RHJunkie

I think it's giving LVP too much credit to just assume that her questions were very innocent. I don't think LVP asked the questions in an effort to shame or humiliate Eileen but I don't believe she asked those questions without any consideration that it may make Eileen uncomfortable. LVP said she didn't think it was a big deal to ask since Eileen already talked about it and it was already out there - but at the same time, could there have been zero consideration for the possibility that maybe it would make Eileen uncomfortable to have it address the topic AGAIN? LVP isn't completely innocent here. LVP did offer an apology but usually when one offers an apology, they show some vulnerability that suggests remorse. LVP doesn't apologize that way, on this show it seems that she's not capable of giving apologies the way you would normally expect from someone who is actually sorry. But that's besides the point. She did apologize, whether Eileen thought it was sincere or not is besides the point. You either accept it or not, but don't sidestep the issue of why you were upset, then lie multiple times about being 'good' about things and then come back later with explosive behaviour about not getting an apology. Any opportunity Eileen had to expose LVP for what she thinks she is was completely squandered by her inability to appropriately confront and address her concerns, and all of the subsequent attempts at 'closure'. She's getting backlash because she's made herself look desperate to take LVP down- so much so that she's buried a lot of possibly good points under a huge hill that not many will dig to uncover.

Well of course LR and Eileen corroborate each other. Eileen has not been a witness to any of the scenarios that the other three women are talking about. Eileen is regurgitating the information as it was presented to her by LR. Her idea of advocating for truth is apparently based on simply believing someone's version of it. Eileen was never involved so the fact that she's having talking about telling the truth means that she would be telling someone's truth...it's just not her own. LVP and Kyle's disagreement was a case of 'what I said' vs. 'what I meant'.

I don't think LR intentionally lies. In fact, I don't think she's lying at all. She's repeating things as she perceived them and not necessarily exactly as it was said. This doesn't mean she's lying, but it also doesn't mean that she's telling the absolute truth - just her version of it. I think this is why she speaks with such conviction and won't back down from any of the accusations she's made thus far. I would even say she's probably stretching her interpretation of things with the benefit of hindsight. It's like saying 'oh that's an interesting outfit' and in the moment she interprets it as innocent and a fleeting comment but after something happens and she believes I've wronged her, that comment is now interpreted as 'remember when you were making fun of how she looked?'. What was maybe made in gest at the time has now being portrayed as sinister and manipulative. And yet none of this really proves manipulation. LR having her own version of the truth needs no more evidence than her own husband having to clarify his own words after they were misrepresented by LR. And it's telling that when he mentioned having the conversation with his wife, her reaction seemed to be one of indifference. I think LR genuinely doesn't see the difference that words can make when repeating what others say and that she needs to sometimes take a step back and acknowledge that interpretation is what is stemming all of this. She can believe in her heart of hearts that LVP was intentionally goading her into putting all of that out there, the reality is that it can't be proven as truth and she can't insist on it when words and commentary can be taken in more than one way. It's just simpler to say "to settle all of this - I own what I did. I can see that I interpreted LVP's words a certain way and I feel that influenced my decisions and that's why I feel like she manipulated me. I believe that her intent was for me to interpret and react to her comments exactly as I have but that is only my truth because I can't prove that what I took from those conversations is what LVP intended. With that said, I own my part and I can be at peace about it.'

When you're at a social gathering, are you not supposed to drink socially? Dorinda seems to get plastered at every event. It's like it's not a party for her until she's slurring her words and becoming emotionally unhinged. I totally get why Dorinda was upset with Ramona but I don't get at all why she didn't confront John with the information. He would have likely lied but still, you can't only hold your friends accountable and not your partner. John is pretty slimy and his behavior at the party was pretty vile. Bethenny was pretty funny with her scarf comment, though I don't understand why she insisted that Dorinda apologize for what happened. Dorinda wasn't responsible for that. She told John to stay away and tried to get him to leave several times and even chastised him in front of Bethenny. Is Bethenny setting a precedent that if Dorinda chooses to be with him then she will simply have to take on the burden of apologizing on his behalf every time Bethenny finds him offensive? Bethenny was plain nasty about Jules during the phone conversation. Speaking of Jules - her comment about skinny can only be a positive was gross. Ramona has a big mouth and self-absorbed. She probably thinks its too late for her to learn how to think before she speaks because it's like she doesn't even try. She is nothing if not consistent and in a way, I mean that as a compliment. What's also consistent is that Ramona is someone who is quick to cop to her faults and doesn't always try to hide behind an excuse for her behaviour. It doesn't excuse her, but it's a refreshing to see that not all women on this franchise have to lie, defend, excuse or throw people under the bus in order to avoid addressing their own faults.

Be still my heart, booty shorts sister actually wore something other than her booty shorts. Funny that of all people it was those two complaining about the house being dirty. Those girls don't seem very hygienic. The sisters are very annoying but I like their spunk. They don't back down. That role playing scene was really lame and painful to watch. Is that really what amuses them? Talking about the bully group knows how to have fun in a classy way - the only fun they seem to have is when they get together as a group to trash talk and mock someone else. Angela is a piece of work. She isn't putting any effort into mending her relationship with her sister. The times that she does talk to her sister she's either insulting her or guilting her because she's always having to take care of her. But with that said, someone needs to take the bottle out of Kristina's hands. That girl is sloppy beyond words. She seemed possessed. Olivia and Diamond who? Already forgotten.

