Real housewives of New Jersey *Diary of NJ Housewives 2010/2011/2012/2013/2014©
Friday, April 20, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
I was Wrong About Lisa Lampanelli?
When I saw some of Lisa Lampanelli's comments in print the other day, I think that I mis-judged her.
Reality Blurred had a post entitled Lisa Lampanelli uses racial slurs against Dayana Mendoza http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_celebrity_apprentice_5/2012_Apr_10_lisa-dayana-racial-slur#disqus_thread
I don't want to post Lampanelli's comments here again, because they are ugly and I have come to the conclusion that any mention of Lampanelli's words, outside-of her insult comedy act, would be "out of context"-anyways.
When I first read Andy Dehnart's post the other day, I went on a little Twitter-rampage, then I did a little research on Lampanelli, then I wrote a reply to the item linked above.
I did not notice 'til after I hit "post comment" that there is a policy on Reality Blurred about using real names. Luckily I had saved my post before sending. So here it is:
I was horrified when I first read this article. I haven't missed one episode of this round of Celeb Apprentice, but that is ALL that I knew of Lampanelli. That, and she's supposed to be a comedian. If she has been telling jokes on The Apprentice, they must have been edited-out, because she hasn't made me laugh once there so far. The way she has treated Lou Ferrigno was just nasty.
I went digging for more info. Too bad I looked at her Twitter timeline first because I didn't find the funny there either, just what looked to me like an elitist attitude, and more (unfunny and ignorant for someone who apparently considers herself to be so much more intelligent then just about everybody else),- use-of the "R"-word. Can someone please send her that memo?
That, and the fact that she refuses to apologize for anything that she says.
I continued to dig because I really wanted to see at least one example of where she is actually funny or doing her act, and then I hit paydirt.
On Amazon there is a book about The Friar's Club, where she talks in detail (Friars Club Private Joke File page 232), and she admits that when she uses stereotypes, she is making-fun of the stereotype itself, or making-fun of people who believe such things. I don't want to speak for her but, this is a quote, "...If you've got a good heart and you don't mean any of the ridiculous things that you say...""--good heart, how would I know that? But she admits more than once that she doesn't believe the stuff she says, and I don't want to apologize for her but, in PRINT here what she has said does not come-across sarcastically, or even intentionally humorous. Maybe if I saw it or heard her saying it, it could be taken as "joking". It really isn't a good joke. Certainly not worth using an offensive slur.
-but I will say that I personally think that I misunderstood her intentions. If she doesn't mean what she says and it falls-under the umbrella of her, "insult comedy"- I think that she should at least recognize that a lot of people don't know who she is, so it would help her to introduce herself better if she let people in on her little "joke".
Reality Blurred had a post entitled Lisa Lampanelli uses racial slurs against Dayana Mendoza http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_celebrity_apprentice_5/2012_Apr_10_lisa-dayana-racial-slur#disqus_thread
I don't want to post Lampanelli's comments here again, because they are ugly and I have come to the conclusion that any mention of Lampanelli's words, outside-of her insult comedy act, would be "out of context"-anyways.
When I first read Andy Dehnart's post the other day, I went on a little Twitter-rampage, then I did a little research on Lampanelli, then I wrote a reply to the item linked above.
I did not notice 'til after I hit "post comment" that there is a policy on Reality Blurred about using real names. Luckily I had saved my post before sending. So here it is:
I was horrified when I first read this article. I haven't missed one episode of this round of Celeb Apprentice, but that is ALL that I knew of Lampanelli. That, and she's supposed to be a comedian. If she has been telling jokes on The Apprentice, they must have been edited-out, because she hasn't made me laugh once there so far. The way she has treated Lou Ferrigno was just nasty.
I went digging for more info. Too bad I looked at her Twitter timeline first because I didn't find the funny there either, just what looked to me like an elitist attitude, and more (unfunny and ignorant for someone who apparently considers herself to be so much more intelligent then just about everybody else),- use-of the "R"-word. Can someone please send her that memo?
That, and the fact that she refuses to apologize for anything that she says.
I continued to dig because I really wanted to see at least one example of where she is actually funny or doing her act, and then I hit paydirt.
