What we have here is called whataboutism and it’s a deflection tactic which also happens to be a logical fallacy.
I never came “at you”
You came at me on my blog. You came into my comments on two of my posts. Not other way around. Yet you claim to stay on your own blog. I have not come into your blog comments once. I have not even sent anons to your blog. I created a blog to challenge your findings and present an opposing opinion. This does not classify me as combative. Nor does it mean I’m “coming at you.” You’re coming at me sweetheart. Perhaps you are not accustomed to being on the receiving end of criticism. I’m merely requesting you produce solid proof (pictures, videos, eye witnesses, screenshots, etc) to back up your unsubstantiated conclusions. If you do not have this proof, you might want to reconsider the terminology you use when you publish statements on a public platform. It is not my intention to be destructive. It is my intention to examine and objectively challenge the destruction you are perpetuating. When criticism becomes constant and vicious, it indicates the person criticizing is probably not making a healthy assessment of another person’s errors. This is a well researched fact. Your conduct seems heavily fueled by emotion and I’m truly sorry if you’re hurting. I’ve barely even criticized you and you’ve already used deflection tactics and made accusations towards me. You also made the accusation I created my blog in secret, hoping you wouldn't discover it. This is untrue. If that were the case I wouldn’t have made it searchable in my hashtags. Last time I checked, this blog was public and easily searchable.
"Noninvasive Nonpharmacologic Approaches to Subacute and Chronic Pain....Other noninvasive nonpharmacologic therapies that improve pain, function, or both for at least 1 month after delivery without apparent risk for serious harm include cognitive behavioral therapy for knee osteoarthritis; manual therapies for hip osteoarthritis; psychological therapy, spinal manipulation, low-level laser therapy, massage.... (9)."
More evidence for you, @iwantapenguin.
To be honest, I'm keeping this short because the discussion has long since devolved from civility into denial of basic, scientific fact; and the effort to keep it going has become less rewarding than my other pending projects. Don't get me wrong: if I see something particularly egregious, I'll speak up; but my time is better devoted elsewhere.
I re-addressed your specific points in the "Read More" section.
The Inconsistency of Your Facts, Other Failed Predictions, and 'Indirect Aggression' Statements
Your facts against Monique Pendleberry, as you present them, rest on shadows that either disprove your own timeline or have since faded away in the disinfecting light of public acknowledgement.
Your Blind Item proof states he and Monique met only two weeks prior (early May 2015); and an anon further disproved your still standing 19-year-old theory back in 2019 by looking up her LinkedIn and finding out she began working at SLO in 2013 after turning 20.) Further, one of your mutuals claims she saw Monique first liked a post by Brad in 2014-- though I've seen no proof of this, personally. Your NDA claim stems from an anon on a since deleted, as far as I'm aware, blog (and which you acknowledge had imperfect information-- "might have been guessing but..."); and your claim she called the paparazzi on David in Vancouver (December 2017) to be "publicly recognized" is two months too late, as the press had already put out a story about his 33 year younger girlfriend, quotes from her uncle and the source included, with pics from June 2017 of she, he, and his friends outside waiting on a table. Your claims towards Monique's sneaky videos and apartment shots fall apart when in context with what David has already shared of his apartment, locations, movements, and even "naked" ice bath picture (2019)-- not to mention David's little collection of pics others took of him while he wasn't aware (or even conscious, according to the many nap pics he reposts; and according to the pic Jack Whitehall just uploaded today.) Moreover, he already told Gillian her recording and posting without his knowledge didn't bother him ("I am okay [with it]-- I just never think to do it.") Monique being caught on camera groping David-- without either of their consent, I'm pretty sure-- falls in line with him publicly groping Tea in the past; and he didn't seem at all bothered at MP's antics once he realized she wasn't trying to poke or tickle his stomach (grinning a little smugly when she finished her routine at his junk instead.) You say Monique let KR use her as one of his "Angels", gravitating perverts to his business; and you also call David a pervert that you wouldn't trust around teenagers (assuming he met MP at 19 instead of the provable one-month-away-from 22, and also implying he is purposefully dating someone closer in age to-- and once wearing the same shade of nail polish as-- his daughter.) Yet, the victim of KR who knew Monique appreciated the love "Mo" gave in the comments and reciprocated her support when Monique shared a similar sentiment on her own Insta. You disregard David's lifelong friendships by claiming he needs them to back up or support the lies he tells himself. You claimed he wanted to hide MP away like a dirty secret in 2018, then claimed he was pushing her onto fans so they'll accept her (after assuming he wanted to soft launch her music career) in 2019, and now claim he waited until his mother died before publicly acknowledging Monique eight days ago, 2024: those narratives don't align with each other, let alone with David's other public and promiscuous actions while his mother was very alive and very aware (foul language, soft core porn movies/tv, explicit sexual talk, "I am as tall as a whale's penis", etc.) You claim Monique photoshops her Insta pics despite only one of them using a very obvious filter (for blurring, not photoshopping); and when an anon called you on it, you deflected hardcore. You deny the possibility of David's team prearranging pap strolls to Erewhon Market, even after the latter blew up during COVID as the go-to for celebrity publicists and paparazzi teams.** You gave credence to a rumor stating David had sex with teenagers in his trailer before an falsified 1995 rehab claim (both of which are unsubstantiated.)
Your predictions about Monique's effect on David's relationships crumble under the weight of evidence: commenting that West didn't follow Monique because there was friction between them-- which might have been true; but, again, no proof-- while also acknowledging Piper stopped following GA while remaining close-- and walking back your former statement, slightly; implying that West is distancing herself from her father only to be proven incorrect by her Father's Day post the next day; commenting that Tea must hate his relationship with Monique because she wants to strangle him at times despite the full context ("On occasion, I want to throttle him,” she said of her former hubby. "But in any real relationship with someone you love, that’s true") and her previous statement fresh from divorce ("He's a good guy"); assuming Gillian wanted to keep distant from his mistakes when she's had nothing but praise to say of him since the Revival, even after Monique joined (you even discredit the hug she gave Monique after the All About Eve performance as "perfunctory"); and assuming that David's kids kept their distance or were forced to put up with Monique to be around him, even now despite public evidence to the contrary (all shown in this post.)
Your other previous predictions also fall apart: You shared information from a "source" about David and Gillian making out at a party without proof; you stated that Monique's attention-seeking and boredom would cost his (their) reputation; when an anon challenged a previous claim that Bucky Dent wouldn't be picked up, you stated that it isn't good business to back "sexual abusers and creeps anymore"; and you believed the claim that Monique was soft launching her music career, stating "Everything surrounding David is bizarre, so it’s hard to parse what’s real and fake now." There are many more examples, but I'm keeping this post succinct.
Your preferred method of attack is indirect aggression. I pasted previously quoted scientific articles in the "Read More" section below, if you care to peruse it again. In short: "... this form of aggression maximizes the harm inflicted on the victim while minimizing the personal danger involved. The risk to the perpetrator is lower because he/she often remains anonymous, thereby avoiding a counterattack. As well, indirect aggression harms others in such a socially skilled manner that the aggressor can also make it appear as if there was ‘no intention to hurt at all" and "Indirect aggression is circuitous in nature and entails actions such as getting others to dislike a person, excluding peers from the group, giving someone the ‘silent treatment’, purposefully divulging secrets to others, and the use of derisive body and facial gestures to make another feel self-conscious."
Some of your many indirect aggression statements:
-"How do you know they [his kids] are ok [with DD and MP]? Why do you care if I’m not?"
-"I wasn’t a teenager yet and I recognized that Téa was repeating the b******** David told her in a lot of her interviews after they got married. Gillian wouldn’t give up her career to follow him around and she won’t blow smoke up his a**"
-"She [MP] may not be the brightest but she is a genius in manipulation"
-"There it is, always saving it up for the birthday. His hand looks like daughter and her hand looks like Daddy. 🤭"
-"She [MP] is so fake and gross; when is David going to realize this?"
-"When has she ever been stunning honestly? ...Average, a little masculine, thin and no sagging. The face doesn’t matter to men like David, nor intellect"
-"[MP] Instagram vs. reality folks. Don’t let anyone fool you"
-"He [DD] feels like hot s*** being able to pull a youngin’ but he also doesn’t want to look at a less than perfect woman either probably."
-"He needs to be canceled for good. A 59 year old man with a 26 year old woman is going to look and sound ridiculous. A perverted daddy and daughter duet. 🤮"
Conclusion
In short: I think your perception is based on a very faulty, incomplete foundation. You mix puzzle pieces of truth with personal bias and assumption. We agree on the same evidence but disagree on your interpretations or "read" of others' motives or intent. The difference is, no one from Monique's past or present have come forward as a character witness against her. All we have "against" her is a past association she and David cut ties with, a victim of said past association appreciating her support, and sundry online blunders that not even David's professional team are immune from.
It is what it is.
Readdressing Old Points
You and I can civilly disagree on David and Monique's motives, their dating timeline, and the nature of their relationship; but you can't deny that chiropractic medicine is okayed by the broad scope of Western medicine, has studies proving its efficacy, and is nowhere near the chi and reflexology which you disapprove of and which have no scientific backing. I've already quoted studies and articles from the CDC, NCCIH/nih.gov, PubMed, WebMD, Mayo Clinic, healthline, and others, so won't reiterate here. Your examples are fringe cases that either stem from malpractice or from practitioners seeing their patients as cash instead of clients. Further, you now deny an aspect of Western medicine because "People will always have an interest in protecting any industry, no matter how harmful, if it makes them a lot of money": you can't hold the position that chiropractic and other forms of alternative medicine are unsubstantiated and also hold that substantiated science is corrupted because of money. I've pointed to studies over lengthy periods of time from accredited sites, you've pointed to fringe cases.
That denial has also spread to undeniable facts, evidence, and proof about West and Monique's new relationship during the events of June 2023 and her recent birthday 2024, that Monique still posts about Brick despite having a new puppy, and that David has been inviting Monique on-stage, flashing his tongue at her, or waving to her while being passed around during his performances. Whatever might have been going on no longer is; and since we only have proof now of what her dynamic with him, his kids, and her followers are, the rest-- yours and mine-- are still assumptions.
Showing Monique and KR together isn't the gotcha you think it is while his victim's friendship with her still stands. Not to mention the implication that people in close proximity with predators are guilty, too, even if they had nothing to do with (and no provable knowledge of) their crimes....
And yes, I do think you're angry. You wouldn't be jumping through hoops to deny West's and Monique's friendship, responding to my assumptions and explanations with "JFC. He did not know she was filming him doing the dishes from the caboose", or claiming the photos and videos Monique uploaded must have been sneaked without David's knowledge-- without proof-- if you weren't.
Indirect Aggression
Indirect aggression explanation and studies (initial post here):
Indirect aggression is a form of aggression that hides behind "my opinion" or "my two cents" to bully others without receiving backlash. While it can be used in sexually competitive environments (in same sex bullying, for example), it mainly extends to interpersonal groups, families, and anonymous online forums. To quote National Library of Medicine: "According to Björkqvist [15], females prefer to use indirect aggression over direct aggression (i.e. verbal and physical aggression) because this form of aggression maximizes the harm inflicted on the victim while minimizing the personal danger involved. The risk to the perpetrator is lower because he/she often remains anonymous, thereby avoiding a counterattack. As well, indirect aggression harms others in such a socially skilled manner that the aggressor can also make it appear as if there was ‘no intention to hurt at all’." I recommend reading the study: it has a few fascinating things to say about perceived threats and thinness, as well.
The study continues: "Indirect aggression is circuitous in nature and entails actions such as getting others to dislike a person, excluding peers from the group, giving someone the ‘silent treatment’, purposefully divulging secrets to others, and the use of derisive body and facial gestures to make another feel self-conscious." While I can't see your face while typing out a post, your words do a sufficient enough job: "When has she ever been stunning honestly? She’s comparable to Perry Reeves and Suzanne Lanza. Average, a little masculine, thin and no sagging. The face doesn’t matter to men like David, nor intellect."
Another quote from a study published on PubMed Central: "In indirect aggression, the aggressor often uses others in the social group to harm the target and may avoid direct confrontation, whereas in direct aggression, the aggressor either physically or verbally confronts the target." Examples? Posting one's opinions about another person indirectly to their blog by not, say, tagging or addressing the 'opposition' directly, leaving them to be told about it or stumble onto it later before they can defend themselves... that might, perhaps, fit the bill. As would calling David and Monique names; then, when given push back, telling detractors they don't need to care about your opinions, anyway. (For the record, I don't. Just found it fascinating to study the oh so subtle shifts of your narrative back and forth. That compliment's a freebie, by the way-- I try to hand out at least one in each negatively bent post.)
Conclusion, Redux
And there you have it. I'm off to dance to the Cope-a-Cabana while I continue on my merry way~.
**Updated to add that, while I no longer stand by the Erewhon Market theory (based on further research), I do stand behind my other factual claims.
Cope and Seethe: when you can't confront reality so you lie to yourself (cope) and get extremely angry about it (seethe)
Previous posts addressing everything here.
My initial responses are in italics with quotes, your replies in bold with quotes.
**Note**: Will ghost edit later.
THE SCIENCE DENIAL SECTION
“A. All your scientific studies were mostly from 2008/2009 while mine are still cited in WebMD, Mayo Clinic, Medical News Today, healthline, etc. I know chiropractic medicine isn't a permanent cure-- took it on faith you figured I had a bit of a brain in my head.”
"Those publications are not trust worthy sources for correct medical information."
...Wow, starting off with science denial, okay.
You're denying PubMed-- which I also quoted-- is not a correct source for medical information? That WebMD, Mayo Clinic, Medical New Today, and healthline aren't, as well?
Now you're just denying reality, can't help you there.
Your own video source starts with the ortho doc couching his statement with asterisks: "Things I hate as an orthopedic surgeon, Part 5. Chirpractors that tell their otherwise healthy patients that they need to keep coming back indefinitely." As I've stated multiple times: those would be scummy people misusing chiropractic methods-- malpractice, if you will.
"Go watch chiropractors on YouTube"
Tells me everything I need to know: you don't understand chiropractic methods, at all. Some do, some don't use x-rays, depending on the severity of the injury. More importantly, the clients bring them their medical doctors who referred the patients to the chiropractic office.
Bonus: here is an article from the CDC studying the growth of alternative medicine, defining chiropractor as "Chiropractor: A person who performs hands-on therapy concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, primarily the spine, and its function", as well as noting that chiropractic medicine has health insurance coverage. They also use NCCIH/nih.gov as a source, which has an article here on chiropractic medicine: "Chiropractors approach patient care in a manner similar to that used in conventional medicine. They interview the patient, obtain a detailed health history, perform an examination, do tests, and develop a working diagnosis. They then develop a management plan, start treatment, and monitor the patient’s progress." NCIH/nih.gov also use one of my sources, PubMed, as their own source.
Also worth noting from the NCCIH's write up: "Chiropractic education includes classes in basic sciences, such as anatomy and physiology, and supervised clinical experience in which students learn skills such as spinal assessment, adjustment techniques, and making diagnoses. Some chiropractors complete postgraduate education in specialized fields, such as orthopedics or pediatrics."
