A Statement...

As discussed in our post from earlier this evening, BWAN reached out to Giovanni Agnelli regarding the misuse of his name for the propagating of ill-conceived rumors about Kristen. We are humbled that he graciously provided us with the following statement:  

It has been brought to my attention that my name has been used to facilitate malicious and false rumors regarding the relationship between Kristen and Rob. The individual issuing these statements is obviously in a pathological state of delusion. This comment is from the same individual that has repeatedly bombarded me with inappropriate questions regarding Kristen's personal life. I had to unfortunately block this person that is using the anonymity of the Internet to spread an unfounded and ludicrous agenda. I can't say that I understand the vast amount of time and effort spent trying to determine the personal lives of celebrities. However, I pass no judgment; I just respectfully ask that my name be left out of the discussion.

I have the utmost respect for Kristen as an actress and on a personal level. I have stated this numerous times via interviews and social media. As always, I do not, and have not discussed the status of her personal life or her relationships. Any statements otherwise are completely false.

Giovanni

The "L" Word

And yes, it’s a

We know how difficult it is for some to broaden their knowledge, so you’re excused.

Break out the legal dictionary, kiddies, ‘cause we’re going to get all lawyery on you!

We at BWAN have lots to say about the ongoing malicious claims against Kristen, especially on twitter, and of course on ninniesten,  PRSten, or #whateverthefucksten it is. Regardless of the name, it is still a site set up in due conscious for happy people to spread cheer and goodwill to defame and make derogatory comments about an actress for the sole purpose…well, what is the purpose exactly? Oh. Knock on Kristen.

Ninnies like to claim per their own “confessions” that they do not like Kristen because of her acting ability. Point noted. And that might be okay were those comments limited to simple opinions based upon an experience seeing her movies, which many still do, even though they claim they don’t like her. (Yet another ninnie fallacy.)

But ninnies’ comments and motives are far more malicious in nature. Anyone who has seen their discussions per the former nonsten site and via twitter and/or tumblr can attest to the fact that their remarks go far beyond mere acting criticisms.

On any given day, Kristen is openly maligned in the most grievous of ways. Among other things,she is accused of being a clinger, a famewhore, a cheater, a sellout, a bitch, a cunt, is called ugly, boy-bodied, and the list goes on. Ninnies’ reasoning? “Oh, but we’re just expressing our opinion.”

Worst among these is the baseless assertion that Kristen is of the homosexual orientation. There is no proof to this claim, of course. Instead, ninnies use base stereotyping in order to “prove”their point. Because Kristen chooses to dress in skinny jeans, flat shoes, plaid shirts, and elects to not carry a purse with matching heels and lipstick, this is irrefutable proof of her sexual orientation. Because this is how all lesbians dress. And all gay men sing show tunes!

The claim that Kristen is gay is tossed about by several nonstens with nary any proof to back up their accusation. They use it as a derogatory expression, pure and simple, which is insulting to the entire homosexual population since it is evident that in using “she’s gay” as a slur against Kristen, that they view homosexuality as a lesser means of being.

What they choose to ignore is that claims such as “she’s a dyke,” “she has a penis,” etc., without evidence to back up these assertions, are, in fact, libelous and an act of defamation.

Of particular note are tweets sent out the other night from our favourite “law school” student. It seems that the infamous CK has been telling ANYONE who will listen that she went to a “Super Important Party” at 1oak for this “famous DJ” (her words, not ours) that had a guest list filled with “industry peeps.” Overlooking the fact that she didn’t name said “famous DJ,” she proceeds to inform others that she spoke to a gentleman who knows the [sic] director of “Welcome to  the Rileys,” Giovanni [sic] Agnello.

We’d like to point out that there was never a director named Giovanni [sic] Agnello on the Rileys project. Perhaps Candy or this mysterious new source was confusing her reality with the one in which we live. You know, the reality where there was a director named Jake Scott, but a producer named Giovanni Agnelli?  Yeah. Two strikes. But we digress.

CK must be super excited to have found a new “industry source” to back up everything she has ever claimed as “fact.” How fortunate that this person who knows Giovanni then tells her that “the relationship between R & K is completely PR” (you sure do need reaffirmation a lot, CK), and that “Kristen was hooking up with girls on the set on the DL.” How amazing that this person has this incredible wealth of knowledge that he could sell for a hefty price to a trash magazine, but instead decides to ONLY TELL CK. Yes. This reality just gets more entertaining by the day. 