On Amazon there is a book about The Friar's Club, where she talks in detail (Friars Club Private Joke File page 232), and she admits that when she uses stereotypes, she is making-fun of the stereotype itself, or making-fun of people who believe such things. I don't want to speak for her but, this is a quote, "...If you've got a good heart and you don't mean any of the ridiculous things that you say...""--good heart, how would I know that? But she admits more than once that she doesn't believe the stuff she says, and I don't want to apologize for her but, in PRINT here what she has said does not come-across sarcastically, or even intentionally humorous. Maybe if I saw it or heard her saying it, it could be taken as "joking". It really isn't a good joke. Certainly not worth using an offensive slur.
-but I will say that I personally think that I misunderstood her intentions. If she doesn't mean what she says and it falls-under the umbrella of her, "insult comedy"- I think that she should at least recognize that a lot of people don't know who she is, so it would help her to introduce herself better if she let people in on her little "joke".
Here's a link to the Friar's Club book mentioned above:Friars Club Private Joke File: More Than 2,000 Very Naughty Jokes from the Grand Masters of Comedy |
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Michael Mazzela does NOT want to be a Role Model!+ How to get Financial Aid 4 skool
Some of you here probably know that I am banned and blocked on that blog from Chicago. Occasionally, I lurk there and very rarely, in an "emergency",(like once or twice in the past year) I will post there using some random name. I saw something there the other day that I thought was important enough for me to post.
Unfortunately, the post did not get-through. It must have still been bothering me, because I then went to the trouble of finding one of the bloggers from that site, and contacting them on Twitter.
I asked this person if I could quote his DM, but so-far I have not received an answer on that. Actually, we had a few DMS. And yes, this guy got pretty nasty with me.
I'm almost afraid to post the quote from that site, because he became very annoyed-with being quoted with what he had posted but in the interest of making-sense, here copied directly, is the quote from that blog:
Michael Mazzella says:
April 2, 2012 at 12:52 am
Unfortunately, the post did not get-through. It must have still been bothering me, because I then went to the trouble of finding one of the bloggers from that site, and contacting them on Twitter.
I asked this person if I could quote his DM, but so-far I have not received an answer on that. Actually, we had a few DMS. And yes, this guy got pretty nasty with me.
I'm almost afraid to post the quote from that site, because he became very annoyed-with being quoted with what he had posted but in the interest of making-sense, here copied directly, is the quote from that blog:
Michael Mazzella says:
April 2, 2012 at 12:52 am
Monday, February 27, 2012
I thought I said ENOUGH!?
OK-so this Taylor-story refuses to die already.
Let's just assume that Taylor Armstrong was abused by Russell, and I'll explain why even IF that were true, she still would not be an acceptable spokesperson for domestic violence.
Most survivors of domestic violence and abuse take a life-saving leap-of-faith at some point.
Taylor Armstrong did NOT do that. Her alleged abuser is dead. Game-over. She NEVER did the hard things that survivors do like filing restraining-orders. In her book she speaks about wanting to have a family relationship with Russell ON HOLIDAYS. Yes some divorced spouses can manage to get-along for the sake of the children, but in cases of domestic abuse and violence of the magnitude that Taylor claims, restraining-orders and documentation of the violence/abuse make sense. That is what BRAVE abusive-relationship survivors DO! Taylor Armstrong did no such thing.
Who could allow someone who committed the kind-of violence and rage that Taylor describes in her book, near their child or themselves? I'll tell you who, someone who has either NOT truly experienced such insanity, OR someone who has not even come close to healing, recovering, and surviving the turmoil, that's who.
The question is-which one is Taylor Armstrong?
In either case, Taylor cannot speak for survivors.In either case, and it can only be one or the other, all it tells us is that she is messed-up, not-right-in-the-head, and certainly does NOT have anything worthwhile to offer to anyone else, except the fact that a person can appear to look pretty and be sooo messed-up.
