Slumdog child’s father released

By Alexandra Heilbron on April 22, 2009 | 79 Comments

Rubina Ali and her fatherIndian police say they have no grounds to arrest Rafiq Qureshi, who was accused by a British paper of trying to sell his nine-year-old daughter, Slumdog Millionaire star Rubina Ali, for $292,000. Qureshi and other slum dwellers were questioned by the police, but “so far there is no evidence of any offence, hence there is no registration of complaint and no arrest,” said Nisar Tamboli, a senior police officer. The controversy surrounding Ali has inspired many money offers. A Qatar-based businessman, Abdul Rehman Vanoo, offered to fund her education. “I have not seen Slumdog Millionaire, but I know it has won several Oscars. Three days ago, when I watched television reports about Rubina’s father allegedly trying to sell her off, it disturbed me deeply,” he told the Mumbai Mirror. Vanoo is an advisor to an organization that helps educate people in rural areas, and will support Ali through this group. He also reportedly protected the family from monsoon season by placing a cover over their roof. Ali’s family said they were willing to accept help with the educational funding, even though it is already being sponsored by The Jai Ho Trust. The trust, in part supported by Slumdog director Danny Boyle and producer Christian Colson, has hired a social worker to care for Ali and her co-star Azharuddin Ismail, in the wake of the reports that Rubina was up for sale. ~Meryl H.

Comments & Discussion

  1. sparklingwall • April 22, 2009 @ 3:52 PM

    The article doesnt seem complete without reading some of Nancy or tributegirl’s replies…

  2. sk8tergirl • April 22, 2009 @ 4:40 PM

    sparklingwall: Yeah, true!

  3. Nancy • April 22, 2009 @ 5:04 PM

    And your point is…???

    At least we comment ON THE ARTICLE, which is more than I can say for either of you.

    Anyways, I’m glad she will have a social worker looking out for her well being.

  4. tributegirl • April 22, 2009 @ 5:22 PM

    sparklingwall and sk8tergirl, what are your opinions on THE ARTICLE? btw, I haven’t been on here all that often lately.
    Now, as far as THE ARTICLE goes, I agree that a social worker is a good idea, and I hope it gets extended to other children at risk in that area.

  5. sparklingwall • April 23, 2009 @ 12:27 AM

    I wasn’t complaining or being sarcastic, I actually enjoy reading your comments. Sorry to offend, and sorry for the OT.

  6. Nancy • April 23, 2009 @ 10:25 AM

    Sorry…In case you haven’t noticed, I’m always on the defence, LOL. When someone brings my name up, it isn’t usually good! 😀

  7. demigod • April 23, 2009 @ 10:42 AM

    Nancy on April 23, 2009 10:25 AM SorryIn case you havent noticed, Im always on the defence, LOL. When someone brings my name up, it isnt usually good!

    For obvious reasons.

  8. Nancy • April 23, 2009 @ 10:57 AM

    Oh….you’re one to talk, Mr. “sexist”!! Most people on here can’t handle my strong opinions…you’re one of them. You know, I actually think the “real” bullies on here are intimidated because they know they’ve met their match….I don’t back down, ever. 😉

  9. Nancy • April 23, 2009 @ 11:02 AM

    Oh, and demigod, “you can stop quoting me. I know what I said!!”

  10. demigod • April 23, 2009 @ 11:07 AM

    You? Strong opinions? You think you can outwit me? You’re not in my league honey.

  11. demigod • April 23, 2009 @ 11:09 AM

    This is going to be fun..
    To be con’t..

  12. Nancy • April 23, 2009 @ 11:19 AM

    Hahahahaha! “You think you can outwit me?” Your words, not mine. I NEVER claimed to be smarter or “wittier” than anyone. I said you and others can’t handle my strong opinions. Meaning….some on here, including you, don’t like the things I say and try to “bully” me (to no avail) by calling me “uneducated” and saying things like you just said above…”You think you can outwit me? You’re not in my league honey.” Hey, put it this way, I’m smart enough to get by, by a long shot and to have you and a few others on here pegged to a ‘T’!!