We at BWAN take pride in the fact that everything we write is based in well-researched truths. We don’t happen to hold much respect for people who betray other peoples’ privacy by running their mouths without credible evidence to back up their assertions.



Which leads us to our next point. Oh, and here’s where we get all laywery, so you might want to sit down for this part.

When you try to smear someone’s reputation for the sole sake of spreading rumors or to push your own much-maligned agenda, you are essentially defaming that person, and anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Of course, we would think that “law school” students would be privy to this fact, but apparently they are too busy sneak-tweeting via yahoo (so they don’t get in trouble at work) and not paying attention in class.

Rumors that have basis in factual evidence are one thing. Rumors that are completely without merit yet are emitted into the social cybersphere with the specific intent to cause harm to another person and/or damage their reputation is an act of defamation. And the last time we checked, sending out lies about an actress’s sexuality that can damage her reputation among her peers, her fans, or potential fans can be considered defamation.
In U.S. case law, defamation as a legal construct is an umbrella term that includes the two more specific acts of slander and libel. In and of itself, defamation is the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If these statements are made orally, it is slander. If they are made in written form, they are libel. Most states in the United States consider comments made online as libel.
The difference? Libel assumes that any statements which can be broadcast to wide audiences (including via the Internet), are more harmful than a simple statement made in a closed oral conversation. Each state in the United States has a slightly different definition of libel.

We were particularly interested in the law as defined per the State of New York, where a libelous statement is one that “tends to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of the person in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community.” Hm.

Exposes a person to hatred, contempt or aversion? Check.

Induces an evil or unsavory opinion of the person in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community? Check.

Individuals who make defamatory comments about someone – even a celebrity – can be sued – by the person against whom the comments were made, if it can be proven that the intent of the comments is malicious. And when comments are suffixed with the added disclaimer “stir pot,”
the intent here becomes mighty, mighty clear.

This is why, even with the “fair comment” privilege prevailing in many cases, there is still room for legal recourse, even among public figures, when the comments are of a nature that they can damage the reputation of, or cause loss of income to said public figure. This is especially true in cases where comments are stated as fact, but no factual evidence is presented to back up the assertions.

Per New York case law, in particular, “facts are statements that can be proven true or false. By contrast, opinions are matters of belief that cannot be proven one way or the other.” Pretty cut and dry. But, also according to New York State law, “opinions that imply false underlying facts will not be protected.” *

In other words, if you are going to state it, you had better have proof to back up your claims, otherwise you can be sued. Got that, Candy?

This is what is called per se libel. Even if there is no evidence that said celebrity’s reputation was specifically harmed in terms of monetary recourse, the fact that the potential for said recourse is itself enough to be sued over.

Per the Media Law section of the Associated Press stylebook, there are FIVE DETERMINING FACTORS that go into a successful libel suit. And given the scenario the ninnies present to the world on a pretty-well daily basis, they fit the bill:
1.   A defamatory statement was made;
2.   The defamatory statement is a matter of fact, not opinion;
3.   The defamatory statement is false;
4.   The defamatory statement is about (“of and concerning”) the plaintiff;
5.   The defamatory statement was published with the requisite degree of “fault.”

So when ninnies state their “opinion” that “Kristen is gay,” “Kristen is a dyke,” and “Kristen has a penis,” (these all being said as a statement of FACT, not opinion), not only is this an insult to Kristen as a person, but legally, ninnies are putting themselves in a position to be sued for libel, given the fact that there is plenty of evidence their actions are backed with malicious intent. They have no other reason to be making these comments other than the fact that ”don’t like her.” Otherwise, why would they have a need to continue causing harm to her and her reputation?

Cue the obvious.

Internet libel claims are just now something that are hitting our courtrooms with any regularity, and the amount of claims seems to be increasing due to the emergence of twitter, tumblr and other communications channels, which is why the Terms of Service for twitter and other social media mechanisms are still largely vague. Twitter, in particular, is quick to cover its own ass per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (aka Telecommunications Act), which exculpates the service provider from any libelous claim as the vehicle for the message,  but just as quickly  reminds its licensees (any user) of its own per the following:

You may use the Services only if you can form a binding contract with Twitter and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You may use the Services only in compliance with these Terms and all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations.

In other words, if you say it and get sued, you can’t turn it back on us.

Interesting that in British case law, individuals who make libelous statements about another person may do so only if they have proof to back up said statements. In short: prove it, then state it. This is how celebrities have successfully been able to sue British tabloids for defamation, because in the UK, there is a burden of proof which is not inherent in US law. Contrarily, US law stands firmly under the Second Amendment and says basically: say it whenever, but be ready to prove it when it counts - in court.

Ninnies like to screech that “we have a right to our opinion, too.” No one is refuting that. What is being refuted is the way nonstens continually obfuscate “opinion” with fact. We at BWAN don’t care to challenge ninnies’ opinions about Kristen’s specific behavior or acting ability since that is based upon an person’s real, subjective experience. (We may disagree, but hey, that’s what makes the world go round).

But where we do take umbrage is with the constant use of “rumor” and “opinion” as truth.

In our opinion, claims that: a) Kristen is “gay;” and/or b) Rob and Kristen are under contractual obligation to Summit to keep up a “fauxmance for PR,” without even a shred of factual evidence are libelous.  And per law, spreading false information about another person - even if that person is a celebrity - without basis of fact, is a case for libel.

So, ninnies, if you’re going to keep spinning your opinions as “fact,” you could at least cough up some proof. The world is waiting.

Of course, we at BWAN are not holding our collective breaths, even if moles do contain twice as much blood and red hemoglobin as other mammals of a similar size, allowing the moles to breathe easily in the seventh circle of hell an underground environment with low oxygen and high carbon dioxide.

Opinions may be factual, but facts have to back up opinions in order to be true. And so far, there’s not a lot of truth in what the ninnies have to spin. So, keep sharing your “opinions,” especially you, Candy. One of these days, you may just find yourself in a court of law. And not because you get to use your “law school” education.

*Per Citizen Media Law Project (www.citimedialaw.org)

FYI

We've received some questions as to the title of our last post. Don't fret. We have a plan. Be on the lookout for new chapters from...

Yes we  did.

Have a great weekend!

Chapter 7: The Anti-PR

Oh, ninnies. What would we do without their expertise on all things "PR?"

One notion they're particularly fond of bandying about – again and again and again ad nauseum -  is that whenever Rob and Kristen leave an establishment where  they’ve been enjoying private time together, they almost always take separate doors to exit.

This was recently evidenced at least two times during Rob's recent sojourn in London. The first instance was when Rob was spied leaving a pub carrying Kristen's backpack (Kristen was nowhere in sight). 

Say what you want but no dude we know would put blue silk ribbons on "his" backpack.

The other instance occurred when Rob was seen walking out of a restaurant with his London-based agent. Kristen was seen leaving the same restaurant, but took off from a different exit.

The graphic below (not sure if we should be amused or frightened by whoever did that) proves our point:

Now, ninnies would have you believe that THE FACT that Robert and Kristen are never seen leaving an establishment together is PROOF SOLID that they are NOT TOGETHER, that their relationship is ONLY FOR PR.

"How romantic that the man who is supposedly your boyfriend makes you leave out the back door."

"BWAHAHAHA, they are never together when they leave a restaurant."

If they are getting paid by Summit to be in a PR relationship, we'd ask for our money back.

“I love you from ………………………………………….waaaaay over here.”

“Such a loving boyfriend who doesn’t hold the cab door open and let her go first.”

Even the few instances when Rob and Kristen ARE spotted together during their private moments, the Orc-borns squawk and screech about how Rob and Kristen must hate being in each other’s company because they never smile for the cameras, nor touch in any way.

Oh, yes. Misery aplenty.

"Look at how miserable they are. Rob never smiles when he's around her. What a bitch."

“It’s so easy to see how they hate each other. God, I can’t wait for this Twi shit to be over. He can’t wait to get out of that contract.”

Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum

Here is where ninnie-logic reeks of desperation.

You see, it doesn’t follow any normal Public Relations strategy that we know of (even by Hollywood standards) for ANY two people to act in the manner that Rob and Kristen do if they are in a PR relationship. In fact, it makes no sense at all.

Supposing they ARE under the thumb of a BIG BAD CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT as so many ninnies claim, then why would they work so hard NOT TO BE SEEN TOGETHER? Wouldn't it make MORE SENSE for PR PURPOSES if they were seen happily skipping out the front door of The Ivy, hand-in-hand, smiling at the throngs of assaulting paparazzi who lie in wait to ambush them?

Yea....because that worked out so well...

What Rob and Kristen do is, by and large, what we’d call the anti-PR.
In fact, based upon their behavior (separate exits, sunglasses always on, not smiling for the camera), one could offer more solid evidence that they are NOT, in fact, together, if even for PR purposes. But let’s not get off track here. In other words...

There are very good reasons for Rob and Kristen taking separate exits and very rarely smiling when cameras are pointed their way, and it has NOTHING TO DO with the above suppositions.

You see, in the Woods of Holly, where a tabloid's daily takings rest upon its ability to offer the clamoring public the most revealing photos possible of a celeb's PRIVATE life, paparazzi are waiting around every turn to charge their quarry.

The reward? Money. And lots of it.

Most paps are independent operators, and go after their celebrity targets like a cheetah to an antelope. Why? Because getting a single shot of a major male celeb in flagrante with someone other than his movie-star wife, or catching a Disney starlet’s bare crotch as she’s exiting a car, or having a single frame where a once-famous pop singer pulls out an umbrella and goes batshit crazy in a gas station parking lot BRINGS THEM MONEY.

The better the shot? The more the moolah.

It’s a simple economic concept. When the demand is high, but the supply is low, the more valuable that single shot will be. And when two stars are as in demand as Robert and Kristen are, they are not going to give anything away, nor play into the paps’ hands.

We at BWAN are lucky enough to have a few acquaintances in the entertainment industry (and we're not talking coffee-schlepping studio interns or fake make-up artists.) No, the people we know tend to have letters of credential behind their names and pull down salaries that would make fanfic Bella run screaming into her hive of insecurity.

And what do they tell us? Here’s a recap.

Most paparazzi work to get a pic (or few hundred), which they shop around to various media sources and tabloids to see who will offer them the biggest payday. In most instances, the pap will send a lo-rez, watermarked copy of the image to prospective buyers. If a buyer is interested, a price for the photo will be negotiated.

Negotiating factors include: Who is the celebrity? Is the photo verifiable? What is the celebrity doing? How high is the quality of the photo? What is the availability of similar photographs from other paparazzi? (In other words, does the competition have something better?)

This last item is what makes any photos of Robert and Kristen so valuable, especially if they are photos of non-industry events, like pub outings and/or PDA ("The real money, though, would be in the smooch.“That’s the dream shot,” Navarre said. “Rob and Kristen kissing in public. If you get a nice, clean shot. That’d be a huge scoop.” Already, she’s thinking dollar signs. “$150,000,” she says, and you can tell she’s smiling.")

You see, the paps tend to think of the celebs as trained monkeys (and treat them far worse). They ambush, they assault, they cajole in very frightening ways, doing any and everything within their power to get a reaction shot. Why? Because the more reaction they can get out of the celeb – the more money they can make from the shot.

Need an example? Consider this.

Remember the first photo that started raising eyebrows about Brad and Angelina’s relationship? The one where they were caught playing on a remote beach with Maddox? And what was the going rate for that single shot? Five hundred thousand dollars. That’s about ten years’ salary for your average middle-class Joe, but another day in the park for the crafty pap who will go to any means necessary bring home a six-figure paycheck.

That was in 2006.

Throw in five years’ inflation, plus the speed-to-market factor that most tabs have to live by to survive in this social media age, and you’re possibly looking at a Rob-Kristen PDA asking price of close to
$200,000. How’s that for a bounty on one’s head?

Different celebs have different ways of handling this side of fame. Some take it in stride and just go with it. 

Others push themselves out there and make the most of every opportunity to be in front of the camera. 

Still, others choose not to discuss private matters at all.

Rob and Kristen most definitely fall into the “not giving an inch” side of the spectrum. They know where their paychecks come from. Why do they want to give the paps any part of that?

The simple answer? They don’t.


Just for a quick moment, let's address the never looking happy thing. Just a few months ago, Mr. Pattinson himself said that he "dreams of beating the shit out of paparazzi". Why, oh why would you ever base pics of him being taken by parasites he openly despises (because they are INVADING HIS PRIVACY) on his TRUE feelings? 


They know the game these guys are playing and they refuse to be a part of it, choosing their privacy over everything else, because that’s what matters to them. Just like we said, the anti-PR.


So when you see them leaving a club or pub separately, or see Rob carrying Kristen’s backpack because she snuck out another door, just remember, wherever they were, they were in there TOGETHER.

Consider it their big F-U to the paparazzi (and a certain segment of the fandom). Etc. Etc. Etc. ad infinitum

Because You Just Don't Get It

We weren't going to comment on 9/11. We simply weren't. But seeing this tweet turned our stomachs to such an extent that we just had to say something.
We were hopeful the fandom would "get it." We were hopeful people could see beyond a movie about 9/11, and instead focus on what is important on this anniversary date.
Apparently, some people - well one person in particular - just doesn't understand.
It doesn't matter that you made a "beautiful" remembrance including Tyler. It wouldn't matter if it were an AIGA-winning design (which it's not). The truth still stands that using the fictional loss of a movie character devalues the thousands of real human lives lost on that Tuesday morning.
It smacks in the face of the fireman and first responders who made the ultimate sacrifice in an effort to save their fellow man, even though from first-hand accounts at the scene, many of those attempts were futile.
It smacks in the face of those brave individuals who huddled together in a final embrace hundreds of feet above the ground before valiantly choosing death by their own means before succumbing to the wretched fires of hell. 
It disrespects the family members of those who were lost, the ones who are still grieving: the parents who lost children, the spouses who lost their other halves, the children who lost their parents, all of whom still deal with the emotional scars that linger from that day.
It insults the brave women and men of our American military, who gallantly walked into environs unknown to face untold horror, risking their own lives in order to bring down the evil forces that brought the towers down. 
And it is an insult to the American people, all of whom suffered along with New York City that day, and for the weeks after mourned each individual loss due to this act of war. 
We respect freedom, including our second amendment right to freedom of expression, but when your expression is in so many ways counter to what tomorrow is about, we find it unacceptable. 
We recognize that the movie taught each of us he importance of living in the moment, and to not take anything, nor anyone, for granted.
But the bottom line is, this isn't about YOU, Candy, nor is it about Tyler, or Rob. It's about THEM, the people who were lost, the people whose memories deserve more than photoshopped imagery of the object of your obsession.
We were hopeful that even your shallow, narcissistic mind could see through that and put up an avi that is at once both reverent and respectful.
Tyler Hawkins may have lost his life in the minds of "Remember Me" and Rob fans, but he is still a fictional character. He is not real.
Posting that avi - with the excuse that it is of your own making - disrespects everything about this significant date. We thought as a New Yorker and a human being you could at least recognize that. Obviously not.
You are a disgrace.

This One is for Everyone

For those who haven’t been subsisting in the mossy confines of pill bug habitats under a rock somewhere for the past sixty hours, let’s take a brief moment to fill you in on the goings-on.

A few days ago, a young woman tweeted out that she planned to attend a christening at which “Rob Pattinson was to be the godfather.” Rob and Kristen supporters squeed. Ninnies did their usual snarling, lurking on her twitter, tweeting out photos of her, claiming it all to be part of the greater Summit/Brit Pack conspiracy (Summit owns them all now, don’t you know?), because she is in some way related to or at least friends with the Sturridge family, and it is supposedly a Sturridge child that is being christened.

Fast forward about a day, and two people tweeted out a Rob and Kristen sighting at a place called Berkeley Square in London.

The fandom started stirring, with the usual musings taking place on what could be going on.

No less than an hour later, all hell broke loose when a 14-year-old girl tweeted out that she had just seen Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson at a “party” that was going on across the street from her house. The party was in celebration of a christening that supposedly had taken place some time the same day.

Lo and behold, the girl also had photos. Photos that she posted on the Internet. Now, we at BWAN were a bit skeptical at first, but after looking, we can say that yes, we clearly see Kristen, and we clearly see Arthur Sturridge (Tom’s brother), and we also see who we believe to be Marcus Foster (remember, the same Marcus Foster in whose video Kristen starred?)

As could be predicted, the ninnies’ first reaction was the very expected squawking about “What was SHE doing there?” and criticizing Kristen’s choice of clothes (do you think she planned “oh, I think I’ll throw in a christening outfit” when she packed?), her hair (extensions for her movie), etc. They screeched about how the ONLY reason she was invited was because she co-starred with Tom in “On The Road,” that she cannot possibly be there for Rob, nor did Rob go to London for her, but only for the christening, per their six-week “PR” agreement (we have our own theories on that, which we’ll summarize in a later post).

But then, after a few peaceful moments of enjoying the photos, the insidiousness of the entire fandom broke out. Squawking was everywhere., especially when the girl posted a twitlonger about her overall fan encounter with Rob and Kristen.

Of course, the ninnies jumped right on her, first making fun of her for crying when she met Rob and Kristen (she’s FOURTEEN), then later accusing her of lying, claiming that the events, as she recounted, could NEVER have happened. Were they there? Did they see it? Do they know her personally? Did they witness the encounter in person? No. No. No. And No. Then how in the fuck to they know exactly what happened? Keep in mind members of this same group have cried when THEY met Rob in person, and at least one among them cried in mourning when she saw Kristen in Marcus’ video. So, making fun of a fourteen-year-old girl for crying when she had an unexpected fangirl moment? Really? That’s rich coming from women who are at least twice her age, many of whom are MOTHERS to young children themselves. One of the most insidious we know to be the mother of a ten-year-old boy. In our eyes, there’s not much of a stretch there between ten and fourteen, so we have to question this person’s morals given the kinds of things she was saying about this girl yesterday. What would she do if these people were talking about her child like that? That’s what we thought.

But we digress.

While we at BWAN are a bit nonplussed at the ninnies’ behavior, we recognize this kind of BS is just par for the course for them. As is always the case in ninniedom, anyone who has an encounter that goes against what they want to believe is automatically lying. Meh. Carry on. Oh well.

What we are MORE disgusted with is the number of those claiming to be in the “Robsten” camp who pursued this young girl with a vengeance, attacking her for not posting enough photos, making promises to them if she would DM her, asking for more and more and more and more and more.

Here’s a clue for everyone: CALM YO SHIT!

NOBODY OWES YOU ANYTHING.

It’s not your place to know every insignificant detail. It’s not your place to send demanding - and DEMEANING - tweets to this CHILD - asking her to give you more.

She tweeted her experience. She shared a photo or two. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH?

When YOU - FANS - are begging for more, sending threatening tweets, hacking her facebook site, threatening her over the Internet because she is not giving you what you want - YOU ARE GOING TOO FAR.

Many of the people who are doing this - like the ninnies who made fun of her - ARE ADULTS.

So, here are a few hints:

- When you send tweets to her demanding that she release more - YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR.

- When you call this child “bitch” because she doesn’t give you what YOU want - YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR.

- When you making threats against her - saying she better release more photos - or she’ll die - YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR.

- When you manage to get the address of her home, then look it up at google maps and send it out over the Internet so you can put it all in context (yes, we’re talking to you cotedetexas) - YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR.

In fact, you are stooping to levels of the ninnies in your bouts of insidiousness.

If you are so invested in two people as a celebrity couple that your entire life revolves around seeing photos of them holding hands, you need to have a reality check. Get a clue, step away from the computer, and find something real in your own life.

None of us in this fandom is entitled to “more.” None of us deserves “special” treatment from other people because we demand it of them. And none of us really needs to know each individual detail of Rob’s and Kristen’s personal lives. It is reactions exactly like this - reactions that Kristen herself calls “fiending” which is the reason why Rob and Kristen take such closeted measures to keep every bit of their relationship PRIVATE.

It is THEIRS to share as they so wish, NOT YOURS to take at your demanding.
Thank goodness, this girl has been able to handle most of the hate directed towards her with great aplomb, but it doesn’t excuse peoples’ behavior to begin with.

Perhaps what we should demand of ourselves - and each other - is a bit of perspective.

Carry on.

Oh, and P.S. Candy, Candy. Don’t you know better by now not to claim things that can be debunked - like getting special invitations to a “red carpet yacht party” to which any Joe or Jane can buy a ticket for $45 out of the New York Post? Yeah. Keep tryin.’