Yes, at the time of Russell Armstrong's death, Taylor was physically and probably legally separated from Russell, and separation in a sick marriage is a good thing. But many say that Taylor was only pushed to do that when Bravo flat-out refused to allow Taylor to be on the Real Housewives anymore. We do not have one concrete legal filing to prove that Taylor was ready to stop, "Hiding From Reality". Nothing, in the way of violence or abuse was officially documented by Taylor until after Russell was dead.
She claims in the tabloids that she was afraid to speak-out while Russell was still alive. OK, so she forfeited the chance to speak when he died in my opinion.
And that brings-up the other problem. She just cannot have her cake here and eat it too. He is dead, and the fact that he can no longer speak for himself or tell his side of the story is seen as an injustice by many people.
The fact that this violent person that she describes, also happens to be her child's father, and that the child and his other children already have to deal-with grief, and suicide of a parent, and now this half-baked biography, is another sore spot.
Lately there have been at least three newer blogs that have popped-up to discuss the disputed items and the details that were published in Taylor's book, and discussed on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills , and the book tour.
Chirpy, BravoTvLover, and some children who don't speak English as a 1st language.
The, "children"-posted an email purported to be a response from LAPD, in regards to Taylor's story, on their site today, and then they took it down. (yes I have a screen shot saved).
There has also been some blog-fighting over the "timeline"© (ha ha). For the record, TVTime101 posted the ORIGINAL timeline, WITH photos. That should have put Taylor and her publishers on alert that bloggers were ready with an endless multitude of photographic evidence. At least as-far as when and where Taylor was seen sporting a black-eye, injuries, or as it turned-out to be mostly NOT!.
OTHER bloggers and Tweeters, and Commenters took-up the task of working on the timeline© (ok-I think that I'm jk about that ©) Namely, myself, and Diva over at the blog I will not name, and the people on the SurvivorSucks.com website, and then someone developed the Grandaddy-of-them-all, the Chicken McNugget of TIMELINES©, and gave it to StoopidHousewives.
When there was a squabble about that on SHW dot com by the way, I was able to sneak a post in there in the comments BUT in that comment, someone deleted my mention of the FACT that TVTIME101 did it first, I posted a follow-up and that Diva and others had done a lot of work too.
Through-out much of this, there has been quite a bit of blog vs. blog, or "blog-wars" going on. The "theft"-of the timeline©, just when "the book" was being released, was just one dramatic happening in bloggy-land.
Now I see BravoTvLover being annoyed and supposedly attacked, and I see BravoTvLover fighting-back, and possibly aligning themselves a little too closely with the Bravolebs who are generous enough to give them "scoops", and "WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE"-interviews.
But BravoTvLover is walking a fine-line between impartial interviewer, and grateful, starstruck blogger. One of the "Taylor Camp", posts some "information", telling BravoTvLover that "hobby bloggers" cannot obtain police records and public information, and without even trying to obtain the information, BravoTvLover goes-on a posting rampage asking the media to obtain the public records. BravoTvLover then insinuates that ALL of the people who doubt Taylor's inconsistent stories, in-fact ALL bloggers are either violent imposter criminals, insane, or WORSE!
In any event, it appears that the "Ninja, Dog-fight"-(quote The Chirping Twit), as described in Taylor's book, on television by Taylor, on BravoTvLover's site, by someone claiming to have BEEN THERE, (and also claiming to have an 18 minute video of the event), is not dead-in-the-water yet.
Also claimed on BravoTvLover's site is that the incident occurred on or about May 22, 2009. That 911 was called. That an ambulance came to the residence on Roscomare Rd, in Bel Air., That Russell Armstrong made a police report of his own concerning the incident a few days later that may have been retracted. There is also the name of one of the alleged victims of the alleged incident posted there, and elsewhere, but personally, and being from NJ, I have a policy of not interfering in the personal business of people in the waste management business as much as I possibly can.
That in my opinion is enough information for anyone to request information from the LAPD. Even bloggers who may be fat, illiterate, insane, or foreign.
The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Season II-is over, but Taylor Armstrong and/or her supporters keep trying to have "the last word", and continue to draw-out the story.
Is it possible that the mainstream and big tabloid blogging media, are blackballing Taylor, and refusing to post her stories/photos because of commenter-FLACK? And lack-of evidence which is why this topic refuses to die a merciful death?