  13. Anon • April 23, 2009 @ 1:22 PM

    “He also reportedly protected the family from monsoon season by placing a cover over their roof”

    Sure he offered her money, he knows she was exploited.

    I find the whole patheticLook at the background in the picture. This kid was exploited by the film industry. How does one go to Disney land, star in a major motion picture that is bringing in millions, then back to the slum she came from? But hey, they are able to find it in their hearts to make sure there will be funds for educational. Had I known all this before I went to see the movie, I wouldnt have gone.

  14. Enoughalready • April 23, 2009 @ 1:57 PM

    What would you like the filmmakers do? Adopt her? They gave her a one in a million chance to appear in a movie and make some money, but that isn’t enough. Those kids also get a monthly allowance, have a trust fund set up for them, the producers pay for them to attend school, and now they have a social worker. And that’s still not enough? Should they buy her entire family a mansion too?

  15. demigod • April 23, 2009 @ 3:21 PM

    Nancy on April 23, 2009 11:19 AM

    You’re neither funny nor witty, just irritating.

  16. Anon • April 23, 2009 @ 3:21 PM

    Enoughalready on April 23, 2009 1:57 PM

    hmmm, maybe a house with a real roof to spare Abdul Rehman Vanoo a few bucks on the cover for the one they live in. By the way, if it was your child, I think you would be singing a different tune and doubt very highly you would be grateful to be living in some filthy shanty town.

  17. Anon • April 23, 2009 @ 3:26 PM

    demigod on April 23, 2009 11:07 AM

    You? Strong opinions? – lol

  18. Enoughalready • April 23, 2009 @ 4:10 PM

    If it were me, I would try to earn enough to put a roof over my child’s head myself. Or not have so many kids that I had to live in a slum. And I would be grateful that she had been paid, period, and would’ve put the money to good use. And that they’d taken her to Disneyland. I would not be crying for more, more, more. The filmmakers could’ve just used Hollywood kids who would’ve accepted their pay and gone home and not be burdens on the film company for the rest of their lives. The filmmakers are not complaining however, they’re providing them with money and a trust fund and school. It all seems very generous to me.

  19. tributegirl • April 23, 2009 @ 4:46 PM

    LOL, sorry sparklingwall, I really thought you were being sarcastic!

  20. Anon • April 23, 2009 @ 5:31 PM

    Enoughalready on April 23, 2009 4:10 PM

    “If it were me, I would try to earn enough to put a roof over my childs head myself. Or not have so many kids that I had to live in a slum.”

    hahah Obviously you havent done much travellingor reading for that matter; or you would have a little perspective on what life is like outside the bubble. So genius, while living in the slum, where would you get your birth control to keep your family at the 1.5 ratio, job, transportation to get to the job (and a good one at that because you would be highly educated to support your brood, right?) and Im assuming youd also have running water to flush your throne as well? If you dont have anything intelligent to say to me regarding my remarks, save your halfa$$ attempt at sarcasm for someone else.

  21. Nancy • April 23, 2009 @ 6:09 PM

    Awe, what’s the problem, demigod? Is it because I’m a woman? LMAO! Is that why YOU THINK you’re so much better? (Key words: YOU THINK).

  22. demigod • April 23, 2009 @ 6:12 PM closing argument..
    If you came across one of my comments on ANY article that you take exception to or don’t agree with, why wouldn’t you question me about it THEN? Maybe ask me to articulate it, like a REASONABLE FAIR INTELLIGENT person would. You’d be surprised how well that approach would go. Instead of collecting all these random comments and slapping a big label on it! Like some nut CONSPIRACIST! That is a very IGNORANT, CLOSE-MINDED thing to do! Even MALICIOUS.
    You should be absolutely ASHAMED of yourself!
    I can’t help it feel your PERSONAL ATTACKS has to do with you having it in for me for some reason. Maybe I’ve embarrassed you in the past, and made you look foolish? Perhaps you’ve been biding your time for some kind of payback? Childish.

    In clicking your name, there should be a pic of a reptile w/green skin and a streak of yellow. Why don’t you go slither into some corner and keep it to yourself once in a while!

  23. Nancy • April 23, 2009 @ 6:33 PM

    So, what you’re saying is, that I should be “ASHAMED” of myself….because you’re a sexist pig?

    You denied being sexist and said I was putting words in your mouth… I brought your mouthy words to you. Now though, you’ve decided to start name calling, so come on big man, come and make me ‘keep it to myself once in a while!’ Ooooooh, I’m so scared! What a f-ing joke!

  24. demigod • April 23, 2009 @ 6:45 PM

    Stay down Nancy..that was THE knockout blow.

  25. Nancy • April 23, 2009 @ 6:59 PM

    Doubt it, dummigod! You don’t have the parts.

  26. Aaron • April 24, 2009 @ 10:56 AM

    I’m sorry, who’s exploiting the kid? The film studio? Did they force her to be in a film? Or did her father send her to audition so she could bring some cash into the house. And not only does she get paid for the work she did, she’s now being paid for life. Sweet gig. Give me some of that kind of exploitation, man.

  27. Dogmeat • April 24, 2009 @ 11:17 AM

    The next thing you know, the corrugated aluminum they got as a roof will be painted with the Nike logo and there will be carefully littered cans of Coke out in front of their home for the next photo op…

  28. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 12:27 PM

    Dogmeat on April 24, 2009 11:17 AM

    I agree; youve hit that one bang on!! But hey, they’ve got an allowance and a social worker, wippie! Worse than the exploitation, is that some feel this is all okay. An absolute disgrace. Some people are so bloody naïve.

    Aaron on April 24, 2009 10:56 AM

    And your one of them fool.

  29. Jim • April 24, 2009 @ 12:52 PM

    Anon I don’t disagree with you very often but on this one I have to. Explotation – yes. Explotation on the parent’s account – absolutely. This young girl was given the opportunity of a lifetime. She was taken out of her poverty stricken country,if only for a short period of time, filmed a movie in which allowed her to participate in awards shows and Disneyland and other things that even my kids will never get to see. Yes she went back and her family is living in poverty but realistically the film gave her things and will still continue to give her things that she would never have gotten at home. They have trust funds set up for these kids for their education and are talking about building schools for the children. It is easy to say that they should be doing more but what else do you want them to do short of moving the entire family to the United States? They are giving this kid a whole new lease on life and opportunities that she would never have had and her dad is completely taking advantage of it. He is exploiting her to better himself. He did not do the work. He was not in the movie. I can assure you that if my kid decided to be in movies and was lucky enough to pursue that dream, I would not be trying to get a piece of her pie as I see this little girl’s dad doing. And if the film company were willing to offer help to my living arrangements no matter how different mine are from theirs I would not expect a thing but be thankful for what is given. I understand they live in poverty and I truly feel for them but the film crews cannot save every family out there. I don’t think there is enough money in the world to end world poverty.

  30. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 1:51 PM

    Jim on April 24, 2009 12:52 PM

    Likewise Jim, I usually agree with your viewpoint.

    I agree that the kid was given a once in a lifetime opportunity that any of our kids would jump at and I don’t dispute that they’ve given to the family, but no where near what they deserve given the profit margin and what they would have had to pay a North American kid. This situation is no different than the clothing designers that have now realized most people do not want to support the products made in offshore sweatshops that hire kids to support their incredibly high profits. We demand fair employment standards / wages regardless of the country. Obviously the film crews cannot save every family out there or end poverty but that was not my point. My opinion was the kids were exploited; granted given an opportunity, but the real gain here was for those involved with the movie. As for future opportunities: not likely unless, as dogmeat says, its for their own publicity stunts. As for the living arrangements, Im sure they are now no better than the worst slum in Canada, if even that or there wouldnt have been an offer for the roof cover. And I totally agree that the father if you can call him that, should have more integrity and keep his hands off her piece of the pie. But, we really have no concept of what kind of desperation these people are living with or why someone would have such a low regard or such disrespect for their children. Again, my comments were that had this been a kid from this part of the world, the earnings from the movie would have taken her / family completely out of the ghetto.

  31. Jim • April 24, 2009 @ 3:02 PM

    Understandable and I agree. I didn’t look at it in the perspective of comparison. This movie would have definitely taken a child and their family out of the ghetto here but there wouldn’t have been a “lock” on the money. The film crews are ensuring that money will be put in a trust fund for the child’s education; something that I am sure would not be done here. If it were a Canadian or a US born and raised child they would just make more and more movies and be on TV so school and education would take a backseat. The more money they made the less of an importance school would be. Sure that is a generalization but judging by former child actors and actresses it is pretty correct in the majority of cases.

  32. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 3:21 PM

    Jim on April 24, 2009 3:02 PM

    Jim, I agree to agree! I think we both have different perspectives on the whole situation. I do see your points and all are valid . . . . though I still think Im clearly more in the right than you are.

    Hahaha Just kidding!!!

  33. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 3:29 PM

    Jim on April 24, 2009 3:02 PM

    In all fairness, I did call someone naïve in regards to my perspective, when in fact so am I by assuming all parents do what’s best for their children.

  34. Jim • April 24, 2009 @ 3:33 PM

    Different perspectives that are derived from the same thing, however we both see and respect the strong points on both sides. How boring are we in reference to the other debates and arguments on here? I am happy to see you threw out the “clearly more in the right” comment. What was that saying you had before….something about the olive branch? HAHAHA

  35. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 3:36 PM

    Well then, get the boxing gloves out! We might even entice Nancy to throw in a few jabs. haha

  36. Jim • April 24, 2009 @ 3:44 PM

    A knockout perhaps?? HAHAHA
    I have been keeping an eye on that article today and nothing new is going on. I am a little disappointed to be honest. I thought for sure I would read some banter back and forth to lighten up my work day. I see demigod as one who continuously throws out the branch and just sits back and waits.

  37. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 4:51 PM

    Jim on April 24, 2009 3:44 PM

    I did notice that he was feeling pretty frisky yesterday. He said his piece and Im sure Nancy is checking every few minutes for another lashing. I thnk hes much to smart for that. Silence is the best punishment by far.

  38. Nancy • April 24, 2009 @ 6:19 PM

    Actually, I had much better things to do today. So, I know that you think you know me, Anon/Gina…but in all reality, you know “beep” all! 😉

    “I thnk he’s much to smart for that.”


  39. Nancy • April 24, 2009 @ 6:45 PM

    So Anon/Gina, guess I hit the nail on the head about you knowing “beep” all because I just checked the Hulk Hogan article (nope not every few minutes…1st time) and low and behold, the intelligent “witty” demigod, aka “I thnk he’s much to smart for that. Silence is the best punishment by far.” had commented after all.

  40. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 8:16 PM

    Nancy on April 24, 2009 6:45 PM

    Hi Nancy

    I haven’t looked at any other topics today other than this one. God I hate having to eat my words.

  41. Anon • April 24, 2009 @ 8:29 PM

    Nancy on April 24, 2009 6:45 PM

    What’s with the “beep”? Your lashing out at me for what, a few jokes with Jim? I even stayed away from demigods reptile comments for christ’s sakes though it was funny as hell. As for the ridiculous argument youre having over whether hes sexist or not. Who gives a shlt. Its his life, his views, his opinions. Frankly, I think you hate men. No, let me rephrase that, I think you have a low opinion of men but Im not going to fight you over it.

  42. Jo-Anne • April 24, 2009 @ 9:01 PM



    p.s. no need to include the non-verbal reptiles in this, poor unassuming souls…they deserve better

  43. Nancy • April 24, 2009 @ 9:48 PM

    And there’s that LEECH Jo-Anne…once again. Be nice if you’d shut up about my kids too or maybe I’ll start bringing your “poor unassuming souls” who deserve better into every comment!

    Anyways, Anon/Gina…I do not “hate” or “have a low opinion of men”. After all, I have a dad and a son too you know…just goes to prove that once again, I hit the nail on the head with my “you don’t know “beep” all” comment! Why don’t you prove your claim? Prove it! What have I said to make you think that? I know I’ve spoken up and said that I don’t like women beaters, and I’ve spoken up and said that I can’t stand child molesters…but those go for either gender, not just men. I’ve cracked a joke here and there for example, how it’s men who age us women but, that’s all that was…just a joke, similar to men who joke about women drivers. And DUH…I know that demigod being sexist is “his life, his views, his opinions”! And it was my opinion to call him out on it…of course he denies it. But I will speak my mind, especially when someone is sexist towards my gender….maybe you don’t have the guts to do so but I do! And I was actually nice to him about it..until he started calling names (as usual) and putting the blame on me. What is it with you guys anyways? As soon as you get backed into a corner you start calling names…then preach about “debating” in a civilized manner.

  44. Nancy • April 24, 2009 @ 9:58 PM

    Oh, and I guess I better specify that when I just asked the question “What is it with you guys anyways?”, I didn’t specifically mean “guys”. I meant some of the people on this website.

  45. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 1:48 AM

    Nancy on April 24, 2009 9:48 PM

    I didn’t put any blame on you. I was responding to how pissed you were over a couple of comments (obviously joking) that I shared with Jim.

    Frankly, I don’t care what demigod’s opinion is of women, I don’t live with him, never will and I dont need the guts to call him out on it. It makes no difference to me. I commented on one of his opinion and comments on another matter that I felt strongly about and if his opinion of women affects you that much that you feel a battle this intense is worth it, have a blast. And I also have a son, father and two brothers, but can admit that some life experiences have led me to have a somewhat impatience with men, so that line about the men in your life doesnt wash with me.

    You are upset with me for referencing you in my discussion with Jim, yet you find it appropriate to use Anon/Gina in any comment to me or when referencing me. As for the name calling, I like to think that Im not that out of control and if cornered try to bow out gracefully and apologize to all Ive offended.

  46. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 1:56 AM

    As for the conversation with Jim, you could have easily joined in and had some fun bantering, but you chose to make it a challenge. If you look hard enough, youll only see what you are really looking for.

  47. lily • April 25, 2009 @ 7:17 AM

    Anon and Jim I was really enjoying your civilized debate. Nancy I think somtimes your “style” is misstaken for serious anger when your really just bantering in fun. Anon, don’t you think she would of said somthing more direct than “beep” if she was actualy mad at you? Its not like shes at a loss for bad words lol! With the winking smiley face that looked very UNserious to me,just like alot of her comments to demigod looked pritty inocent untill he started raging on her. But Nancy you can correct me if Im wrong lol!

  48. Jo-Anne • April 25, 2009 @ 8:44 AM

    oh, all these long long months it was just “bantering in fun”….thanks for clearing that up…..

  49. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 11:00 AM

    Jo-Anne on April 25, 2009 8:44 AM

    What brought that on?

    My comments about the joking around had to do with the conversation with Jim. Any past comments were meant literally. As for this page, sorry to disappoint, but I like to come on with a fresh start and dont feel like dragging heavy baggage from page to page.

  50. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 11:15 AM

    lily on April 25, 2009 7:17 AM

    Thanks. I was enjoying myself as well.

    Nancy’s “style” here was anger. She couldn’t have used anything stronger than the “F” in her sentence. She knows my opinion on name-calling and that I think it shows weakness and a complete lack of maturity so I doubt shell go there.

    You are mistaking the smiling wink. That is in fact a sly smile that she uses to let you know shes got you figured out or a feeble attempt at re-enforcing her jab.

  51. Jo-Anne • April 25, 2009 @ 11:52 AM

    Anon, your question directed to me –
    my answer – not intended for you, it was with regards to my banter with the ever playful Nancy

    your banter is your business…
    your baggage is yours alone…

  52. Nancy • April 25, 2009 @ 12:30 PM

    WELL! Lily was right in saying that “sometimes” my style is mistaken for serious anger when really I’m just bantering in fun….SOMETIMES.

