Brooke Sheild.s-book/ Excerpts in People-Magazine

[ivy]

other ones who seem kissing your boots too.

too late to edit. caught your original lovely name calling of others. so now your argument is "others are doing it so I'll insult you all some more". You are definitely winning this argument. so please go on.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Is that an insult? My bad, then putting people against me and defaming me all together is not. Thanks for the memo.

 

[ivy]

Is that an insult? My bad, then putting people against me and defaming me all together is not. Thanks for the memo.

well honey no one put anyone against you. You wrote something and multiple people disagreed with you. It happens. Some people agreed with you as well. Why do you need to portray like people disagreed with you cannot have their independent opinions about what you wrote? why do they need to be "kissing my boots" if they don't share your opinion? if they share my opinion does that mean they are mindless people who just follow my lead? Nope, nope and nope. and again why are you so desperate to divide people into me vs you categories? Isn't that what started this all? first it was "you brooke fans" and now it is "people who kiss your boots"? after this many hours isn't "labels are bad, please don't use labels" finally understood? And you surely cannot think calling people "ass kissers" (which I assume equal to kiss your boots) is a nice thing to say - hence why you edited your original post?

and honey you lost your right to complain about so called "defaming" when you multiple times used choice words against people. It's known as unclean hands. You cannot complain about something that you keep doing over and over and over again. Yes other people might not be innocent as well but you are the only person who is complaining and crying here. And you aren't going to achieve anything with "you defamed me so I'll call you names" mindset.

perhaps you need to consider if you are able to handle a discussion because always there will be people that don't agree with you.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

This thread was useful to me for not taking you seriously, I thought you were better than that but like I said, no one is infallible and you don't go clean either. If any of you want to continue liking her, being fans, whatever you may call it even though she lied about Michael and if anyone don't find her remarks offensive, to each their own. I got tired of arguing already but it won't change I don't like anyone lying about Michael, I don't like the comments that contribute the demeaning stereotypes he still carries.

 

[AliCat]

Brooke's Princeton education came in handy after all, considering the definition of "asexual."

 

[HIStory]

t is just that some see Michel in a more stereotypical way than others. Some of those same fans are found in the Mirror threads talking about how sexy he is. It is sometimes difficult to understand the inconsistencies of human character. People switch gears from one thread to another.

Would you please elaborate how the participation in the Mirror threads is in any way contradictory to the opinions said in this thread?

And please explain what is the right way to see Michael? Obviously you must know since this is not the first time you call others "stereotypical" for having a different opinion than you (at least you did not liken us to haters this time, that's something I guess).

This thread should teach people to please read information for yourself, especially about the allegations. Lately, I find myself not reading people's summaries about facts in the Wade thread, because I see the same posters in other threads like here use a lot of faulty logic or their own interpretation to draw conclusions. People like to be the Gods of threads. I strongly suggest that people don't be lazy and read content for yourself. Anyway don't want to derail this thread.

By the way Ivy the latter part of this does not refer to you so don't get offended.

Since it's me and Ivy who regularly post summaries in the Wade thread and you said it's not about Ivy then I guess it's about me, so, although you carefully avoided to directly address most of my points and questions in this thread, let me ask you straight what is it that makes me so unreliable regarding Wade's allegations? Did I ever lie about anything? Did I make up things? Did I misinterpret something? If so then you are welcome to point out those mistakes, wrong interpretations and the "faulty logic" in what I have written. But let's not throw around general accusations with the only goal of discrediting someone for not agreeing with you.

Also there is a difference in making summaries about documents and interpreting them. I think in the Wade thread I always make it clear what is a document summary and what is my own interpretation or opinion about a document, a claim or a law. But even in my interpretation I try never to twist anything. There are occasions when I do not understand something and then I do tell people who read that I did not understand this or that part. And when we tell our opinions about things of course there is always room for being wrong, but like I said in that thread I think people can tell what is a document summary and what is just my opinion. Yes, I encourage people to read things for themselves as well, that's why both Ivy and me always attach the sources as well, whenever it's possible (court docs, articles, laws etc.) I have nothing to hide so people are absolutely free to read all the sources of the information I share or summarize and that is exactly why whenever it's possible I always attach the sources.

And how my opinion in this thread would discredit everything else I write on this forum is also an interesting question. What we are talking in this thread are opinions about what Brooke said and what Michael said regarding the same topic. You seem to think you can accuse anyone who disagrees with you with "faulty logic", being stereotypical or being like haters. When it's simply a different opinion than yours. And having a different opinion than you does not discredit anyone.

