response 29 of 63:

Nov 8 14:47 UTC 2003

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. 

response 31 of 63:

Nov 8 19:00 UTC 2003

Rosie O'Donnell got famous in the first place for saying outrageous things.
No surprise that she says outrageous things even in private.

response 33 of 63:

Nov 8 22:33 UTC 2003

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.

response 35 of 63:

Nov 8 23:01 UTC 2003

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.

response 37 of 63:

Nov 9 02:51 UTC 2003

  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.

response 39 of 63:

Nov 9 11:33 UTC 2003

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.

response 41 of 63:

Nov 9 12:41 UTC 2003

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.

response 43 of 63:

Nov 9 14:48 UTC 2003

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).

response 45 of 63:

Nov 9 21:15 UTC 2003

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.

response 47 of 63:

Nov 9 22:36 UTC 2003

#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) 

response 49 of 63:

Nov 10 14:04 UTC 2003

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.