Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
The bottom line is, you piss off Perez Hilton and ANY skeleton you may have in your closet will be out. Fair? Hell no. But it is the reality of a bizarre sector of society who loves to bring down famous people with vicious gossip.
|
The thing is, Perez Hilton had NOTHING to do with the pictures surfacing. The pictures were sent to
thedirty.com. He posted them up on his site, but that's what he does - he "reports" on famous/infamous people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
My guess is that most people in this thread couldn't care less about her tact if she had said something that was more in line with their beliefs...people are upset about the belief that she expressed, and they're using the tact issue to supplement their argument.
Again, I don't agree with what she said, but the timing and ferocity with which people are attacking her make me think that this goes beyond the usual "OMG she posed for that picture!" discussion.
|
The people in this thread were talking about her choosing to take nude/semi-nude pictures until you brought up the whole "they are really trying to tear her down b/c of what she said" stuff.
I believe the pictures would have come up either way, because there are plenty of Miss Whatevers who have taken these sorts of pictures and got bit in the ass later because of it.
She could have avoided all of this entirely if she kept her clothes on but she had a lapse in judgement.
Her answer is a completely different story and she's using the 'oh woe is me! I'm a victim b/c of my strong Christian beliefs" crap.
And for what it's worth, being photographed nude/semi-nude is not the only contract breaching she's being accused of. Apparently there is another clause in there about not going out and doing interviews/appearances without the consent of the Miss California organization, and guess what she's been doing recently
ETA:
CNN article
Threaded Mode