And lastly, I find a your preachings to Ivy a little ironic considering your many underhanded ad hominem attacks in this thread. Just in the above quote accusing people of wanting to be "Gods of threads". What does that mean exactly? LOL.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

This is fun, another 'let's hate women in Michael's life endlessly' thread :wild:

 

[barbee0715]

This is fun, another 'let's hate women in Michael's life endlessly' thread :wild:

YES!!! Because that is all this thread is. Brooke was lying about Michael and saying mean things. Proven she was not and it's all semantics. Brooke abandoned him. Proven she did not. Brooke said she was going out with him for publicity. Proven she did not.
All these threads about Brooke, Lisa Marie, Tatum, Stephanie et all are the same. Like a bunch of bitter jealous ex wives and girlfriends posting.

 

[LindavG]

I found this interview with Brooke from 1985, around the time she was close friends with Michael. From 06:00 onwards, she talks about her own fear of intimacy. I believe that was she says was true for Michael as well, especially at that time.

[youtube]x0rcfxygDeo[/youtube]

 

[AliCat]

YES!!! Because that is all this thread is. Brooke was lying about Michael and saying mean things. Proven she was not and it's all semantics. Brooke abandoned him. Proven she did not. Brooke said she was going out with him for publicity. Proven she did not.
All these threads about Brooke, Lisa Marie, Tatum, Stephanie et all are the same. Like a bunch of bitter jealous ex wives and girlfriends posting.

...and don't forget to add Karen Faye, Debbie Rowe, Tatiana, Ola Ray, etc. Don't be being bias. You might start sounding like a certain Lisa, a bitter ex wife. She just loves to complain!

 

[InvincibleMJ]

At last :smilerolleyes:

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Who's is going to say that kind of famous person dates/goes out with another one humongously famous for publicity? Brooke would never say that and having spent a decade of friendship with Michael, I bet she had many positive stories to tell but she chose steering controversy. :no:

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Now with that I agree and I said it before, she could have shared so many great stories and yet these are the things that she chose to tell. Shame.

 

[LindavG]

Now with that I agree and I said it before, she could have shared so many great stories and yet these are the things that she chose to tell. Shame.

But what is so bad about what she's saying? I truly don't see it. What is so awful about Michael being scared of intimacy when he was younger? Lots of people are. Brooke herself was as she has said many times. If that was her impression of him, why shouldn't she be honest about it? She also says that they felt comfortable and safe with each other, that their friendship was more meaningful than people are able or willing to understand, that they trusted each other and loved each other, etc. So why focus on that one thing that some might interpret negatively?

 

[barbee0715]

I'm the first to say that I may sound like a bitter, jealous girlfriend, but I try to do that in my head but I'll admit that I do usually take offense first. I find myself thinking about it a lot, and reason it out-I imagine myself in other people's place and remember the context it was written, said, etc.

It's just like that really charming story that Tracee Ellis Ross told on Jimmy Kimmel the other day-and she was playing to the audience and had to add a "woo-hee hee" to her story about Michael on the phone-and I got annoyed.
A lot of times it depends on who your audience is.

Before anybody freaks out about this new thing-I get a Google Alert every night on Michael-(it's amazing the thousands of stories that come over with his name in the headline that have nothing to do with him at all) but it usually gives you the top 10 stories.
I got this alert at midnight last night. Apparently the Daily Mail wrote a story about her appearance on "Watch What Happens Live" and said she refused his request to be godfather to her first child, with the unspoken implication of course, that it was because of the charges. But the story went on to say it was because her husband's siblings were already going to be the godparents and that she did not mention the charges at all. (As I remember, he didn't make her the godmother of any of his kids either).

So I happen to be pet/house sitting when I got it and they have On Demand TV here, so I searched for it, found the show, and watched it myself. I've seen it once before-when Streisand was on-and either the guests are really comfortable with Andy Cohen or they're really drunk. They drink all through the show and Brooke appeared tipsy when it started. And she was on with Russell Brand, who I despise because of his Michael jokes.
She said she loved Michael very much and told the godparent story. And she also said something about "carrying Emanuel Lewis on one arm and the chimp on the other", which really annoyed me.

I thought about it, though,and realized that she just meant it as a joke (a poor one), much like Tracee did. She also said some stuff about her other boyfriends, that I would have taken offense to if I were fans of theirs. BUT I realized she was joking and that's the audience for this kind of show.Personally, I wish they wouldn't do it, but I guess I shouldn't overreact if it's a harmless joke.

All the other interviews I've seen have been very loving and respectful about everybody in the book-and they're mainly about her mother. Michael seems to be the least mentioned person in any of it.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

But what is so bad about what she's saying? I truly don't see it. What is so awful about Michael being scared of intimacy when he was younger? Lots of people are. Brooke herself was as she has said many times. If that was her impression of him, why shouldn't she be honest about it? She also says that they felt comfortable and safe with each other, that their friendship was more meaningful than people are able or willing to understand, that they trusted each other and loved each other, etc. So why focus on that one thing that some might interpret negatively?

I'm not saying it's so bad, I'm saying there are so many GOOD things to tell. I would love to hear about nice memories I am sure she has rather than reading these stories that are at best classified as "not negative". Wouldn't you?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I'd prefer a million times reading positive stories than reading the ones that cause innuendo and controversy given the fact she called him asexual in the past. Many people who weren't even close to him proved Michael was one of the most memorable human beings they had ever met, an absolute sweetheart and a very pleasant person to be around but no Brookie had to be negative when there were quite valid reasons why he was afraid of romantic relationships and intimacy.

 

[Petrarose]

you don't need to defend yourself, Petra will do that for you.



perhaps there's hope that you realize that people might not agree with you either and hence it's not respectful to mention your opinion as a fact and state what people say doesn't matter.



LOL, the last part of whole discussion has been about issues some of us had with people claiming/meaning they are correct and others are wrong and you decided to start your post with declaring who is correct and who is wrong. really Petra? REALLY?

allow me to make it real easy. You and Snow are correct in all regards and we are all wrong. Satisfied? and that's my cue to leave this thread for good.

Ivy If you look back at the "she is right" comment I made referred to, it was about you accusing her about a particular thing. She is right in saying you accused her wrongly. She never added those words to tagged to her comment. We need to look back to see what someone is referring to; so yes she is right. Look back.

I am not merely defending Snow as you claim but her opinions, explanations, reasoning which I agree with, in the same way I defend YOUR opinions, explanations in other threads where some are targeting you. It was small to make that comment. Right is right and this has nothing to do with personal feelings. At least not on my part.

 

[ivy]

Apparently the Daily Mail wrote a story about her appearance on "Watch What Happens Live" and said she refused his request to be godfather to her first child, with the unspoken implication of course, that it was because of the charges. But the story went on to say it was because her husband's siblings were already going to be the godparents and that she did not mention the charges at all.

I know you have watched the show and there was no "unspoken implication it was because of the charges". She was very clear that her sister in law and her husband would be the godparents. In other words there was already a godfather determined and therefore she had to say no to him. she said she felt sad and like "oh no" that that she had to deny him being a godfather.

Also it cannot be due to allegations. She gave birth at May 2003, allegations didn't become public until November 2003. It's impossible for her to deny him when allegations wouldn't happen/become public for another 6 months.

If anything that story also demonstrates MJ had no issues with Brooke, keeping in touch and wanting to have a connection with her - as she says.

---------------

@Petra, that discussion is over for me. As I pointed out several times before, I spoke out about what I saw as problematic. My opinion / position still stands and no "God of the thread" declarations of who is correct/wrong would change them. You are entitled to have your opinion and so do I. The best thing would be to not to try to push your opinions as facts but respect others opinions and agree to disagree - and move on.


edited to add: if you were truly about "right is right", you would have ALSO called out all the other name calling addressed to other people(from know it all to ass kissers). Sorry but you are not coming across very believable now. You are truly wasting your time and so do I. So like I said let's agree to disagree.

 

[barbee0715]

I know you have watched the show and there was no "unspoken implication it was because of the charges". She was very clear that her sister in law and her husband would be the godparents. In other words there was already a godfather determined and therefore she had to say no to him. she said she felt sad and like "oh no" that that she had to deny him being a godfather.

Also it cannot be due to allegations. She gave birth at May 2003, allegations didn't become public until November 2003.

If anything that story also demonstrates MJ had no issues with Brooke, peeing in touch and wanting to have a connection with her - as she says.

I am sorry that I wrote that story badly. What had an unspoken implication was the Daily Mail HEADLINE and the synopsis on Google. ONLY. "Brooke ******* revealed that she would not let the King of Pop be godfather to her first born child". The story itself said there was no mention of molestation allegations.

Obviously, there was nothing at all about that in the show either. Daily Mail just picked up on that story on purpose for sheer salacious purposes. Headlines and short summaries alerts. 90% of the stuff that comes over is junk-But important stories come along with it.

I mainly wrote about it, because if any one else sees just that much, they'll jump to conclusions-and Brooke definitely did not say that.

I know when she had her kids, so I figured they were talking about 93, but honestly, I doubt the Daily Mail even looks at such things like dates and years. They're not really a newspaper.

And yes, I thought that was sweet that he wanted to do it, personally. I'm glad he wanted to do it, and I wish she had taken him up on it.

 

[Petrarose]

---------------

@Petra, that discussion is over for me. As I pointed out several times before, I spoke out about what I saw as problematic. My opinion / position still stands and no "God of the thread" declarations of who is correct/wrong would change them. You are entitled to have your opinion and so do I. The best thing would be to not to try to push your opinions as facts but respect others opinions and agree to disagree - and move on.

You feel I am pushing my opinions as fact, I feel I am discussing and saying what I don't agree with. You are doing all the things in the thread that you accusing others of doing. You talk about people name calling but I saw someone saying we are acting like jealous.... and then in another post the person added themselves to that, but it is a label nevertheless. Why didn't you call that person out? Why did you only call out Snow for the know it all Ivy comment. There is a situation in the thread. Part of the situation is that 2 people don't agree with most in the thread. Most agree and compliment those they agree with which is normal. I have no problem with people who think like you, aligning with you. I align with you too when I agree with you, and you never say I am pushing my opinions on the rest who disagree with both of us. So, why now all of a sudden because I disagree with you I am now PUSHING. I am not pushing anything. I am the same person who supported you in other threads, with the same intentions & opinions.

^^You have a right to say your opinion still stands, but why do you have such a problem when others see their position and opinion as concrete as well (and want it to stand). Why do you feel that when you stick to your opinion you are right, but when 2 others stick to their opinions they are being God of the thread. Two people who are in the minority can't be a God of a thread. Their power is less than the majority, their opinions are not accepted by the majority, the majority is not following them so how can they be a God? Why is it when you say your opinions you are not pushing it on others, but when 2 people say their opinion they are pushing it on others? You are doing the same thing in the thread that everyone else is doing. You are not different in your behavior. You are posting strongly and so are the other 2 people.


Snow Your comment: Don't worry, I wasn't the only one falling into that juvenile behavior, you did it and the ones who seem regarding you in such high standards too. This thread proved me NO ONE is infallible and any person can fall into a bias behavior.

True; everyone is doing the same thing in the thread, except Tal. However, it is easier to say the minority is doing it. What is happening here is no different to what happens in the larger society> In fact I always see the interaction on the forum as mirroring the interaction between the weak vs the strong, those in power vs the powerless in society, the popular vs the unpopular, etc. People will look for all kinds of crazy theories/explanations to support a point of view. It is all in this thread.

The only thing is I don't think you should call Ivy that label about know it all. Yes she accused you wrongly and added that piece to the comment you made, and I know you being human retaliated. Don't let injustice make you act lowly. Other than that, I agree with your views.

I agree though that sometimes when people feel they have a lot of information and they are relied on heavily for what they have, it is hard for them to show they erred, and they will have all kinds of justifications to show how right they are by twisting meanings. That I saw in this thread.

 

[ivy]

Allow me to repeat.

@Petra, that discussion is over for me.

Any problems with understanding what I wrote? I'll be happy to provide a detailed English lesson if needed.

I agree though that sometimes when people feel they have a lot of information and they are relied on heavily for what they have, it is hard for them to show they erred, and they will have all kinds of justifications to show how right they are by twisting meanings. That I saw in this thread.

Sweet veiled jab. I have to agree with respect77's "underhanded ad hominem attacks" comment before. so I guess this thread has been an eye opener for everyone. Do me a favor and don't defend/support me anymore. Thanks.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Again accusing of calling people something you came up with ivy? You didn't learn, did you? Where in my posts I called people "ass kissers"? If I wanted to be blatantly rude and vulgar to any one, I'd have been. Yes, I used "people who SEEM (appear to be, I didn't affirm it) to kiss your boots." But now you're cynically saying I called them like you claim because according to you it is the EXACT SAME THING.

 

[Petrarose]

Allow me to repeat.



Any problems with understanding what I wrote? I'll be happy to provide a detailed English lesson if needed.



Sweet veiled jab. I have to agree with respect77's "underhanded ad hominem attacks" comment before. so I guess this thread has been an eye opener for everyone. Do me a favor and don't defend/support me anymore. Thanks.

Ivy but you have been agreeing with the others' comments all through the thread, unless you just want to remind me of that. Now you see yourself as being attacked again. I wonder why I am not feeling I have been attacked? I have no friends here and still I don't feel attacked. Yes the thread is an eyeopener for everyone. It is interesting how you came into the thread to be the main speaker for the majority, making conclusions to support their statements. Accusing Snow and not saying sorry.