Could that be the reason why flimsy verification of the tall-tales in Taylor's book are being force-fed to the public in excruciating and insultingly teasing ways?
I really don't know WHAT is going-on behind-the-scenes, but it appears that we have reached an impasse' with the "proof", and evidence of that fateful Scalping Ninja, drowning-poolfight.
But even-if there IS proof, and it did happen, it really is time for Taylor to be a good Real Housewife, and let some of the other wives and shows have a little bit of the attention.
In other words, it is time for Taylor to put-up, AND shut-up.
Let's just assume that Taylor Armstrong was abused by Russell, and I'll explain why even IF that were true, she still would not be an acceptable spokesperson for domestic violence.
Most survivors of domestic violence and abuse take a life-saving leap-of-faith at some point.
Taylor Armstrong did NOT do that. Her alleged abuser is dead. Game-over. She NEVER did the hard things that survivors do like filing restraining-orders. In her book she speaks about wanting to have a family relationship with Russell ON HOLIDAYS. Yes some divorced spouses can manage to get-along for the sake of the children, but in cases of domestic abuse and violence of the magnitude that Taylor claims, restraining-orders and documentation of the violence/abuse make sense. That is what BRAVE abusive-relationship survivors DO! Taylor Armstrong did no such thing.
Who could allow someone who committed the kind-of violence and rage that Taylor describes in her book, near their child or themselves? I'll tell you who, someone who has either NOT truly experienced such insanity, OR someone who has not even come close to healing, recovering, and surviving the turmoil, that's who.
The question is-which one is Taylor Armstrong?
In either case, Taylor cannot speak for survivors.In either case, and it can only be one or the other, all it tells us is that she is messed-up, not-right-in-the-head, and certainly does NOT have anything worthwhile to offer to anyone else, except the fact that a person can appear to look pretty and be sooo messed-up.
Yes, at the time of Russell Armstrong's death, Taylor was physically and probably legally separated from Russell, and separation in a sick marriage is a good thing. But many say that Taylor was only pushed to do that when Bravo flat-out refused to allow Taylor to be on the Real Housewives anymore. We do not have one concrete legal filing to prove that Taylor was ready to stop, "Hiding From Reality". Nothing, in the way of violence or abuse was officially documented by Taylor until after Russell was dead.
She claims in the tabloids that she was afraid to speak-out while Russell was still alive. OK, so she forfeited the chance to speak when he died in my opinion.
And that brings-up the other problem. She just cannot have her cake here and eat it too. He is dead, and the fact that he can no longer speak for himself or tell his side of the story is seen as an injustice by many people.
The fact that this violent person that she describes, also happens to be her child's father, and that the child and his other children already have to deal-with grief, and suicide of a parent, and now this half-baked biography, is another sore spot.
Lately there have been at least three newer blogs that have popped-up to discuss the disputed items and the details that were published in Taylor's book, and discussed on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills , and the book tour.
Chirpy, BravoTvLover, and some children who don't speak English as a 1st language.
The, "children"-posted an email purported to be a response from LAPD, in regards to Taylor's story, on their site today, and then they took it down. (yes I have a screen shot saved).
There has also been some blog-fighting over the "timeline"© (ha ha). For the record, TVTime101 posted the ORIGINAL timeline, WITH photos. That should have put Taylor and her publishers on alert that bloggers were ready with an endless multitude of photographic evidence. At least as-far as when and where Taylor was seen sporting a black-eye, injuries, or as it turned-out to be mostly NOT!.
OTHER bloggers and Tweeters, and Commenters took-up the task of working on the timeline© (ok-I think that I'm jk about that ©) Namely, myself, and Diva over at the blog I will not name, and the people on the SurvivorSucks.com website, and then someone developed the Grandaddy-of-them-all, the Chicken McNugget of TIMELINES©, and gave it to StoopidHousewives.
When there was a squabble about that on SHW dot com by the way, I was able to sneak a post in there in the comments BUT in that comment, someone deleted my mention of the FACT that TVTIME101 did it first, I posted a follow-up and that Diva and others had done a lot of work too.
Through-out much of this, there has been quite a bit of blog vs. blog, or "blog-wars" going on. The "theft"-of the timeline©, just when "the book" was being released, was just one dramatic happening in bloggy-land.
Now I see BravoTvLover being annoyed and supposedly attacked, and I see BravoTvLover fighting-back, and possibly aligning themselves a little too closely with the Bravolebs who are generous enough to give them "scoops", and "WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE"-interviews.
But BravoTvLover is walking a fine-line between impartial interviewer, and grateful, starstruck blogger. One of the "Taylor Camp", posts some "information", telling BravoTvLover that "hobby bloggers" cannot obtain police records and public information, and without even trying to obtain the information, BravoTvLover goes-on a posting rampage asking the media to obtain the public records. BravoTvLover then insinuates that ALL of the people who doubt Taylor's inconsistent stories, in-fact ALL bloggers are either violent imposter criminals, insane, or WORSE!
In any event, it appears that the "Ninja, Dog-fight"-(quote The Chirping Twit), as described in Taylor's book, on television by Taylor, on BravoTvLover's site, by someone claiming to have BEEN THERE, (and also claiming to have an 18 minute video of the event), is not dead-in-the-water yet.
Also claimed on BravoTvLover's site is that the incident occurred on or about May 22, 2009. That 911 was called. That an ambulance came to the residence on Roscomare Rd, in Bel Air., That Russell Armstrong made a police report of his own concerning the incident a few days later that may have been retracted. There is also the name of one of the alleged victims of the alleged incident posted there, and elsewhere, but personally, and being from NJ, I have a policy of not interfering in the personal business of people in the waste management business as much as I possibly can.
That in my opinion is enough information for anyone to request information from the LAPD. Even bloggers who may be fat, illiterate, insane, or foreign.
The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Season II-is over, but Taylor Armstrong and/or her supporters keep trying to have "the last word", and continue to draw-out the story.
Is it possible that the mainstream and big tabloid blogging media, are blackballing Taylor, and refusing to post her stories/photos because of commenter-FLACK? And lack-of evidence which is why this topic refuses to die a merciful death?
Could that be the reason why flimsy verification of the tall-tales in Taylor's book are being force-fed to the public in excruciating and insultingly teasing ways?
I really don't know WHAT is going-on behind-the-scenes, but it appears that we have reached an impasse' with the "proof", and evidence of that fateful Scalping Ninja, drowning-poolfight.
But even-if there IS proof, and it did happen, it really is time for Taylor to be a good Real Housewife, and let some of the other wives and shows have a little bit of the attention.
In other words, it is time for Taylor to put-up, AND shut-up.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Another Inconsistency Discovered in "The Book".
 |
| http://www.radnet.com/locations2.php?recordID=51 |
The screen-shot and link at the beginning-of this post shows the hours of operation for the medical imaging place which was documented as performing the Cat-scan of Taylor's eye. Much was made of the fact that the document that Taylor posted, (and then deleted), was dated as having done the scan on June 22, 2011.
Here's another screen-shot from searching "inside the book", where Taylor says that she received this Cat-scan on June 26th, which happened to be a Sunday, when the place was CLOSED. I know that celebrities are used-to receiving special-treatment in the Thirty Mile Zone, but bringing-in enough staff to operate a CAT-scan machine for Taylor on a day-off, just doesn't make any sense, so I'll have to go-with thinking that the place was definitely not-open on June 26th.
A "mistake"? Just like using the term, "dislocated", as a medical-diagnoses, instead-of a "feeling", could be considered an "error"?
Like many other people who have been following Taylor's stories, I've done a lot of research to try and put the pieces of the puzzle together. Sorry but I can't recall where I saw the link to The AstroChicks latest prediction posted (this), but the advice that they give to Taylor is what I would say to her at this point:
"I don’t care much for who she is trusting right now, if I was speaking with her, I would tell her to TRUST NO ONE! If you can’t even trust yourself, how can you then trust another, especially when it comes to career and money!"-AstroChicks
We all know people who have walked-out of abusive relationships with nothing. Maybe those aren't the kind-of people that Bravo wants their viewers to aspire to be? Maybe those people are too busy putting their lives back-together to care about red-bottom shoes, or rented mcmansions, fake-eyelashes, or girdles?