    Anon, I know you were joking with Jim and there was only one thing you said to Jim that did not impress me and I referred to it in my comment…”I thnk he’s (demigod) much to smart for that.” The reason why I was not impressed by that comment is because of what I said to demigod up near the top of this article ▲ April 23 @ 11:19 am….YOU are also one of those people I spoke of…who thinks you’re “wittier” than me. You think you have me all “figured out” and again, it just shows that you know “beep” all (about me). Just because YOU have a problem with men doesn’t mean I do. There’s only one person from that gender that I despise and I’ve made it abundantly clear who that is, so…where’s that proof of your claim that I “hate” or “have a low opinion of men”? Back it up!

  53. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 1:29 PM

    Jo-Anne on April 25, 2009 11:52 AM

    Retract my post, thought it was in reference to my bantering comment. I’ll guess I’ll just have to repack my “trunk” then hahaha

  54. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 1:41 PM

    Nancy on April 25, 2009 12:30 PM

    I didn’t say I was wittier than you, I just happen to be able to separate my emotions from the thought process a little better. Have I figured you out? hmm, I think a little better than you think which I’m sure you will jump all over now. As for the men comment, there is an undertone in many of your comments and Im not about to start going through every damn post so I can back it up. Much too busy lately

  55. Jo-Anne • April 25, 2009 @ 1:41 PM

    I like you, Anon! You are very very witty – keep it up – comments like yours make it worth visiting this site, whether I agree or disagree, no matter to me, you have the intelligence and cleverness worth coming back for pure reading enjoyment…

    and yes, I am well aware I risk yet another smiley face and “ass kisser” remark from the past expiry date Nancy, but hey, that’s the risk I am willing to take – what’s a little mould in the whole scheme of things, eh?

  56. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 1:42 PM

    Besides what I really want to say to everyone is …..

    I GOT A NEW PUPPY!!! Shes terrible and I love it!!

  57. Jo-Anne • April 25, 2009 @ 1:46 PM

    well, well coincidence!

    What kind did you get – I just got back from seeing our newest puppy an hour ago – wee baby boxer – 5 weeks old and soon to come home…

  58. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 1:47 PM

    Jo-Anne on April 25, 2009 1:41 PM

    Get ready Jo and turn around because I’m up against the screen my lips are puckered up hahaha

  59. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 1:54 PM

    Jo-Anne on April 25, 2009 1:46 PM

    Congrats on the pony hahaha You must be excited as hell to get it home!

    Mine is a little older. She’s a golden retriever and is 5 months old; a rescue puppy from the Hamilton SPCA. Starting obedience in 2 weeks. Without sounding like a nut, I feel she was destined to be a part of our family. As for the terrible comment, not true at all. I dont know who had her or why they gave her up but Ive never seen a puppy that is so well behaved. Completely housebroken, no chewing, very docile and social but a real pain in the a$$ to walk. Just cant imagine why someone wouldnt want her. Their loss, our gain. And because it is soooo fitting here……:)

  60. Jo-Anne • April 25, 2009 @ 2:11 PM

    I can totally relate to you and congrats on your newest addition as well.

    I am a big upporter of the SPCA, we had a rescued shepherd/collie for like 17 years who sadly passed away almost two years ago, one of the best animals ever. We also have had a rescued cat, sadly passed away as well of old age a month ago. Now, down to 2 cats, one chihauhua (again an animal used to breed for years and then no one wanted when the poor wee guy was “too old” and we took on at 8 years old)

    You don’t sound like a “nut” at all, although I must say I have had “certain” comments in my direction due to our ever growing Zoo here but couldn’t care less, I love all our pets.

    Retriever is a gorgeous and wonderful family dog, have fun! Yes, the loss is certainly your gain…

    p.s. loved your earlier comment…again!
    signed A.K.J….ha ha

  61. Nancy • April 25, 2009 @ 2:55 PM

    “As for the men comment, there is an undertone in many of your comments and I’m not about to start going through every damn post so I can “back it up”.”