I was surprised by your schoolgirl comment of not defending/supporting you anymore. It is almost as though someone is in a grammar school,got mad with a student, and tell her not to talk to me again in a whinny voice. I will continue to support your statements if I see they have value, in spite of you giving me permission to not support you anymore. I will take the higher ground. I am not offended or upset. I will continue to do what I do. If I like what someone is saying in a thread, I will agree with it, but that does not mean I will not disagree with the person in another thread.

By the way, everyone here supports each other in the threads. When we pay dues we support those who do not and give them the opportunity to post here. When you get documents and share, you support others who do not have it. When you post and others disagree or agree with you, you support everyone who hear different points of view. You want to act offended because I don't agree with you. I find this outrageous. I guess we are not talking then, like kids who fall out.

You have much support especially in this thread.

 

[Petrarose]

Again accusing of calling people something you came up with ivy? You didn't learn, did you? Where in my posts I called people "ass kissers"? If I wanted to be blatantly rude and vulgar to any one, I'd have been. Yes, I used "people who SEEM (appear to be, I didn't affirm it) to kiss your boots." But now you're cynically saying I called them like you claim because according to you it is the EXACT SAME THING.

What is happening is that a majority has the same views about what Brooke said about Michael. In comes Ivy who tends to legitimize what they are saying by making that conclusion. They love her for it and support her with thanks. That is all well and good. Now anything else she writes that is illogical or incorrect they will support because this is the person helping their cause. This is just typical human behavior and a reason I am not feeling offended.

 

[ivy]

you didn't learn, did you?

no, mother. and this is the time I recommend either start watching your language or ignore me. I'm not one of the people that you can scare away with your disrespectful behavior.

according to you is the EXACT SAME THING.

while I agree "boots" is nicer than "ass", the idioms do mean the same thing. kiss ass regardless of how rude it might sound means "to try too hard to please someone and to agree with everything they say, in a way which other people find unpleasant" , "to fawn over someone" or to praise someone more than is reasonable. Are you going to treat us as morons and claim that wasn't what you meant when you wrote "kiss your boots"? Plus no sing and dance would chance the fact that you used multiple labels - unsolicited labels- in describing people which has been my issue all along. It's not like you or Petra is denying the use of such labels, you are just trying to justify them and trying to act like I'm not entitled to express my opinion about such labels just because it's okay or right or correct in your book.

I don't think such labels are nice or appropriate - especially they are unsolicited and people express they don't agree with them, I don't think saying stuff like "no matter what you say" is respectful to other people's opinions in a discussion forum, similarly declarations of who is right/wrong is counterproductive. I expressed my opinion and I'm not gonna take it back no matter how much badgering, name calling, personality attacks or disrespectful messages you send my way.

ps: you wrote before English isn't your native language, and there's no "kiss boots" idiom in English. I'm assuming you translated an idiom from your own language - given I know it being used as "kiss feet" at other languages. The proper English idiom and equivalent is "kiss ass". You are welcome for the free English lesson. (if needed I can provide links that says "lamer el culo es otra cosa más como bootlicker").

so how about taking my advice? agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Contrary to claims made by some people here, I genuinly don't have any problem people disagreeing with what I post. Nobody thinks the same way, I'm sopposedly desperate to separate people by name calling and cathegories but others seem upset I disagreed with them that they have the "need" to lie about my actions. I don't like people lying, that's I have the need to defend my persona.

I normally appreciate when poeople correct me in thinks I'm wrong but there are ways, but I don't when arrogance is between. I could say we say in Spanish "lame botas", "lame culos" or "besar las botas".

 

[ivy]

I wonder why I am not feeling I have been attacked?

perhaps because no one here continuously called you a "know it all", "liar" or declared "you are wrong"? I also don't remember you being accused of "putting people against" someone. Funny how you cannot see your own behavior.

It is interesting how you came into the thread to be the main speaker for the majority, making conclusions to support their statements.

I did not come to the thread "to be main speaker for majority", that's your imagination. I came to the thread to correct the misinformation/ wrong claims that Brooke did not defend Michael.I did not "make conclusions to support their statements" either, I merely expressed my point of view on the subject - and I don't care who or how many people agrees or disagrees with it. Later on I expressed my dislike for labels starting with "Brooke fans" and later on it went downhill.

Accusing Snow and not saying sorry.