And maybe that's why we won't see those people on The Real Housewives? That's too bad, because those are the "real" people who could really teach all of us a thing or two worth aspiring-to, isn't it?
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Book , How I "stole"-it, and did Dr. Sophy (accidently/iatrogenically) Kill Russel Armstrong?
I am not going to buy Taylor's book. I am not going to ask my local public library to buy it. I would not even borrow it from a public library if they already have it.
A commenter on Tammara's blog said that they would donate the money that they would have spent on the book to support victims of domestic violence. I like that sentiment, and the idea is something that could help right some of the wrongs that Bravo, and Taylor are committing by continuing to perpetrate Taylor's storyline. Right now,the Kindle-version is for-sale on Amazon for $11.99.
There was only one thing that I wanted to learn-about from Taylor's book, and as-far as I could tell, (more about that and how to read the book for "free"-later. Access to all free-tips via Amazon link at top), the crucial info. was not there.
What I wanted to know, was simply, :
"Why, and when did Taylor Armstrong have a Lasik© procedure, preceding the "incident" of post-Lasik© alleged abuse?
(copied)
Appropriate Candidates
Appropriate candidates for LASIK surgery are patients under 55 years of age with at least one year of stable vision and who have:
- Nearsightedness
- Farsightedness
- Astigmatism
According to(link to source quoted above) LASIK© is only recommended for 3 reasons. No where in the book did I see any mention of Taylor having LASIK©, or even wearing glasses, until she claims that Russell hit her in an eye that "should have had perfect vision, because she had just had LASIK©" . There is also a lot of weaseling about exactly what happened to her eye. She mentions the "possibility"-of a "titanium implant", being recommended, but I could not see where she says that she actually has one. Many LASIK© patients report severe damage following the procedure. The, "flap-repair, flap-wrinkle" that she reports having on July 5th, 2011, weeks after Russell alledgedly hit her, is a common result of LASIK damage.
This is how I read so much of Hiding From Reality for free on Amazon.com: I have already downloaded and installed the Free Kindle for PC on my computer. It can also be installed on mobile devices. If you have a Kindle, its even better because with a free trial-subscription to Amazon Prime, you can actually download one free book if it is in the lending library, (along-with the other great "Prime" services like free-shipping, video...).
If you don't feel like using the download, no-problem, just click the free-preview where it says, "look inside the book". (But if you do download the Kindle-sample, you get a little more from the 1st chapter).
Also-you can see much more if you are logged-in to Amazon.
Now here's where it gets a little tricky, but it really pays-off. There is a search-box where you can enter keywords. I must have searched 75 to 100 different terms, and cross-refrenced that info. with the page/chapter outline that was available to establish a "timeline" to the story.
Posted-below are some highlights/review, but the most important thing that I learned concerned Russel Armstrong's death. If what Taylor says about Russell taking medication is close to the truth, I believe that Russel's death was directly related to the use, and sudden discontinuation of powerful psychiatric drug(s) that Taylor claims were prescribed by Dr. Sophy for Russell's, "anger".
In the book, Taylor reports that Russell had an immediate, and noticeable effect from the drug(s), even-though they had been told not to expect anything right-away. (I was unable to see if Taylor named the drug or not-someone should certainly ask her this important question but I have a feeling that the networks/lawyers/drug-companies will not allow that). By entering more search-words, I was able to see that Taylor also claims that Russell said that if he had had the medication ten-years ago, he would have spared people from his trouble. The book details further remarks about the meds, and then documents that Russell had been expected to refill the prescription on the Thursday immediately preceding his suicide, but that he neglected to do that, thus-terminating the drug without medical supervision. Unfortunately, that scenario is part-of the "Black-Box", side-effects, which are known to result-in accidental suicides due-to a chemical imbalance which is caused-by suddenly starting, and/OR stopping certain drugs. Russell Armstrong's suicide is a textbook example of the "Black Box"-warning suicide/side-effect.