They also stipulate "NCCIH has provided this material for your information. It is not intended to substitute for the medical expertise and advice of your health care provider(s). We encourage you to discuss any decisions about treatment or care with your health care provider", not wanting their coverage to be used instead of one's personal doctor's advice... which any chiropractor worth their salt will tell you.
The medical community has spoken. You didn't want to accept it and are now doubling down, continuing to argue in bad faith.
An excellent time to cue up Cope-a-Cabana! Everybody dance!
"Misinformation, you mean like saying cracking a spine can fix Scoliosis? Don’t let a chiropractor near your back with issues like that and do not let them touch your neck please!"
Nih.gov/PubMed also reported improvements in scoliosis patients after routine treatment, here: "After completion of a multimodal chiropractic rehabilitation treatment, a retrospective cohort of 28 adult scoliosis patients reported improvements in pain, Cobb angle, and disability immediately following the conclusion of treatment and 24 months later."
And it's a good thing the Clear Scoliosis Institute issues an upfront warning about treating the joints while also outlining a successful treatment plan: "Treating scoliosis with a traditional chiropractic approach can actually put more pressure on the spinal joints, aggravate the surrounding nerves and lead to the scoliosis worsening over time. The joints of the spine need to be repositioned first and foremost. But for any long term benefit to occur, there’s a whole lot more that needs to accompany this repositioning. Your muscles need to be relaxed. Your brain needs to be retrained to use the muscles and spinal joints differently than it’s become accustomed to. In order for scoliosis to be effectively treated, all of these things need to be happening together. In practice, this usually means scoliosis massages, stretches and exercises along with scoliosis-specific adjustments."
THE ASSUMPTIONS SECTION
"W did not officially pose with her on the red carpet."
That's not a gotcha: Bucky Dent wasn't West's movie premiere, lol. Cue the Cope-a-Cabana again!
June 10-15, from Josh Bonzie and West’s Instagram accounts--
As you say, what the younger generation do on their accounts is very important.
Lest we forget David's June 10 antics: singing while pointing repeatedly at Monique, waiting for her response, flashing her some tongue after, then getting back to business with a satisfied smile:
"Why isn’t any other woman he’s dated regularly criticized? Hmm…maybe because they haven’t acted like the that is criticized."
Tea has regularly been called schizophrenic, abusive, psychotic; a cheater with Billy Bob Thornton; and a gold digger for "taking" so much money from David after the divorce.
"If M wants to go out to eat with his father, MP will now be brought along too. You can’t say for sure if he is bothered by this or not. To go from 7 to 8 years of no contact to contact, I think concessions had to be made by them."
Again, assuming what contact they did or didn't have.
He spent the summer of 2023 with his dad and Monique... not sure he's too bothered, if he was (we don't know) to begin with.
Did he look bothered when papped together with them after dinner last year? Looks smug (in a "ruffle his hair" kind of way) over the takeout loot then annoyed at the paparazzi, if anything.
"He did not know she was filming him doing the dishes from the caboose. He did not know she was filming his and his hair dresser’s feet and private discussion, he did not know she was purposely also filming him when she was filming Brick running around the apartment. Can you prove he knew how many fans she let follow her and repost her posts? Can you prove he knew she was going to post him dancing to his own song or making suggestive jokes about dinosaur sex? What about in bed or without pants on?"
Probably for the same reason he filmed her petting Brick without her realizing at first. They do it to each other, some make them to the Instas.
He doesn't even know how many fans see his posts. Is his lack of knowledge on both fronts... bad?
As per the dancing: ...he was dancing onstage. To fans. At a concert. And reposted others' recording/pictures of him performing.
"In bed without pants on"... uh, lest we forget he posted this very purposefully posed pic to his Insta (which the fans ate up) in 2019:
"If he knows all this and continues to say he’s a private person, he’s a complete liar."
You can be private and still post personal pics and vids of yourself and your life-- you have family, I have family, you have friends, I have friends; and all have different boundaries around that word. It is what it is.
David posted his apartment pics. He posted his locations. He posted pics others took of him while he was napping (even the infamous hammock was pre-Monique days, by your timeline.) He posted his favorite restaurants (for promo.) He found out later Gillian had filmed him, but "I was okay [with it]; just never think to do it." He posted his view from his New York high rise. West posted vids of he and Tea exploring the caboose without him directly addressing (perhaps not even realizing) that she was filming. He played to the camera for the dinosaur documentary and for a few vids before? after? where he called her outside purposefully to film him throwing a fruit? at a basketball hoop backboard (saw detractors repost a few of those vids, too.)
"The caboose window video was undeniably inappropriate feeling and it made everyone who watched it think WTF but you can’t spin that into a positive, so it’s I can’t know if he was ok or not with that, so ignore!"
The caboose vid: never ignored it-- why would I? Found it in detractors' reposts very early on in my Monique research; and, not seeing the big deal, showed it to some normies with included context, comments, and reactions. They didn't see a big deal, either. Got family who does the same with their spouses/partners-- you probably know others who do, too.
We know she films him without him realizing; and I assume she posts knowing it won't bother him or asks for his permission first. You assume she posts it regardless for attention. Repeated key word: assume.
It comes down to the trust David has in Monique, West, even Gillian: he trusted Gillian, not having a problem she'd posted bts content when he found out later. He trusts West, letting her post whatever vid or pic about him she desires. He seemingly trusts Monique, despite you and others having a problem with what she posts, despite even your theory that West disliked her at some point. Let's say he had a problem: she blatantly films him now, so it must not have been a big one, or one detrimental to his and the kids' relationship, or one that significantly impacted his career.
A SHORTENED VERSION OF THE PAP STROLLS SECTION
**Note**: I no longer subscribe to the thesis that David and Monique strolled Soho House or Erewhon Market to be papped. My updated thoughts, with evidence, can be found in this post.
"D. Soho House and Erewhon Market pap strolls
One problem with the narrative that D and his people set all the photos up is that he looks at times to be angry, uncomfortable, anxious, and nervous. Meanwhile MP looks directly at the camera and laughs or smiles. She’s not been coached."
A comment on this thread about celebrity and paparazzi sums it up very well: "The biggest indicator for me is if they seem to get papped absolutely everywhere all the time no matter what it is they’re doing. You can pretty much fly under the radar and avoid the paps in this day and age if you’re really famous. You hardly ever see pap pics of Beyonce, for example, and if any come out they’re all really grainy and taken with a zoom lens. Taylor Swift is one of the biggest stars in the world right now and until earlier this year she was hardly pictured in public at all for like 5-6 years straight."
Celebrities don't usually (and don't have to) look pleasant during pap strolls, even prearranged ones, unless directly playing to the camera or talking to the reporters behind it (Kim Kardashian, for instance.)
Unexpected pap strolls between David and Monique are more natural and usually shot imperfectly by trigger happy photographers grasping for a paycheck.
Examples: the outing where he was impatiently waiting for the server to secure them an opening (June 2017)--
the (December 2017) stroll after Radar Online put out a story that David was dating MP (October 2017); and fans/paps/whoever saw MP in the replies of Vancouver SoulCycle's Instagram, leaked it to the paps, and they got papped--an early example of her not knowing how to handle the paps, as she looks away and at and up and down and at and away from the photographers, nervously smiles at them, drops her smile, then nervously smiles at whatever David's saying:
and their first photographed shopping exhibition together (July 2018)--
I'll give you Soho House-- although it's a known celebrity hot spot for prearranged pap shots-- because I shall give your argument the maximum benefit of the doubt. That still leaves us with Erewhon... coincidentally, the place that blew up in popularity by celebs for their scheduled pap shots after COVID restrictions; and the place where DD and MP began visiting regularly in 2022 (befitting of his "late to the party" management team) ahead of a new project release or announcement.