I made it clear in my above post but allow me to repeat. I don't think using labels to identify and/or divide people is appropriate. "you Brooke fans" or "people who seem to kiss your boots" are such grouping labels. From all past and present experience,I DO believe such labels are used to divide, classify and even discredit people and I DON'T believe in such labels. In this instance I don't believe either label was used as a compliment or in a positive sense. As I pointed out before we could all be MJ fans who disagree on a topic. Similarly I don't believe in "no matter what you say" kinda statements in a discussion forum. I expressed this. I'm not going to say sorry for it. I stand by my position 1000000%.

As far as I'm concerned you and Snow got over defensive and turned this into a bigger thing. A better approach would have been not to continue this as long as it went (such as reply to me once and then move on) - and everyone has seen I tried to end this a lot of times unsuccessfully unfortunately. you are coming back to it and reviving it even after the discussion had moved on. The defense strategy also isn't working, Just saying "I didn't mean it in a bad way but I understand your point and won't use labels anymore" would have been a million times better approach. I had no desire to turn this into a back and forth. The more you carried on with this and added "she's right", "you are wrong" and other stuff which included name calling, more labels etc it generated more responses and it became worse and worse and worse.

You want to act offended because I don't agree with you.

One I'm not offended. As I pointed out I'm not easily offended. I don't want to hurt your -or anyone's feelings- but only the opinion of people that I know, people that know me and I value can offend me. Almost no one from the online fandom fit to this criteria basically because we don't really know each other. While name calling, attacks, accusations etc can become annoying, they are never offending to me.

Second it got nothing to do with whether we agree or not on this topic or any topic. I'm fully aware that in the future there would be topics that we agree on and there would be topics that we don't agree on. This is not about our opinions on subjects. I'm also aware that we will most probably continue to interact - aka talk - on this forum. That's why I didn't say or mean "we aren't talking" either.

What I was trying to say doesn't seem to be understood, probably because I didn't express myself detailed enough.

If you want me to be blunt, I'm not interested in being a friend of yours if you are going to say "don't call her that" in one sentence and then in the next sentence write some negative assessment of my character. Perhaps you don't realize it but you DO make "underhanded ad hominem attacks" and they are personal in nature at times. Your posts to me included asking if I'm overly sensitive, asking if I'm trying to sway opinions by acting hurt, calling it a ploy, your above post included a statement about how certain people cannot accept they are wrong. In your last post said "Now anything else she writes that is illogical or incorrect they will support because this is the person helping their cause. " That's also a underhanded personality attacks towards others which is no different from kiss ass / kiss boots comments.It also included "illogical" to describe posts or actions.

Aren't you realizing that it looks like you place yourself at a higher position and make this negative personality assessments about people? do you think that's okay? don't you realize those aren't discussing opinions anymore and becoming personal? Perhaps that's why you are okay with Snow's labels towards people but then again you were offended by Brooke's -according to you - negative assessment (frightened , asexual) towards Michael. So how could you sit there and make such assessment towards people that you don't really know and not realize it is not okay? To be honest, sometimes your double standards became painfully obvious. For example you wrote plants meaning the person has an ulterior motive is a negative thing but you went on to accuse me of ulterior motives with the use of ploy, lying and so on. You complained about people acting like "Gods of threads" but then you were acting the same way on this thread. After all you saw yourself as the authority to declare who is a Brooke fan (even after multiple people stated they aren't fans of her), who is right or wrong and so on.

Anyway back to my blunt comment, I don't want or need such friendship. To you it might come across like a schoolkid type of thing and that's fine. However my life experience and my experience in fandom has showed me that I'm better off with few people who truly respect me than a bunch of people who acts like they respect me but their actions shows otherwise. In other words do you feel I'm overly sensitive and due to my ego/knowledge/whatever unable to accept my mistake and apologize and act like a kid? Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to "defend my persona" as Snow is trying to do. Because I'm very secure that the people that matters know who I really am and I don't need to defend myself against accusations/criticism/personality assessment by people on Internet that doesn't know the first thing about me. Or in other words as people who don't know me cannot offend me, I also don't care what such people think about me. I admit that while I'd like to showcase people's disrespectful behavior by quoting (to call them out on their behavior)their posts, I'm not in a "oh I need to defend myself" or "I'm hurt" mood, to the contrary I add sarcastic comments to mock such disrespectful behavior.

I'm just saying then in the future don't post stuff like "don't call ivy that" or "ivy is a good person" or whatever. It would be fake and meaningless to me. In other words for example you saying to snow "don't call ivy a know it all" is totally meaningless given all the other negative things you have said about me. So that's what I meant by "don't support/defend me in the future".

I could say we say in Spanish "lame botas", "lame culos" or "besar las botas".