    Sounds to me like… got nothin! What’s that phrase you like to use?…”Grasping at straws”.

    You think you know me sooo well. You can even tell by “undertones”…which you haven’t produced, that I “hate” or “have a low opinion of men”.

    Oh, and as for you NOT saying you are wittier than me…you’ve claimed before that you need to come along every now and then and “knock Nancy off her pedestal” and you also told me before (when you used to reply under the name Gina or…was it Trixie?) that I am not in the same league as you. How about this one: March 10, 2009 ‘Teen Star Panettiere Snaps at Photogs’ article. Anon – March 11 @ 11:46 pm – “Oh my god Mike, I think I’ve just fallen in love with you! To think I was going to skip this article. Once I saw 40 comments, I knew it was going to be a very interesting read. This has been the highlight of my day!!! lol Nancy, you are fighting a loosing battle with the intellect. Though your initial comment didn’t warrant getting ripped apart, I do believe you are generally getting on Mike’s nerves.”

  62. Anon • April 25, 2009 @ 6:45 PM

    Nancy on April 25, 2009 2:55 PM

    Not sure who I was posting under while knocking you off the pedestal and as for the loosing battle comment, were you personally insulted by me in either? No. Sorry, but you were getting on Mikes nerves otherwise he wouldnt have lashed out at you. I also notice that you have chosen to ignore the comment I made in your defence about not deserving being ripped apart.

    Ive said it before and Ill say it again. For the most part, I enjoy reading everyones comments here including yours and have agreed with a lot of points youve made. I just find that there are times that you are not hearing what people say and are very quick to jump at a response. No big deal. This conversation has turned for the worse (this page only, Im not going to start copying and pasting who said what) over a couple of minor comments I made to Jim that didnt deserve the response they got from you. As for the demigod comment, its true. Has he responded? No. And he wont, hes done with it. He knew when to make his exit which was appropriate after he laid that bit on the table.

  63. Nancy • April 26, 2009 @ 6:37 PM

    He had responded but hasn’t since…neither have I for that matter, except to Jo-Anne (aka Leech). Anyways, I did not “ignore” the comment you made about not deserving being ripped apart…which is why I left it in your statement…? As for Mike, I “got on his nerves” because I called Hayden Panettiere a “DIVA”….he must have been having a pretty bad day. 😀 You should copy and paste comments though, instead of just accusing me of having a low opinion of men. You shouldn’t accuse someone of something that isn’t even true when you have nothing to back it up with! It’s not that I don’t hear what people are saying…that’s just what you think. I get it just fine. It’s when people are rude and say things that aren’t true…they will hear about it from me. Just because I don’t “acknowledge” every good thing that people say, doesn’t mean that I didn’t hear it.

  64. Anon • April 26, 2009 @ 7:36 PM

    Nancy on April 26, 2009 6:37 PM

    I don’t think it’s worth the arguement, shall we move on to better things or rather, should I ask “Virtual Martini”?

  65. Nancy • April 26, 2009 @ 9:09 PM

    I don’t like being accused of things that are untrue….ie: “Nancy has a low opinion of men”. That is absolutely NOT true.

  66. Nancy • April 27, 2009 @ 10:38 AM

    Well Anon/Gina….that’s no way to “bow out gracefully and apologize to all I’ve offended” (▲ Anon on April 25, 2009 1:48 AM).

    * You accused me of having a “low opinion of men”……back it up. Don’t just go around accusing people of things!

    (Copy and paste moment here, LOL. From April 7, 2009 Angelina Jolie article)

    * Anon on April 11, 2009 3:54 PM Comment to Nancy, “What a disappointment you are. You bash everyone for every little flaw, and pride yourself as someone with character and strength? ha Personally, I think your upset that mandee was given some decent advice….that didn’t come from your lips. You will never match me intellectually, So off with you to the tribute tribunal and do what you do best.”
    “Jo-Anne, I think we’re pretty much on the same page whereas with some others, I’m left wondering if I’m even reading the same book.”