Signs this is prearranged: no shots are blurry, David goes into the store annoyed, he and Monique emerge straight-faced, he and Monique slowly walk to the car with their cart instead of carrying their groceries per usual-- you can see her starting their ordinary routine before he reroutes it-- and he and Monique giving away as little to the paparazzi as possible: a clean get-in-and-out set up:
Future pap strolls are just as coordinated, some with more polished success than others.
Here's why you can't go by expression:
2014 expected paparazzi shots--
2018 unexpected paparazzi shots--
Again, all celebrities in the business engage in scheduled paparazzi: it helps with controlling the unquenchable media monster. Tips, tricks, and clues about which ones are or aren't are pretty obvious once you know what to look for.
"If D had such a deal, why couldn’t he stop paparazzi from taking pictures of him on the beach during one of the worst moments of his life? Somebody without any thought put those pictures up on Brick’s account later. Do you think he approved of that moment being used for a “fun” dog account?"
I already covered that topic on my main paparazzi post; but, in short: deals with the paps aren't going to stop all opportunity shots; and they certainly aren't going to stop the paps the celebrities' management team doesn't have a deal with.
That's an assumption about the Brick post-- was there malicious intent or miscommunication? We don't know, can't definitively say. I assume an oversight by the social media handlers because David's still friends with Brad and still more than friends with Monique.
But then, you got mad she posted a Brick post on 9/11, got called out when it was revealed she posted on 9/10; and doubled down saying she should have known it would be a sensitive time for everyone (read: David) and that she could have dedicated the post to the dog that died in 9/11 or used it to point to a dog charity or something. So... I don't think your concern was or is for David's well-being in this case, either. Gotta be honest.
PERSONAL DIFFERENCES OF OPINION
"You are grossly misrepresenting what I was saying which is extraordinarily manipulative and horrifyingly dishonest. I was never implying D would pick MP because she reminds him of his daughter. I was saying how disturbing it is that he picked a such young woman that she has more in common with his daughter because of the age difference."
You do by implication; and you also don't help that implication by calling him gross and perverted in other posts for dating someone five years older than his daughter. It's a line you balance very carefully between implication and direct accusation-- all but saying what you truly intend because that's how you roll: indirect aggression.
"Many young girls wear blue (or other non-traditional colors) nail polish but not many women in their 50s and 60s do unless they project a quirky and zany personality."
Know lots of polished women wearing blue/navy nail polish without trying to be quirky, cue Cope-a-Cabana.
"I’m not skirting around anything, everything you accuse me of doing you’re doing yourself."
You skirt around that I've A. proven you can't prove your assumptions, B. made no claim that my assumptions were the truth, and C. stated that all his friends, mature women included, still speak well of him; his kids have struck up friendships with Monique; and KR's accusers sided with "Momo", swapping empathy and sympathy back and forth.
"You don’t mind that D called a man like that his friend? He had to understand what this guy was trying to achieve with these young girls."
Oh, look at all the biographies and autobiographies and scientific articles and scientific studies about the struggles of shame and guilt that the clueless family, friends, and acquaintances of the most worthless wastes of space on this planet feel and still feel for not sensing something "off" with various perpetrators that you have conveniently swept under the rug. What a large pile that is.
"So you’ll continue to defend and dismiss how he was connected to her boss and that shop."
Completely ignoring all the times I've repeatedly refuted this claim.
'The boss that surrounded himself with fit young women in bikinis, who were pushed to take part in extreme exercise to keep fit enough to sell their sex appeal and his “health food” while he tried to set them up with a rich older man. He ended up with one Angel and D ended up with another Angel."
Completely ignoring that you have proof of KR's motives but none of Monique's or David's, that you acknowledged MP was on the higher end of her weight when she and DD first got together and that you consider her "average at best" (not the fit, sexy Angel you want to portray her as in this tawdry tale), that you also have no proof that she was an "Angel", and that the other girl who was being pimped still sided with "Momo" when proof and evidence came to light.
"The picture is before he realized what her end game was and he recoiled back while looking embarrassed."
Watching it back: he goes from smirking to doubling back when she almost knocks over his drink (moving back thinking she's going to tickle his stomach) to smirking at her grab to smoothly talking to the person next to him while pivoting to safely place his drink to the right. I don't see distress other than his fear of getting tummy tickled.
"One problem with the narrative that D and his people set all the photos up is that he looks at times to be angry, uncomfortable, anxious, and nervous. Meanwhile MP looks directly at the camera and laughs or smiles. She’s not been coached."
As I touched on in the paparazzi section, Monique and David's first few pap routines were not called in. It's not until her trip to Russia, I believe, when she begins to learn to school her expression and not be too jittery when the media are frenzying for David's attention; and it's not until ~2022 that the Erewhon pap setups were caught.
However, we can't discount their trips to Soho House, though I relented that point to you as a meet-in-the-middle measure.
"You very much out of context and twist the meaning of what I’ve written."
Where out of context? Pretty sure I link all posts where you state what you do so others can go judge for themselves. If I've left a link out, by all means point and I'll edit it in.
"I respond directly to the subject of the debates, while you conflate things and bring up anything but the initial argument to try to support your position."
Nah, I don't conflate: just point out your presuppositions don't hold up when taken to their logical conclusion or when broadened out to create a standard or pattern of behavior.
"Conflate, verb: to combine two or more separate things, especially pieces of text, to form a whole" -Cambridge Dictionary
Examples from Merriam Webster: "Examples of conflate in a Sentence: be careful not to conflate gossip with real news"
PERSONAL AGREEMENTS
"Anthony Kiedis admitted to repeated statutory rape of a 14 year old girl when he was 23. I find him to be a greasy creepy perverted degenerate."
Look at that, we have a lot in common!
(What we don't have in common is extending that perverted greasiness to David; nor that Monique has exploited another pervert's victims' misfortunes; nor that David picked someone purposefully who had more in common with his daughter than not so he could groom her into the type of woman he wanted.)
"I made my own color analysis from sources on the internet, not your post. I offered my own prospective on a subject you didn’t invent. Why did I have to tag you?"
Look at that, we agree again!
Didn't even need you to tag me, as I stated, even if your criticisms did get brought to the fore again because of my analysis post. You beat me to the punch-- didn't and don't deny it.
CONCLUSION
You know, you don't have to reject medical science to prove a point.
"I find it tasteless that you don’t really care what KF did to those young people as long as your golden boy comes out looking alright...."
"You’ll defend anything adjacent to D. I see a lot of arguments that do not have anything to back it up, like he probably acted inappropriately while drunk at a party before and so what? I’m taking about MP (who said she was drunk?) being unable to control herself because she needed everyone to know she was with D and touches his dick in her spare time. Disturbingly, that’s what seems to give her self-worth. All that is why she’s not very likable or tolerable. Evidence shows that chiropractic adjustments do more to harm than help, but as long as people feel they work everything is hunky-dory? It alarming that you don’t care about real harm being done to people’s spines because it’s D’s gf’s father providing the service? I can’t respect people who push any of that bull crap."
-@iwantapenguin, 2024
Lie, verb: lied; lying. To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. To create a false or misleading impression.
Slander, verb: slandered, slandering. To make false and damaging statements about (someone).
Gloves off, then. But next time, tag me properly so I can be notified that you are going to abandon a civil discussion and resort to violence.
Post I'm responding to here (and tangentially, here.)
I shall also give you the curtesy of quoting you directly so that everyone can judge for themselves if my claims are valid, fair, or truthful.
**Note**: I do not begrudge anyone feeling disgusted or grossed out by age gap relationships: the majority of those relationships start from a bad place, continue in a bad place, and are doomed to fail or take both parties down with it. However, the accusations flung against David and Monique without merit-- not those that are or were provably awkward or roughshod -- are a waste of my time, energy, and brain power. Give me proof or give me death.
First: "Whataboutism?" Wherefore art thou, 'Whataboutism'?
Next: "People who post their family’s whole lives on social media for attention or to make money are vultures." Except Monique doesn't get a cut off of management deals, engagement, or even ads. DD and his kids have posted pics of their personal lives, homes, and vacations, as well. They not only let Monique continue to post pics and videos, but also respond to (West) or engage with (David) them. And hi, yes, hello, I also despise family vloggers because they exploit children who can't consent.
Next: "MP has thousands of followers she does not know, so private her account is not." ...What? You can have a private account and still have followers without following them. I know people who operate their dinosaur Facebook accounts like that, young and old generation; and they're most certainly private citizens. I know youngins and oldins who operate their Twitters like that. You probably do, too, or at least know someone who does. I'm hungry for facts, but nothing's been proven with that statement.
Next: "D is so clueless he didn’t know that Gillian was taking BTS pictures on TXF’s set to post on Instagram." David didn't know GA was posting their bts vids online, true; but he was also the one who brought up that she was "always taking pictures and videos" when they were discussing fan engagement; and he and she both laughed over it while he assured Gillian he was okay with "it", regardless.
Their exact dialogue, transcribed:
David: "You know how stupid I am? How innocent and naive I am? You would take a video and I'd go 'oh, cool'."
Gillian: *smiling* "And not realize that I was gonna post it?"
David: *smiling*: "Yeah, and then you'd post it. It'll be like, 'Oh. Well, I should have taken a look at that one.'
Both: *laughing*
Gillian: "Well, you never complained so I thought you were okay with whatever...."
David: "I AM o-- y'know, none of it was terrible; but it was like, I never think to do it."
Also, he clarified in May 2015 (before, as you theorize, Monique could have gotten her hands on his phone or publicly posted about him) that he doesn't trust social media because of the assumptions, misinterpretations, and no-going-back nature of technology: "The 54-year-old actor, who has daughter West, 16, and son Miller, 12, with ex-wife Téa Leoni, admits he only uses Twitter because he was ''prodded to do it.'' The 'Aquarius' star said: ''I'm skeptical of Twitter. I'm prodded to do it, and so I do it. But I feel like there is an opportunity to screw up constantly. You have to be careful. It doesn't go away anymore! I tell my kids the same thing.'" Not because of some high-minded but too-lazy-to-accomplish-her-schemes gold digger posting his private business behind his back.
Next: "A few of his daughter’s friends unfollowed her after the sneaky filming started. The photos are already out there for many people to see curtesy of MP, so I’ll document her ridiculous behavior." Perhaps. I don't discount it. But if David didn't have a problem posthumously with Gillian filming him then, and if he still doesn't have a problem with Monique filming him now-- and I know he doesn't because I've watched him play to the camera in some leaked vids others repost here or there-- it would make sense, logically, why West engaged in the same behavior then and now, on her own and with Monique. Some days he might not want to be on camera for all posterity-- indirectly implying that lightheartedly to Gillian in the above transcript-- hence the leg and feet filming.
Again, we. don't. know. If she's a monster or he's a monster, I cast them off into the abyss. But we, the public, have no actual, factual information of... anything, really, other than rumors, speculations, or opinions. What we do know is: he was fine with Gillian posting, even after being made aware of it. He's fine with West posting his apartment and their family activities. He was fine posting a pic of Miller to his own account. He seemed fine with West's boyfriend posting an intimate father-daughter hug for Bucky Dent's premiere. And he seems fine with Monique posting since then.
For every mention you have of West and her friends not engaging with Monique years ago, she most certainly does now. And you can't hide that fact behind West using her father as a leg up in the industry without bringing Tea's contacts from both entertainment and finance into the discussion. Tea who, by the way, has been more than cordial and civil in each outing and sighting with David, saying they're friends, saying they still love each other, telling him he's a good influence and father to West, etc. Even after the timeline you allege he started dating Monique. Even after the other dating timeline you allege she gave fans in a conversation somewhere. Even after he flew in and out of New York before the pandemic. Even after spending the pandemic locked down with his son.
Next: "The photos are already out there for many people to see curtesy of MP, so I’ll document her ridiculous behavior. I’m not his gf, I’ve made no vows to him. He likes to make money on voicing his feelings and opinions. While I’ll continue to comment on a public figure." 'Ridiculous behavior', you say, about an adult posting milestones or cute pictures and videos to her Instagram. Interesting. If she were trying to launch her own career-- which you and your responders have said before she would, a couple times, without anything coming to fruition (the archives don't lie)-- your argument would have a leg to stand on. But then again, David and Tea talked about explicit sex (and their sex lives) back in the day; rolled atop each other on a crowded, public beach; sold David's bottom-as-brush paintings for charity; and promoted her charitable causes during their various movie interviews... so, I would still retract half a point.
Next: "She should have the loyalty, respect, love and care to not use him for attention." Would you say he used her for attention during his performance the night before Bucky Dent, pointing at her and waiting for her response during one of his songs? Did he use her for attention during his recent stories about their private lives on recent podcasts? Did he use his children for attention on his podcasts? Did he use Tea for attention during their collaborations? Did she use him for attention to promote her friend's brand during their recent family vacation? If we broaden this out to its conclusion: do the Obamas use their children or each other for attention, setting aside their 'loyalty, respect, love, and care' for each other in order to do so? Or do they just say or post what they want within personalized limitations that are narrowed or broadened as relationships shift and grow?
Next: "He’ll hold her hand or leg in public now that his mother isn’t here to witness them. How romantic." David's stated in the past his mother didn't listen to what the talk shows said or read what the papers wrote about him. If you want to be really technical, he's also said she had dementia or Alzheimer's (can't recall which specifically) for a few years now; and that it was so advanced by the time of her death that she didn't recall one day from the next. Would she have disapproved? You bet your bottom dollar she probably did. She also would have disapproved of him being as explicit and cussy as he was for decades; and she would more than likely have disapproved of him getting tattoos; and she would have most definitely disapproved of all his youthful, adult, and older adult sexual shenanigans, innocent or not. That didn't stop him before.
To be even more technical, most of the pap shots of DD and MP are taken at Soho House and Erewhon Market, two celebrity hotspots that managers, publicists, and paparazzi use to prearrange meetups in order to get the celebrity's name out there in advance of the next promotional tour, as well as merge their interests to get a split of the photograph proceeds. (I covered the topic here.) All David has to do is show up--ultimately, they're business strolls. He's annoyed (even angry) at having to do it; but he still holds up his end of the celebrity bargain 'cuz that's Hollywood, baby. And he's always brought Monique along with him.
Next: "He pushed her hand away when people were looking before...." Continuing on my train of thought. The other times he and Monique were caught unawares by paparazzi (his band at the airport, Vancouver, the beach, etc.) were during the Revival hype. Monique didn't try to snuggle up, grab his hand, or get too close most incidences. The hand move you're referring to was, I believe, after a live show when he was super-duper keyed up, wanted to leave, and was followed (semi-circled?) by fans. Yeah, it could be a sign he wanted physical distance from her... except he acted out the exact same routine with his kids whenever they got papped or surrounded by a crowd: walking ahead of them, retreating into himself, not touching anyone unless they were feeling insecure or scared, looking serious or annoyed unless talked to or joked with. It was a clear pattern to me, so I guess I'm surprised you didn't notice it, too.