And that's exactly what I said, "lame culos" and "besar las botas" basically variations of an idiom that means the same thing with "kiss ass" as English equivalent. At least we came to an agreement on one thing today.

and again, can we finally move on?

 

[krikzil]

What is happening is that a majority has the same views about what Brooke said about Michael. In comes Ivy who tends to legitimize what they are saying by making that conclusion. They love her for it and support her with thanks. That is all well and good. Now anything else she writes that is illogical or incorrect they will support because this is the person helping their cause. This is just typical human behavior and a reason I am not feeling offended.

You just keep doubling down. Smh

 

[Petrarose]

perhaps because no one here continuously called you a "know it all", "liar" or declared "you are wrong"? I also don't remember you being accused of "putting people against" someone. Funny how you cannot see your own behavior.



I did not come to the thread "to be main speaker for majority", that's your imagination. I came to the thread to correct the misinformation/ wrong claims that Brooke did not defend Michael.I did not "make conclusions to support their statements" either, I merely expressed my point of view on the subject - and I don't care who or how many people agrees or disagrees with it. Later on I expressed my dislike for labels starting with "Brooke fans" and later on it went downhill.



I made it clear in my above post but allow me to repeat. I don't think using labels to identify and/or divide people is appropriate. "you Brooke fans" or "people who seem to kiss your boots" are such grouping labels. From all past and present experience,I DO believe such labels are used to divide, classify and even discredit people and I DON'T believe in such labels. In this instance I don't believe either label was used as a compliment or in a positive sense. As I pointed out before we could all be MJ fans who disagree on a topic. Similarly I don't believe in "no matter what you say" kinda statements in a discussion forum. I expressed this. I'm not going to say sorry for it. I stand by my position 1000000%.

As far as I'm concerned you and Snow got over defensive and turned this into a bigger thing. A better approach would have been not to continue this as long as it went (such as reply to me once and then move on) - and everyone has seen I tried to end this a lot of times unsuccessfully unfortunately. you are coming back to it and reviving it even after the discussion had moved on. The defense strategy also isn't working, Just saying "I didn't mean it in a bad way but I understand your point and won't use labels anymore" would have been a million times better approach. I had no desire to turn this into a back and forth. The more you carried on with this and added "she's right", "you are wrong" and other stuff which included name calling, more labels etc it generated more responses and it became worse and worse and worse.



One I'm not offended. As I pointed out I'm not easily offended. I don't want to hurt your -or anyone's feelings- but only the opinion of people that I know, people that know me and I value can offend me. Almost no one from the online fandom fit to this criteria basically because we don't really know each other. While name calling, attacks, accusations etc can become annoying, they are never offending to me.

Second it got nothing to do with whether we agree or not on this topic or any topic. I'm fully aware that in the future there would be topics that we agree on and there would be topics that we don't agree on. This is not about our opinions on subjects. I'm also aware that we will most probably continue to interact - aka talk - on this forum. That's why I didn't say or mean "we aren't talking" either.

What I was trying to say doesn't seem to be understood, probably because I didn't express myself detailed enough.

If you want me to be blunt, I'm not interested in being a friend of yours if you are going to say "don't call her that" in one sentence and then in the next sentence write some negative assessment of my character. Perhaps you don't realize it but you DO make "underhanded ad hominem attacks" and they are personal in nature at times. Your posts to me included asking if I'm overly sensitive, asking if I'm trying to sway opinions by acting hurt, calling it a ploy, your above post included a statement about how certain people cannot accept they are wrong. In your last post said "Now anything else she writes that is illogical or incorrect they will support because this is the person helping their cause. " That's also a underhanded personality attacks towards others which is no different from kiss ass / kiss boots comments.It also included "illogical" to describe posts or actions.

Aren't you realizing that it looks like you place yourself at a higher position and make this negative personality assessments about people? do you think that's okay? don't you realize those aren't discussing opinions anymore and becoming personal? Perhaps that's why you are okay with Snow's labels towards people but then again you were offended by Brooke's -according to you - negative assessment (frightened , asexual) towards Michael. So how could you sit there and make such assessment towards people that you don't really know and not realize it is not okay? To be honest, sometimes your double standards became painfully obvious. For example you wrote plants meaning the person has an ulterior motive is a negative thing but you went on to accuse me of ulterior motives with the use of ploy, lying and so on. You complained about people acting like "Gods of threads" but then you were acting the same way on this thread. After all you saw yourself as the authority to declare who is a Brooke fan (even after multiple people stated they aren't fans of her), who is right or wrong and so on.