What drug was Russell taking? I would like to know, but there are so many, including drugs like Accutane© for pimples-that are required by law to carry a "Black-Box/Suicide"-warning, that it really does not matter.
 |
| BLACK BOX from http://www.prescriptiondrugsarekillingus.blogspot.com/ |
I am not accusing Dr. Sophy of intentionally causing his patient's suicide. Most Psychiatrists put a lot of faith in prescription drugs. NOT-prescribing drugs could be considered "malpractice", and Dr. Sophy, (as-far as I know), was following the current recommendations for treatment by offering drugs to Russell Armstrong. "Drug-abuse" and misuse, occurs when patients do not follow the instructions given to them by a doctor, or pharmacist. The standard-of-care, when prescribing any drug, includes instructions for the patient to follow-up and discuss any changes to a medication regime, many times including a warning to notify the Dr. immediately, and not to suddenly discontinue a substance without a doctor's advice. Taylor also claims in her book that Dr. Sophy had not heard from Russell in the days leading-up to the suicide. If that is also true, Russell made a critical mistake. A mistake, that Taylor would certainly have known was serious IF she had known at the time, considering her own medical degree. (I sure don't have a medical degree, and even I know that this stuff can and does KILL!).
In my lay-person's uneducated opinion, I think that the coroner's report should list Russell Armstrong's death as, "Death by pharmaceutical mis-adventure."
What did I learn from "stealing" Taylor's book?
- Taylor says that she didn't like her life and wanted to be someone else.
- In addition to student-loans, Taylor had a $30,000 credit-card debt in college because she liked the "Beverly Hills" lifestyle.
- She seduced her best-friend's boyfriend
- She had her breasts augmented and her lips done
- Her aunt was in the music biz. and her mom was for a short-time
- She studied medicine in college for some reason that she doesn't quite understand
- Russell rejected her and gave her phone number to his friend and she finally accepted a date with friend to Russell's surprise-party. Hijinks ensued.
- She claims that Russell's mother suffered "hypomania", and hinted-at a genetic source for mental illness.
- She alludes that Russell had paranoia, delusions, and a possibly severe, undiagnosed mental illness
- That Taylor was followed and investigated and Russell allegedly told her not to worry when her email was compromised Apparently Russell's loved-ones were concerned about Taylor from day-1.
- She reports going to a "sex-hormone-therapist/Dr." herself, to try and improve her relationship with Russell.
- The bit about taking a gender-test to determine if Kennedy was a boy or girl.
- That Russell convinced her to take a polygraph-test because she had a famous NBA basketball player's phone number on her phone.
- That Russell beat her friend Jennifer's fiance, Mark, so badly that Mark needed new teeth.
- That police were involved with that incident because-of the violence and that police questioned Taylor because Jennifer said that Russell tried to kill Taylor, Mark, and some dogs, by drowning them all in a swimming pool
- That Dr. Sophy is the greatest, and that Sophy consoled Taylor after Russell's death telling her that Russell had been very sick for a very long time and that Russell did not receive treatment soon-enough to prevent his death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
OK-so, my reply that didn't get through was something-like, "I understand that you are doing other things right now, but you should be aware that there is something called, free financial aid, and most students complete the federal financial aid application and receive grants based-on income for education. -Just something like that so that IF there were some other young person, or ANY person who could be reading that, OR if Mr. Mazzela would ever change his mind, that he would know that there are funds available. I don't know exactly what the extent of his "trying very hard" entailed, but I DO understand that there are multiple fraudulent companies out there, besides the general competitive nature of most scholarship opportunities.
The quote above is a reply to a very nice message advising Mr. Mazzela to pursue his education.
So-for some reason, this was bothering me. The fact that this mis-information was online, and that apparently, Mr. Mazzela himself, was unaware of the opportunity for free financial aid for education.
So I Tweeted him. He replied that I should CHECK MY DM. We began a discussion, and it did get nasty, but it would not be right to post what he thought was a private conversation. At some point, I told him that I would be blogging about him, and I requested permission to post one of his DMS, that I thought pretty-much explained his view of the topic. He responded that he would like to have his say, so I invited him to email me, and I said that I would post whatever he liked.
The gist of the (140 characters at a time!), argument, was that I should MYOB. And that Mazzela did not need or want to per-sue any educational activities. Like I said here, and to him, that's his business. And-I respect that. BUT, what he didn't seem to understand, (or really care-about either), is that his ignorance of how paying tuition for higher education works, could affect OTHER people.
I tried to explain it in an excruciatingly 140 character at a time way. I just reviewed the entire conversation, and technically, he did give me permission to post it, but really that would not be fair to him so I'm not, you'll just have to trust me that he was pretty rude. Here is where I tried to explain how the mis/dis-information could lead someone ELSE astray:
Yes, I did get personal with the blogger and believe me I'm sorry if I offended him. He only had to tell me once that he really wasn't interested in school for me to get it. And yes I was concerned for him. I was worried that based-on what he had posted, that he had ruled-out the idea of being able to afford tuition, and I wanted to make sure that he knew that he obviously had not taken the correct steps when he was interested. His replies indicated to me that he should not have to worry that people would make decisions based-on what he had posted.
I guess he is right in that you really cannot trust any information that you see online. I learned that the hard-way that time that I followed the step-by-step instructions for cleaning my keyboard on a joke website that I did not know was a joke! But I look at that kind-of statement almost as a testimonial. I got the idea that he is tired of people telling him that he should be in school, and that's his problem to deal-with. If I were that age, and people were telling me that I should be in school, I guess it could be taken as an insult? I really didn't understand his attitude, but maybe it came-across as-if I were calling him "un-edumacated"? That was not my intention. Mazzela has chosen not to attend school, and personally, I think that he may be too busy for that right now and he's pretty clear that he doesn't want to be in school.Yes, I think that young people in general need to learn and become educated, but if they really do not want to be in school, that's fine too. Ironically, he has chosen to put himself in the public as a talk show host, which implies a certain amount of trust in what he says. I'm sure that he'll learn how that works even without sitting in a classroom ;). If he sticks to talking-about what he knows, he should be OK. As long as he is aware that he may be called-on to set-the-record-straight, when he doesn't know what he's talking-about.
Also -Mis-information, dis-information,and mis-perceptions/deception are some-of the main reasons why I care about The Real Housewives and the ideas that people get from watching. Because the shows are aiming to be "aspirational", I think that its important to validate those aspirations. "Its ALL real"-"Its not real"-- Just recently, yet another Real Housewife, the new one on OC, was quoted as saying, "Its real". Well, in this case for example, someone who watches The Real Housewives, may be aware that Kelly, who's intelligence has been compared-to "rocks", and some other women who don't seem to be very bright, have earned degrees. Well, that may be true, but I'm sure that her education didn't hurt her. Using a little twisted-logic, I could see a person who's been fed a steady-diet of The Real Housewives, convincing themselves that they are already smarter than Kelly, so why bother? Personally, I think that Kelly must have been hit-on-the-head with a surfboard, or flat-out cheated a LOT, but that's my personal opinion on that. And I don't like cheating either, but just because there is some cheating and politics in education, well, that's life in general.
In case anybody is wondering how to apply for free financial aid. This is the official government website where the application is located. http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/ If you notice, it is a "Dot gov"-site, and that is extremely important to avoid scammers. It costs nothing to apply, but you do need to have some information like your most current tax-returns. AND they have a deadline, (state and federal). So if you are planning to attend school next year (the 2012-2013 school year), it has to be done now. Even-if you have not applied to a school, you can go-back to the form when you know what school you want to attend. It does take about a half-hour to fill-in the forms, but at the end they can tell you what kind-of grant you can expect. Of course the college Board, or the SAT official site has links to scholarship applications, but I prefer the FAFSA because it is a sure-thing, and many schools require it these days. Also, if the grants that a person will receive, will not cover the expenses, including room and board, transportation, books...the FAFSA site also provides links to official student loan information. That is important because there are still some companies out there that would pass themselves off as "student loan", companies, but they would have someone paying tuition, or necessary finances, at consumer interest rates, which is ridiculous because the government student loan rates are at least 10 per cent less expensive. This financing goes for any type of education that is certified including trade schools and many certification and licensing programs as well.