Next: "...and made her hold his arm like he was her gramps." I have an older couple-- 70s-- who have been married forever and still hold each other's arm like that, preferring to keep any romantic overtures tightly under wraps. I knew other older couples who would think that's rubbish or insanity. I know other young couples who are physically affectionate in public; and others who, again, would prefer to keep contact to a minimum. I've seen, read, or heard of every shade in-between; and I know you have, too. Maybe David likes how it makes him feel. Maybe Monique likes reenacting Austenian period dramas. Of all the accusations brought against them, this amuses me the most.
To be even more technical, I can pull up preeeeetty much all the paparazzi pics between he and MP in chronological (not release, they were reshuffled) order to prove that he initiated more contact with MP than the other way around, stemming as far back as 2017.
Next: "They didn’t have to have contact with Tim once he started dating their mother but they always did." First of all, I challenge you to prove that assertion. Second of all... why is that the focus of your question? Why did or didn't they have to? That's an assumption equal to the kids having no contact at all with MP for years. We don't know.
Tim said on a podcast that he and Tea shared a trailer to catch a nap early on in their relationship. Their coworkers suspected they were dating the entire first season, long before they announced it publicly (five-six months later around Christmas.) Tea and David previously married each other within eight weeks. Tea moves fast. We don't know how fast; but we do know one source alleged she and Tim were an item since summer (July) of 2014. David then filed for divorce in August, citing an "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" (meaning Tea was ready to move on, that's her prerogative); and she and Tim spent Season 1 fake kissing but looked like they were "really kissing", according to an onset actor friend. All this to say, pretty sure Madam Secretary's pilot filmed in May; and if she and Tim were "on" by July, etc., it stands to reason she moves at the same pace as she did with her first husband; then David; then (presumably) Tim. Meaning, we don't know how much contact the kids had with Tim; but it was probably, likely, a lot. Monique, meanwhile, lived primarily in California; and she and the kids had separate worlds, we assume, until West graduated and started forming her own relationship behind the scenes. Miller seems to have followed suit; and the rest is history. All of those are provable facts because we have what David and Tea have said about and done with each other; what Tea and Tim have said about each other; what observers have confirmed or denied on all angles of the situation; and what the kids were doing then and doing now.
Next: "She smoked, loved red meat, wasn’t a gym rat etc. It’s just a little thing, not marriage ending but people fair better the more similar their habits." Your previous implication in the comments of our last chat here was that they wouldn't have lasted long because David couldn't mold Tea into the woman HE wanted. You assume he cheated, cheated, cheated until rehab, then cheated, cheated, cheated some more until their second and final breakup (despite the fact sources from her side said the final dissolution was due to her love not being the same as pre-rehab, not that he'd kept acting reprehensibly), then hooked up with a 19-year-old mercenary social climber that, somehow, waited two years before accidentally leaking where she and her boyfriend would be working out (in a reply to the owners of the Instagram gym they would be going to... which means someone had to have been stalking who she was talking to in order to find that information, hm) so he could no longer hide her away like a dirty secret. Those aspects of Tea were brought up to subtly back your larger point, which was to lay the blame at David's feet one way or another. If he deserves it, lay it there. But prove that he deserves it.
Next: "MP is at his beck and call, she will also twin him without hesitation." MP at his beck and call? ...Or maybe she's down to fly free to any cool new location, down to fly wherever he is because he's her boyfriend and she loves him, down to enjoy a financial freedom we mortals could only dream of having, etc., etc.? Assumptions on all sides; and, again, no proof.
Next: "They didn’t follow each other before because they didn’t interact in real life either. She had to leave when they were visiting up until 2022 and 2023. They didn’t have to have contact with Tim once he started dating their mother but they always did." Never denied that was the case. Still don't buy there was some grand conspiracy happening behind the scenes to keep the kids away from the disgusting age gap relationship and the dastardly, evil machinations MP was concocting on her evil Instagram account. I need hard proof before I believe assumptions.
Next: "Regarding Téa you are assuming she must be ok with MP because she’s good with D but I’m pointing out that she admitted she still wanted to strangle him sometimes for the things he does on a national television show" I never said Tea was okay with MP, just that she's more than okay with David despite his relationship.
Also, Tea's throttle comment disproves your angle, actually. Might as well throw it in here because that's a point you've not let go.
Tea's comment with full context:
In fact, the exes are on very amicable terms and talk almost every day, they even shared a rental home with all of their family over the Christmas period. But this doesn't mean the pair's current relationship is always smooth sailing. “On occasion, I want to throttle him,” she said of her former hubby. "But in any real relationship with someone you love, that’s true.”
Tea's quote the previous year, fresh from divorce:
"Listen, David gave me the two greatest gifts on the planet; I don't know how I could ever hate him. We've always loved each other, and we adore these kids," the 'Jurassic Park 3' actress said of her children, Kyd Miller, 12, and Madelaine West, 15. "I'm not playing stupid-I understand feelings can get hurt and things can get icky. We've had our moments like that. But these kids are too important, and he feels the same way. I know it," she continued. "He's a good guy."
Next: "Of course MP showed everyone the second she first hung out with both of them to no one’s surprise." This doesn't hold up in court, either, because West and her boyfriend gushed over MP all summer. West would have complained to her mom or dad if she felt uncomfortable with the video posted; and neither parent have would let that happen again. Furthermore, guess who was relaxed, smiling, and engaging with the camera, other than Monique? West. Guess who hugged up on Monique while her dad and Ben Stiller celebrated Bucky Dent's release with a performance? West. Guess who gave Monique a happy Happy Birthday message? West. Guess who attended a Taylor Swift concert with Monique? West. Guess who went with her to London to, as you say, "babysit" Monique? West. Guess who celebrated her birthday in New York with, you assume, Monique? West. Guess who'll be elsewhere with Monique in future? Probably West.
Next: "What are you taking about fixing things because of what’s written about her? She made fun of people for saying her friend was her boyfriend because they were disgusted by thought of David dating her and didn’t want to believe she was for real. So that was proof she was reading a few tumblrs when her name was first revealed." Logical inference but incomplete reasoning, I believe. David knows exactly what was said about his House of D movie; David knows what everyone was saying and has said about him during his rehab, reunion, and divorce; Tea knows what might be said and forbids Tim to talk about her in interviews; I know and you know what is being said about each other, which is why we're here (but at least I'll respond to you properly with a reblog or @); and Monique knows what people say about her because she possibly Googled herself or, I don't know, took a look at the vitriol in her comments section-- a few of which you've reposted in the past so even I got to see them. Lovely times. Again, no definitive proof.
Next: "How am I supposed to know if she’s read my blog? But what a dedicated reader you are." Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment instead of a barb. I began poking around your archives right around the time you made a post trying to debunk my David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson seasonal palette posts. (If you're trying to put me off, consider that you brought up our difference of opinion once again in the midst of an entirely separate talk about Monique and David's relationship.) You didn't have the curtesy to @ me then (and now); but I started scrolling while waiting for you to respond, came across a host of information, and decided to come back later to iron out some details. Needless to say, you can't passive-aggressively point a finger at me when your posts are supposed to be public to begin with, not even coyly private like you claim Monique's Instagram account is. One pointing forward, three pointing back, after all.
While we're on the topic, I also caught a lie you told during our previous conversation. Back in 2019? you put a cryptic message saying you didn't believe David and West were close because of Monique; and when West posted the next day for Father's Day, you followed up with another cryptic post hinting MP was reading her Tumblr detractors; and when another user called you out for that, you denied, denied, denied that was your intent; and then you confirmed that that had been your intent to me (in essence, restating that you believe MP keeps up with her anti Tumblr accounts and pressures DD's kids through him to post nice family tributes so they'll cover for her manipulative tactics actively destroying everyone's hunky dory life.) It's the same train of thought as "Gillovny is married"; except your theories are couched with half facts instead of pure insanity.