    To Nancy, “Each one of us has a different approach, some of us have the ability to use words to get our message across while others look for different prospects if they lack the communication skills, especially when they’ve challenged someone and are then backed into a corner.”

    ▲ Above, Anon April 25, 2009 1:41 PM… Comment to Nancy, “I didn’t say I was wittier than you.”

    Since my communication skills are “lacking” in comparison to yours….could you please explain to me what you meant by “You will never match me intellectually”, if you weren’t saying or insinuating that you are smarter or “wittier” than me?

  67. Nancy • April 27, 2009 @ 11:36 AM

    Like I said before, “at least I back up the things I say about people” instead of spewing garbage like a few others on here!

    Ooops, almost forgot…. 😀

  68. Jo-Anne • April 27, 2009 @ 11:53 AM

    rest assured, Nancy, no one would EVER accuse you of not “backing up” your comments…we are all well aware of the serious amount of time and effort you spend on here making your points…

    carry on…pardon me for taking your attention away from your latest “search and find mission”…

  69. Jo-Anne • April 27, 2009 @ 12:18 PM

    Wow…I guess “cut and paste expert” ad was deemed unprintable…wow…in view of what you guys allow…go figure

    all in the name of freedom of speech, we are adults here, no? maybe not.

  70. Anon • April 27, 2009 @ 12:20 PM

    Nancy on April 27, 2009 10:38 AM

    Sorry to disappoint, but I’ve moved on. I suggest you do the same and save yourself some embarrassment. It’s becoming pathetic. If you want to debate me on something that actually takes thought, let me know because I’m up for the challenge. As for this, I’m not going to get sucked into your vortex of garbage.

  71. Nancy • April 27, 2009 @ 12:32 PM

    “If you want to debate me on something that actually takes thought, let me know because I’m up for the challenge.”

    Uh……because you’re “wittier”, right? LMAO.

  72. Jo-Anne • April 27, 2009 @ 12:51 PM

    “Since my communication skills are lacking in comparison to yours.could you please explain to me what you meant by You will never match me intellectually, if you werent saying or insinuating that you are smarter or wittier than me?”

    no insinuation necessary…F.A.C.T.

    hey, cut and pasting can be fun!!!

  73. Nancy • April 27, 2009 @ 1:00 PM

    Sure. Tomorrow we’ll let you try using the crayons again, Jo-Anne….as long as you promise not to eat them again. 😀


    Anon was proven W.R.O.N.G…….again

  74. Anon • April 27, 2009 @ 1:11 PM

    Nancy on April 27, 2009 1:00 PM
    Anon was proven W.R.O.N.G.again

    Unfortunately for us, it is in your eyes only. Bang Bang Bang

  75. Nancy • April 27, 2009 @ 1:16 PM

    Then why did you lie? And why won’t you back up your “Nancy has a low opinion of men” comment?

    Because you know you’re “wrong”!

    “Sorry to disappoint, but I’ve moved on. I suggest you do the same and save yourself some embarrassment. It’s becoming pathetic. If you want to debate me on something that actually takes thought, let me know because I’m up for the challenge. As for this, I’m not going to get sucked into your vortex of garbage.”

    Hahahahaha! Sure!

  76. Nancy • April 27, 2009 @ 1:18 PM


    You’re already in the vortex….have been for awhile. 😀

  77. sk8tergirl • April 29, 2009 @ 7:21 PM

    tributegirl and Nancy: I wasn’t being sarcastic either. Sorry to offend.

  78. tributegirl • April 29, 2009 @ 7:37 PM

    Ok, sorry sk8tergirl, it really did sound sarcastic, sorry for jumping to conclusions. Sometimes both Nancy and I get “attacked” out of the blue, and that’s what I thought was happening.

  79. Nancy • April 29, 2009 @ 10:14 PM

    “For obvious reasons”, of course… some very very very “intelligent” person once said…BARFFF!!

Join The Conversation:

 Change Location