Slagathor
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,553
- Reaction score
- 178
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Because as a woman, I am embarrased by her behavior. I'm not trying to protect Tom. I just feel that as a seemingly intelligent, capable, beautiful woman with a fairly good career she's behaved badly and I think it reflects badly on women in general.
This is an interesting perspective and one I agree with. You can't escape a certain sense of vindictiveness on Bridget's part for having gone to that tabloid-y style publication to begin with. She had to have known, beforehand, that it would have been sensationalized to some degree by the magazine's very nature. I don't buy the argument that she was compelled to do this as a pre-emptive move to fend off the paparazzi's clamor for baby photos. She could have accomplished the same thing via People or Us, the likely difference being that the pics would've appeared somewhere inside near the back instead of on the cover. This was not a classy move on her part.
OK was likely the highest bidder.
I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been OK-ed (no pun intended) by Tom. He's got to have a gaggle of lawyers for this purpose.
I can't hate on her TOO much, though. . .she did donate the money she received to children's charities.
I disagree- People would have paid for this on the cover. They probably weren't offering enough. Don't forget Tommy was on the cover (inset) when little John was born. . .yes, I'm female and I read People when getting my nails done. Sue me!
I was thinking that max protection might avoided some problems.....In Bridget's case, he should have rolled out and gone to the tight end.
Then she sells the first photos of a celebrity baby to a relatively obscure high bidder sans interview, controlling image access to avoid stalking and donating the money to charity.
Yup, once again the only one whose been hit below the belt here as usual is Bridget.
Hey, I've got this crazy idea! Why don't people who don't know anything about the personal situation involved not make any judgments about anyone?
Then why do the article if all the money is going to charity and you don't have control of the title. The only one who suffers is the baby.
Hey, I've got this crazy idea! Why don't people who don't know anything about the personal situation involved not make any judgments about anyone?
Actually, I thought I was on a football forum. You want to bash LdT for what he says, or Mangini for his actions ... fine. I've bashed the NFL and others plenty of times. But going off on this woman for doing what may be the best thing to keep the paparazzi from dogging her every move ... whatever. Maybe Tom treated her badly. Maybe she treated him badly. Maybe they both are super-nice people, and it just didn't work out. We don't know.umm.. you do know your on a public forum right?? thats what we do. you want facts watch CNN
OK was likely the highest bidder.
I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been OK-ed (no pun intended) by Tom. He's got to have a gaggle of lawyers for this purpose.
I can't hate on her TOO much, though. . .she did donate the money she received to children's charities.
I disagree- People would have paid for this on the cover. They probably weren't offering enough. Don't forget Tommy was on the cover (inset) when little John was born. . .yes, I'm female and I read People when getting my nails done. Sue me!
I can't imagine she could have possibly known. Journalists NEVER tell you the title of a planned article when they interview you. Heck, journalists don't even know the titles of their own articles -- a headline writer sticks them on after the fact. And nothing on that magazine cover says she granted them an interview at all! All we actually know is that she had a photo taken of herself and her new baby. So maybe it would be good to stop the bloodthirsty attacks on her character until/unless we actually, you know, hear that she's done something bad?