Next: "She’s never looked anorexic to me so thin yes but not too thin. D was only shockingly thin after Téa left him for good in 2011. My criticism has alway been to question the men in her life and her surroundings pushing her to get plastic surgery and to over exercise which made her much slimmer than she was before. Is that constructive enough?" Yes, actually; because this ties beautifully into my next point about your warfare tactics.
Indirect aggression is a form of aggression that hides behind "my opinion" or "my two cents" to bully others without receiving backlash. While it can be used in sexually competitive environments (in same sex bullying, for example), it mainly extends to interpersonal groups, families, and anonymous online forums. To quote National Library of Medicine: "According to Björkqvist [15], females prefer to use indirect aggression over direct aggression (i.e. verbal and physical aggression) because this form of aggression maximizes the harm inflicted on the victim while minimizing the personal danger involved. The risk to the perpetrator is lower because he/she often remains anonymous, thereby avoiding a counterattack. As well, indirect aggression harms others in such a socially skilled manner that the aggressor can also make it appear as if there was ‘no intention to hurt at all’." I recommend reading the study: it has a few fascinating things to say about perceived threats and thinness, as well.
The study continues: "Indirect aggression is circuitous in nature and entails actions such as getting others to dislike a person, excluding peers from the group, giving someone the ‘silent treatment’, purposefully divulging secrets to others, and the use of derisive body and facial gestures to make another feel self-conscious." While I can't see your face while typing out a post, your words do a sufficient enough job: "When has she ever been stunning honestly? She’s comparable to Perry Reeves and Suzanne Lanza. Average, a little masculine, thin and no sagging. The face doesn’t matter to men like David, nor intellect."
Another quote from a study published on PubMed Central: "In indirect aggression, the aggressor often uses others in the social group to harm the target and may avoid direct confrontation, whereas in direct aggression, the aggressor either physically or verbally confronts the target." Examples? Posting one's opinions about another person indirectly to their blog by not, say, tagging or addressing the 'opposition' directly, leaving them to be told about it or stumble onto it later before they can defend themselves... that might, perhaps, fit the bill. As would calling David and Monique names; then, when given pushback, telling detractors they don't need to care about your opinions, anyway. (For the record, I don't. Just found it fascinating to study the oh so subtle shifts of your narrative back and forth. That compliment's a freebie, by the way-- I try to hand out at least one in each negatively bent post.)
Don't get me wrong: if Monique were a provably bad person, I'd dust off my hands and let you have at. But for all your opinions, you have very few facts; and the mess-ups, flubs, or ill-thought actions on MP's part you have mentioned are so disparate and scattered-- and rarely repeated-- that they look less like condemning incidents and more like overblown reactions to mundane or innocent mistakes.
And before you write off my points by claiming I'm claiming you're jealous of Monique or some such nonsense, one of the above studies openly acknowledges that indirect aggression is not built on the premise of intrasexual competition strategy: "...developmental psychologists have tended to not conceptualize females' use of indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy."
Next: "Again with the whataboutism." Art thou 'Whataboutism'?
Next: "So you were at the after party to see people’s reactions and parties where D’s been drunk?" No, and neither were you. You were also not at David's apartment when Monique and the kids might or might not have been there; you were also not in the room when David and Tea and the kids discussed Tim or Monique; and you were also not in either Monique's or David's head during the posts, blocks, unfollows, refollows, etc. decisions that were made. I merely commented on the fact that you have brought up his drinking before events in in the past, your reactions to it, others on here's reactions to it, and David's circle of friends, and what I do and don't know of said friends' behavior in the past.
Next: "D and T were inappropriate but consensual. PM pulled G’s bikini bottom down when she was trying to close the umbrella and I slammed him for that too. She was humiliated and embarrassed when the pictures were released." Conflation. David and Tea were surrounded by people in both instances, knew others could see them, and didn't care, inappropriate or not. Peter Morgan and Gillian were on a private vacation; and their privacy was infringed on by the paparazzi and media. For all the negative talk that came out of that incident, not one person stated that G was unwilling, visibly uncomfortable, or angry at Peter Morgan for doing so; only that she was "humiliated and embarrassed" after the fact. The problem in BOTH situations is that PM and MP were groping their partners in what they took for granted as private situations-- I have a casual understanding of David's friends and wouldn't be surprised if they didn't care about her or his antics in the long run-- and were filmed without any parties' consent.
Next: "D did not know what MP was doing, he almost spilled his drink jumping back away from her and he did not look like he enjoyed that trick in a room full of strangers." I saw the video a couple times. Did you not catch his smirk once he realized she wasn't trying to tickle his stomach but was doing a game to end up at his junk? It wasn't a polite one, either. If she had intentionally crossed a boundary and made him uncomfortable, I don't condone that behavior.
Next: "Defending that kind of public humiliation is repugnant." That's a lie, and you know it. Not once in our conversation have I taken the position of condoning, endorsing, or rug sweeping manipulative, abusive, coercive, or other boundary stomping behaviors. They are repugnant to me; and though being called 'repugnant' doesn't make a dent because you have no proof to back up your claim. And, frankly, it speaks to your character that you would try to blacken mine.
Next: "I find it tasteless that you don’t really care what KF did to those young people as long as your golden boy comes out looking alright."
Excuse you, that is a lie and slander.
In the comments of our previous conversation, I stated over and over he was a pimp. He should absolutely rot for what he's done. But you assume that Monique is just as guilty: benefiting from a business relationship with him, sweeping his treatment of other girls under the rug, using a victim's story to score back pats for herself. The reality is, the victim sided with Monique, both when MP supported her in the comments and when MP posted her own Instagram story sharing she'd been "there" before. Foregoing the obvious conclusion, you posted their first back and forth with other comments tearing Monique apart as the secret villain in this tragic story. That's disgusting, in my opinion. I tried to understand why you got to that conclusion; but if not only her friends, not only her coworkers, but the victim HERSELF is standing by Monique, then it is not the time to vindictively insinuate she exercised the same mean, grasping, oily tactics as her former boss. Further, that she was exploiting someone else's tragedy and trauma for her own gain.
Next: "She can be immature and also be a user who uses situations to her advantage." To quote you once again: that's a lie. Prove it. You can't. You can only assume what her intent, motives, and actions are based on your inference of her character.
Next: "...the old greasy celebrity rocker KR was trying to push on them." You can't prove that; and until you can, I can sit here and say it's a lie. It's your inference against mine.
Next: "She did not say she was mistreated by her boss." I never said her boss mistreated her. I never even got that indication from the post you spread around. She related to her coworker's experience through her personal one. Just because KR was an absolute monster to other girls doesn't mean he was a monster to all of them: monsters, abusers, and manipulators pick on the weakest person who has no one to stand behind and back them up. Her father, for instance, would have been a not insignificant buffer. He's well-connected in California, or so you imply by saying he's met David before. And it stands to reason he would be, supplement and wellness culture being what it is in the Golden State.
Next: "According to you MP was an adult and mature enough so she should have know what those special favors from the boss looked like to everyone else." Let's not get into the "his family and friends should have known Ted Bundy was a horrible person" of it all. No one knows what they're not aware of. I have a close, close family member who grew up adoring an abuser because he'd never abused her; yet was horrified and had to process the fact her other sibling was being used for everything short of penetration. To quote a good ol' Aslan meme: "Do not cite the deep magic to me, Witch! I was there when it was written."
