donnell but, unlike tod, her physical appearance or her sexual orientation dont bother me as I have nothing against "ugly dykes". I will say that I enjoy her public persona. She *seems* like a nice person as far as I can tell. Of course, that doesnt mean anything. I have heard that lots of famous people are *terrible* to work with. I even read an interesting psych article once about "situational acquired narcissism" Obviously there are people who dont like her. But, there are people who dont like me and I certainly dont think that makes *me* a bad person. (although obviously there are those who would disagree)
"ugly dykes"? Umm, unless I misunderstood, I wouldn't say Rosie was ugly, unless people consider big and roundish ugly.
There is yet another wayRosie might have intended to offend with that comment: It is fallacious, but she might have been trying to imply that the employee was a liar (since it was known that she has cancer) without actually saying as much. With other interpretations, the employee seems to be overwrought because of a petty, cruel comment. She seems a bit off-balanced to bother with a civil suit. We would turn down alternative hallways to avoid her. With my interpretaion, she was slandered, her professional reputation trashed. None is overly sensitive to such a charge. Those who must continue to work, will go on with the job, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt.
This response has been erased.
Re #38: Yeah, pepole love to see anyone who seems like the image of perfection fall. Look at all the glee when Martha Stewart's insider trading came to light.
Apart from being callous and mean, Rosie's comment was more childish than anything else. It's the kind of thing you hear kids say to each other on the playground. Instead of the callousness of the comment, the fact that a business woman would say something so stupidly petty is what shocked me more than anything else. If this story is true, Rosie has lost a lot of my respect, and it has nothing to do with being mean-spirited
resp:51 Exactly.
The trial isn't about whether Rosie is mean or callous or anything. It is about whether the company that published her magazine was deceiving her. And it sounds like they were. From today's wire reports: "Rosie scores one at trial Publishing firm's CFO admits it managed financials to avoid losing magazine. November 11, 2003: 10:13 AM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Attorneys for Rosie O'Donnell got the CFO of Gruner & Jahr to admit that the former publisher of Rosie magazine managed financial statements to avoid losses that would have allowed O'Donnell to leave the venture, CNNfn reported. Gruner & Jahr Chief Financial Officer Larry Diamond took the witness stand Monday in the breach-of-contract trial and answered questions about a clause that would have allowed either party to quit the magazine venture without penalty if it lost more than $4.2 million by the end of June 2002. O'Donnell's attorneys contended that Gruner & Jahr knew that a loss of that size was looming, but that the publisher played with the numbers to keep O'Donnell at the magazine. The lawyers focused on an e-mail Diamond wrote to his bosses saying the "management team of G&J USA is recommending to you we manage the financials such that we do not fall below the required threshold point so that we can continue to publish 'Rosie'. We are asking for your approval to this strategy." "Your management team decided that you didn't want the actual losses, if you want to use that term, to exceed $4.2 million. Correct?" Diamond was asked, according to the New York Times. "Yes, that's correct," Diamond answered, the paper reported. An accounting specialist brought in by the O'Donnell team for $450,000 said Gruner & Jahr managed the financials by not setting aside money to pay back advertisers when circulation fell, according to the Times. The specialist said the company should have set aside $374,000 and that, as well as the deferral of other expenses, allowed the venture to report a loss less than $4.2 million, the paper reported. Those watching the trial had expected that Monday would be its last day. But when O'Donnell asked the judge if she should return Wednesday, the judge told her she should, as he "might have something interesting to say," according to the Times. O'Donnell left Rosie magazine 13 months ago, following a dispute over editorial control, and the publisher shut the publication shortly afterward. Gruner & Jahr, owned by the German publisher Bertelsmann AG, sued O'Donnell for $100 million, alleging she acted unprofessionally and breached her contract when she pulled out of the venture in September 2002. O'Donnell countersued for $125 million, saying Gruner & Jahr took away her editorial control"
Discussing Rosie's meanness and stupidity was more fun :P
This response has been erased.
While I still think Rosie is totally cool, I have to agree with mynxcat and tod. This item was never about her *court case* ;)
This response has been erased.
How childish, more-like.
Someone cooked the books? Shocking!
whoever was teh judge inteh rosie-vs-rosie case has earned my respect .. neither side wins ...
.. however , thaer are attourey fees to consioder ... trial lawyers alwayx profit ..............................
..................................whore
You have several choices: