I hate posts like this. Our society has moved into one of immorality. Instead of judging it, many judge the moral people as bad for judging the immoral people as bad. Makes no sense. Have 1 affair and people think you are bad but have 100 affairs and people have sympathy for you. Ridiculous.
moo moo wrote:
I hate posts like this. Our society has moved into one of immorality. Instead of judging it, many judge the moral people as bad for judging the immoral people as bad. Makes no sense. Have 1 affair and people think you are bad but have 100 affairs and people have sympathy for you. Ridiculous.
People here are aware of her history. Her brother also had issues and killed himself.
When Suzy's book first came out with all of the gory details, the general attitude here was one of great concern for her instead of calling for a witch hunt or obsession with lasciviousness. It was like a cold shower after years of the public lusting for her.
Hers is a most disturbing case. We should be praying for Suzy and her family.
girl watcher wrote:
moo moo wrote:
I hate posts like this. Our society has moved into one of immorality. Instead of judging it, many judge the moral people as bad for judging the immoral people as bad. Makes no sense. Have 1 affair and people think you are bad but have 100 affairs and people have sympathy for you. Ridiculous.
People here are aware of her history. Her brother also had issues and killed himself.
When Suzy's book first came out with all of the gory details, the general attitude here was one of great concern for her instead of calling for a witch hunt or obsession with lasciviousness. It was like a cold shower after years of the public lusting for her.
Hers is a most disturbing case. We should be praying for Suzy and her family.
None of those reasons is the reason Creepy Ken posted the article nor are they the reason Rojo defended the post.
We all know what the reason is.
kore wrote:
I still think she was just as much on EPO as Regina. Regina just had the edge on Balco.
Regina was on much more than EPO...
Flagpole wrote:
zcxvzxcv wrote:
I think that the story was fair game, but I do not think that their personal addresses should have been disclosed in an article.
Ok. I didn't and won't read the article, but if they did disclose addresses, my first reaction is that that is odd and wrong to do, but I would have to see the context to be sure...which I am not going to do because I couldn't care less about the personal lives of SFH and her husband/ex-husband (whatever he is now).
Well you actually do care or you would never have opened up the thread. This kind of deception from you is odd.
Would love to do a favor.
I was friends with her on Facebook. We had some common acquaintances and she accepted my friend request some years back. I hadn't seen anything from her in a long time but I didn't realize she had dropped off social media altogether. Sorry to hear she and Mark couldn't make it work.
Has Suzy ever posted here?
Should congratulate her for stepping away from social media. Especially if it's a time of chaos. Or a time she wants to be careful what she is thinking about so as to stay as strong as possible.
I hope her husband gets the help he needs.
areusure wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Ok. I didn't and won't read the article, but if they did disclose addresses, my first reaction is that that is odd and wrong to do, but I would have to see the context to be sure...which I am not going to do because I couldn't care less about the personal lives of SFH and her husband/ex-husband (whatever he is now).
Well you actually do care or you would never have opened up the thread. This kind of deception from you is odd.
INCORRECT! What I was interested in was what all of YOU thought of the topic. Fail.
I'd congratulate anyone foregoing social media. A common M.O. for those with mental health stresses is to go to ground, which can involve sometimes rash deletions. But many of SFH/SF's accounts were peppered with pictures and text involving her (now Ex) husband, which would be difficult for anyone to continue to put out there. Simplest and least troubling to just delete than a long process of selective editing.
Betsee wrote:
Has Suzy ever posted here?
Should congratulate her for stepping away from social media. Especially if it's a time of chaos. Or a time she wants to be careful what she is thinking about so as to stay as strong as possible.
Flagpole wrote:
areusure wrote:
Well you actually do care or you would never have opened up the thread. This kind of deception from you is odd.
INCORRECT! What I was interested in was what all of YOU thought of the topic. Fail.
So pathetic to be drowning in prevarication. So you do NOT care about Suzy and Mark’s personal lives but you DO care what I think about their personal lives? Give me a break. Why the lies?
The story first came about in a deadspin like site called the Smoking Gun which was looking for sensationalism. If I was an editor, I wouldn't have published it on moral grounds because it's pretty needlessly life-ruining but I imagine a business manager or business-oriented editor would overrule me because it would be very very good for business.
why are we not surprised her husband commented? I know someone who once was close to both of them and they say Mark is the more screwed up of the two (believe it or not) and has his own issues he hides behind her. The fact after the divorce she has gone quiet says something about whatever his role was in her life wasn't good. I never believed the 'I was a victim' line from him, never made any sense