Next: "She wrote a short perfunctory show of support for damage control and went back to thanking her lucky stars she now has an easy life of privilege living in a multi-million dollar Malibu home by the ocean thanks to her boss at SLO." First: prove it. You can't with any degree of fact. Second: I'd be thanking my lucky stars, too. So would you. So does everyone who's been in a tangential situation to an abuser and escaped unscathed-- so unscathed that they didn't even know the boss was perpetuating abuse. And that can at least be proven because, as you say, MP's boyfriend was still buying from that shop days before everything broke out; and she publicly empathized with and received empathy from the victim right after. Has the victim made a scathing comment calling out Monique later? Nope. Bet they're still on good terms, too.
Next: "What else does a very rich 54 year old man want from a 21 year old but lots of sex and an easy relationship with someone who doesn’t know any better?" Lots of sex, an easy relationship free of the complicated dynamics of children from other relationships, and someone to love and love him. Seems logical to me. What is unacceptable in age gap relationships are the predators who aim for 21-year-olds (or 19-year-olds, as you posit) because they pull women their age and can't aim lower; and who lock 'em down and knock 'em up as quickly as possible so they can't escape. Or those who say "yeah, sure, I'll marry you" while dragging their feet until the girl (as they see her) gives up and stays or gets up and leaves. If the latter, they start fresh with another young woman who might not see through their routine bag of tricks. David, for all his faults, has stated his intentions up front and publicly: he's not marrying again. He still wears the ring tattoo from his previous relationship. He relived the trauma of a broken home through his own actions. He still can't dwell on the pain his kids went through during that time. Unless he decides to change his mind, Monique's outta luck. Yet, I don't believe she cares as much as you do if they do get married or not. Certainly not as far as either of us can prove, anyway. By the way, Tea and Tim haven't married yet, either; and they've been together provably longer than Monique and David.
Next: "She was male celebrity obsessed, younger but she went with the one who came into the shop and showed interest." Prove it. You can't. Let's say that's the case: she would've hopped to a new person long before now. David's got friends, she's gone to his parties, she's met his people. Opportunists don't sit long with a second option when they get an opportunity to grab for their first. I read your old posts about her Twitter/Instagram follows; but none of you take into account if she was following other people and pruned those people out as her interests changed. You also can't prove when she followed those accounts: the next day after she opened her account? A month after? A year after? I have accounts open I've never used; I have family and friends that do, as well. Let's say she opened it right away and began using it: again, when did she follow those accounts? Were those celebrities part of a collective that her boss or coworkers said came into the shop? Did she prune out the others after seeing them in person? Why? Because you assume other celebrities are immune to her masterfully unskilled manipulation, but David wasn't?
Next" "You’ll defend anything adjacent to D."
That's a lie.
Prove it. He had to go into a sex addiction program because he hurt his wife and kids. He talks about saving the planet yet doesn't take more than bare minimum actionable steps himself. (What he does in his personal life is of no concern to me; but it is hypocritical of him.) If he backs up Chris Carter against Gillian in the Revival controversy, I will lose a qualitative amount of respect for him (because there is actual, factual proof of wrongdoing on Chris's part to his longtime friend and mother of his goddaughter.) He has blind spots, faults, weaknesses, and failures like any other person.
Next: "I see a lot of arguments that do not have anything to back it up, like he probably acted inappropriately while drunk at a party before and so what?" No, my comment was even you have picked at DD for drinking before his shows. That even he has probably acted on impulse before or during a party. That even he didn't seem too bothered after he realized MP wasn't tickling him. That his expression changed when he saw someone filming their interaction. I also pointed out his and Tea's post-rehab reconciliation shenanigans of equal and greater caliber (having a jolly time at a public ballgame and rolling on top of each around other beachgoers.) I also pointed out that GA had a Portofino moment. Would I grab my boyfriend's junk if we were in public? No. But David did with Tea. The only difference between those situations was DD and T had the power of denial on their side while MP was not afforded that luxury. You called her behavior trashy; but posting someone's junk grab to the internet without their consent is trashier to me.
Next: "Disturbingly, that’s what seems to give her self-worth." Prove it, with testimony and evidence other than assumptions you and other Tumblr, Instagram, or Twitter jockeys assume and interpret. Give me a firsthand witness of her behavior. Give me a former friend or a colleague. Give me a family member. Give me someone other than people on Twitter being blocked by DD's account and assuming it's her. Further, give me proof what they were saying before they were blocked: I don't give mercy to people being snide, snarky, or vile and boohooing about it later. You don't, either, so I'm sure you'll respect that quality.
Next: "Evidence shows that chiropractic adjustments do more to harm than help...."
That's a lie, and a pretty brazen one.
WebMD, MayoClinic, Medical News Today, healthline, and more medical websites and journals have articles promoting chiropractic methods, as well as the warning signs like any other medical procedure. The only disclaimer they put up was that chiropractic adjustments haven't shown a conclusive improvement in athletic achievement.
One of their articles state: "All chiropractors must earn a postgraduate degree (DC), taking up to 4 years to complete, and are required 90 semester hours of undergraduate coursework, and some programs require a bachelor's degree. All states also require chiropractors to be licensed." And all medical doctors and nurses are required to be licensed if they practice medicine; yet, bad apples slip through the cracks. It's slander to paint me as a blackhearted, single-minded, "let them eat cake" person towards victims of possible scammers, manipulators, and frauds just because I don't fall in line with your viewpoint. Further, you indirectly lump me in with your public statements about her "snake oil salesman" father without having any proof whatsoever that chiropractic practice is detrimental other than a few studies-- which I hope you didn't lie about looking up, too-- that the medical community doesn't even stand behind, while using them as your sword and shield. All because you didn't have concrete proof against Monique's father, all because Monique is dating David, all because you don't like their relationship.
More quotes and linked studies from healthline: "For example, in a 2015 study, researchers found that a group of 544 people in chiropractic care reported a high level of satisfaction. ...A 2016 study found that the Cobb angle in a group of five children with scoliosis improved after 8 weeks of chiropractic treatment. Noticeable improvements were seen after 4 weeks of treatment. ...A 2017 case study examined the effect of chiropractic treatment on a 27-year-old woman suffering from back pain, neck pain, and headaches caused by hyperkyphosis posture." They even provide guidelines to find a chiropractor-- "Ask for recommendations from your doctor, physical therapist, or other healthcare provider." And-- "Ask your friends, coworkers, or family members if they have any recommendations."
Next: "Evidence shows that chiropractic adjustments do more to harm than help, but as long as people feel they work everything is hunky-dory?" Prove it. I have genetic backproblems riddling the maternal side of my family; and my great grandmother, a nurse, and her daughter, my grandmother, both had their spines slowly realigned over time with chiropractic procedures. From an almost noticeable hunch to an almost straight line.
Next: "It alarming that you don’t care about real harm being done to people’s spines because it’s D’s gf’s father providing the service?" I also have a maternal family member who suffers from severe back pain every day but can't afford treatment where she lives. You know how I help? Reflexology. Every time, it takes her back from a ~8/10 to almost nothing-- and this from a woman hypersensitive to her body's workings and with an incredible pain tolerance. And yet, I'd be the first person to sign her up for surgery if I could. I regularly push her to seek medical attention for the most minor inconveniences.
CONCLUSION
I'm sorry to say that you are either: A. blinded by my lack of agreement into misinterpreting my words to fit your own narrative-- which is really probable, actually-- or B. willfully telling lies, to yourself or others, because it helps you feel like you've come off on top of an argument.
I'm not interested in creating a rift or a war. I'm also not interested in lies, slander, gossip, and bullying disguised as "this is my opinion."
You can attest I've been nothing but kind, overly so, in the past; and that I didn't ever strike out unless you struck first-- and even then, only to mimic your words or phrases back to you.
I do not respect your opinions: they are baseless and poisonous.
I do not respect your tactics: they are beneath you and I.
I do not respect your lies and slander: that is a given.
