The last part probably make the men at the top uneasy, when they think about it

And I admire Johnny more than I can express for being brave enough to tell the truth anyway!
I was really surprised Daily Mail released and is still talking about the recordings to I give them kudos for that. However, they are still blocking comments. I tried five times to post my opinion but they would not release it. Now that she reared her ugly head out again at pre-Oscar parties people can comment on some of the sites that are posting her picture and get the word out about the recordings.AdeleAgain wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:49 amThe thing to draw comfort from is that the mainstream media is dying anyway as it struggles with the rise of social media. So good that so many are commenting on this with a bit more information. Also keep in mind the Daily Mail is the most read news ie celebrity news source in the world. Very very smart move whoever put the tapes there. In the UK The Mirror is also a mainstream tabloid source and big rival to The Sun. I have a feeling that many of the news outlets are waiting for a definitive judgement from one of the two court cases ie Virginia or London. I am hoping and praying that The Sun can’t get another delay and that they settle with a great big front page apology.
Thanks for posting this video. I watched it quite a few times and that guy cracks me up. I especially like the part about him labeling Amber as a psychotic gold digging POS.
Oh, I do hope, that it is true, that nobody would sit with herThere was also a short video of her leaving the dining area at one point, looking pretty annoyed.
None of these visuals, so prominent on Variety’s TWITTER page last night, are anywhere on the site this morning BUT some (no videos, nor pics of her sitting presumably alone at a dining table nor her angry exit) can be found at the Getty link below.
meeps wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:12 amJustintime:Oh, I do hope, that it is true, that nobody would sit with herThere was also a short video of her leaving the dining area at one point, looking pretty annoyed.
None of these visuals, so prominent on Variety’s TWITTER page last night, are anywhere on the site this morning BUT some (no videos, nor pics of her sitting presumably alone at a dining table nor her angry exit) can be found at the Getty link below.![]()
OK, that is not nice of me. And I will be ashamed of myself in a moment![]()
YAHOO![]()
![]()
![]()
And:Rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest. The view is a normative form of egoism. It is distinct from psychological egoism (according to which people are motivated only to act in their own self-interest) and ethical egoism (that moral agents ought only to do what is in their own self-interest).
I have the two quotes from this article: and that: And if Ms Heard really subscribe to that kind of philosophy, then she probably can't see anything wrong in showing up at an Oscar party, when she gets invited ...Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so.