Anyway back to my blunt comment, I don't want or need such friendship. To you it might come across like a schoolkid type of thing and that's fine. However my life experience and my experience in fandom has showed me that I'm better off with few people who truly respect me than a bunch of people who acts like they respect me but their actions shows otherwise. In other words do you feel I'm overly sensitive and due to my ego/knowledge/whatever unable to accept my mistake and apologize and act like a kid? Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to "defend my persona" as Snow is trying to do. Because I'm very secure that the people that matters know who I really am and I don't need to defend myself against accusations/criticism/personality assessment by people on Internet that doesn't know the first thing about me. Or in other words as people who don't know me cannot offend me, I also don't care what such people think about me. I admit that while I'd like to showcase people's disrespectful behavior by quoting (to call them out on their behavior)their posts, I'm not in a "oh I need to defend myself" or "I'm hurt" mood, to the contrary I add sarcastic comments to mock such disrespectful behavior.

I'm just saying then in the future don't post stuff like "don't call ivy that" or "ivy is a good person" or whatever. It would be fake and meaningless to me. In other words for example you saying to snow "don't call ivy a know it all" is totally meaningless given all the other negative things you have said about me. So that's what I meant by "don't support/defend me in the future".



And that's exactly what I said, "lame culos" and "besar las botas" basically variations of an idiom that means the same thing with "kiss ass" as English equivalent. At least we came to an agreement on one thing today.

and again, can we finally move on?

Three you go again. YOu are doing all the same things again just writing them in different words^^. Support and having a friend is not the same. I have no friend here. I have no friends on the internet. Don't you understand that yet. I use this place as entertainment mainly and also for information. I support opinions/facts that I agree with, so I don't know how you got to the conclusion about friendship. This is the first time I am seeing this. It is just that the text have a name attached to it, but I never saw people as friends of mine here and this is not an insult to anyone. It is just that this is not how I make friendships where I can't see the person and talk to them one on one.

Your behavior in the thread leads anyone to get a sense of who you are, which you call character assassination & assessment. You read into everything something that you feel has harmed you, and that tells me something very important. Every post says something about the poster and I don't understand why you don't get that. I read threads from top to bottom and actually know which post was posted by certain people after the people post for some time. Maybe we don't know everything about a person from a post, but you get a good sense of their character/likes/dislikes/fears/biases/logic/reasoning/point of view from a post.

Again Brooke did not say frightened as you claim above but "terrified" which is a stronger word, and yes I have a problem with that.

I agree that Snow should not say the term she used for people following you.
However, you used terms that were not nice and no one objected. You used gimmicks like pretending a terms meant something bad about fans and added to it and was supported by that. You took out pieces of what I said, separated them from the context and in this way changed their meaning, but that is all right, and still I am not offended.

YOu claim you are not offended, but all though the thread you show instances of you being offended by labels, which you misinterpret, and by strong language. Your language is strong too. (By the way I have seen you be mean to people in other threads so let's stop the sainthood here.) You claimed you don't care a rat's ass--strong language. You consistently do things which you can't recognize in yourself as being the same as what others are doing. Why what you do is different and better, but when someone else does it, it is wrong?

True you came in the thread and gave the information about Brooke supporting michael 2 times and Snow gave you that. However, in the process you progressed to draw faulty conclusions from a meaning just to prove that what you said and the others said meant the same thing. You use labels like semantics rather than saying I was too strong here. You see all the faults in Snow's comment and can't see the fault in yours. All these things give a sense of who the poster is. The school girl comments give a sense of who the person is. The flip flopping from offended vs not offended gives information. And on and on.....

The big problem is that you don't want your opinions disagreed with. All your hurt feelings comments come from that, and yes it is an assessment I made based on all your comments here.

The reason why Snow will find people support you here in this thread for reasons other than "I like that post and agree with it" is because of something that any stranger reading this thread will notice: Take for example that comment she made about the fan. Every stranger sees exactly what she wrote. You then added a piece to it to show how offensive it was. The stranger will see that addition too. Yet all these posters here gave you thanks for it. The stranger knows they are thanking something that the original poster did not say. Therefore, what conclusion the stranger will make from this? Either all those who thank have faulty eyes, or they are thanking this person for reasons other than the person is correct. This one is all about eyes. Draw your own conclusions here, because the stranger has drawn his/hers and so have I.

Whenever I don't want to respond to a poster, I say something like this is my last post to you. I never go back and respond to that person in the thread. I respond to other people. Now about 3 times you say move on, it is over and words to that effect, but when I come in and comment on your post you respond. Does that make sense to you? Make up your mind. Either you are going to respond or you are not. If you feel you want to respond, why claim otherwise.