No one needs permission to say anything about anyone but that doesn't mean that it doesn't come with consequences or judgment for doing so. Social media and celebrity culture is rampant within society. Whether celebrity or not, when you put things out there, you give people a forum to speak on it or about it. There is a difference between having the right to say something and whether it's the right thing to speak about.

Exactly my point. She cannot get to the viewers without engaging her castmates because Bravo is not going to create a platform specifically for her. If she wants to educate the viewers, she needs to do it through the other women. She doesn't have to do so, but if she wants to educate then she has to assume a little of the fault when it comes to engaging the Manchausen discussion without bringing any real good conversation about Lyme Disease to the table. Most of the information that I've learned and have subsequently looked into have come from reading comments from this forum and the comments section of blogs. And the commentary often ties into people looking at how Yolanda's illness doesn't make sense to them. That's the saddest part. By not addressing the matter head on, people's exposure to Lyme Disease and Manchausen is by making a quack diagnosis on her health via online medical articles rather than truly learning about the illness in a way that can generate sympathy, positivity and hope, instead it's fuelling more mistrust than it should.

But she hasn't really done so with the viewers either because the best way to get her message in is when she's actually interacting with the women. Do you recall many THs and conversations that gave a succinct understanding of the disease or what a typical day is like for her? I don't recall learning any of that. I do recall a lot of commentary as you mentioned - THs talking about how it's been a year since she's put on make, walked or gotten out of bathrobe. Well because when you take up the cause of wanting to educate people, it involves attempting to educate ignorance just as much as it is about educating the curious. Education takes the patience and understanding of reaching out to both sides of the coin and knowing when to walk away when you aren't getting through to someone. Again, this was the platform she wanted to take and she has severely limited herself with teaching people about her illness. If she didn't want to engage and teach them, then she would have been better off to actually say fuck off and leave it at that. She didn't do that, she engaged and tried to defend herself over pettiness. If she had said that she was trying her best to cope and recover from her illness and wanted to focus on surrounding herself with only those who uplift her, THEN I can't disagree with you at all. However, that wasn't her stance. She doesn't owe the women anything, but by her own admissions of intent, I do still think she didn't handle things well. And to be fair to her, none of the women handled any of it well.

What's the difference between those women discussing it or us discussing it when we're even further removed from Yolanda than they are? Anything put out in the public sphere is fair game for people to discuss. Whether it is morally right to do so is a whole other conversation and is a separate point from my response to you. . The women said nothing negative about her children. They didn't dispute or make her children look bad. Simply speaking about them is not horrible on their part. What's bad is that what they were saying called into question the mother of the children, not the children themselves. I'm not sure I agree with the Max example. It is incredibly more difficult to speculate the parentage of an adopted child than it is to discuss whether a young woman who doesn't appear to be sick is suddenly announced as having an illness. I would liken it to LVP finding out who Max's parents were and being hesitant about Max having a relationship with his parents. If the women weigh in in disagreement with LVP's feelings, it would be fair game for them to form an opinion on a matter that they were invited into by the simple act of sharing, but that doesn't mean that their involvement wouldn't carry the consequence of hurting LVP who is very protective of her children.

If you have admitted to wanting to share your journey with people, advocate for a disease in hopes of finding a cure, how do you wish to accomplish that using a TV platform if you decide that others in your cast are not deserving of being educated and informed unless they ask the questions just right? Yolanda did a disservice to her platform by limiting the understanding of her journey as well as the challenges of the disease by generalizing things to the bullet points you mentioned above. Your theory contradicts Yolanda's own admissions about why she continues to be a part of the franchise despite her illness. She can't have it both ways. If she doesn't want to share with these women, she should go somewhere else because the process of diluting her experience isn't doing her cause any favours - and she has a great cause and message to share. Now she would have no reason to share her marital woes with "Hollywood Friends" but when it comes to her illness, I don't think it flies when the behavior is counterproductive to the expressed intent. Many of the questions she was confronted with, instead of trying to address individually or become defensive, she could have easily answered a number of them in ways that generally addressed the struggles of Chronic Lyme Disease sufferers and she would have done so without needing to provide the most intimate of details. In the process, she shuts them down, making continuous chatter on their part look juvenile and mean while at the same time, she's also teaching the viewers. For example, instead of arguing with LR about it not being her business who she's friends with and spends her time with (which she is absolutely right), she could have explained the ebbs and flow of the disease and that you never know when you'll have your good days/moments and bad days/moments and follow it up with "I had a prior commitment and while I had every intention of attending Erika's BBQ, closer to the time of the event I wasn't feeling well. I would have loved to have been there to support her but I explained everything to Erika and we're fine. She hasn't taken issue with my absence and I'm not sure why you should."

It is definitely obnoxious, I guess she was just disagree with who LVP is trying to address with those references. The Soapsy and Sudsy names do ring true of her suggesting that they are playing up a soap opera type character. I'm willing to wait and see what the context of Kim's comments were. I would be more surprised if it wasn't meant to be a low blow just because that's how Kim operates but we'll find out soon enough.

I went back and read the blog. For some reason I was thinking LVP had referred to Eileen as a C-list actress when she was talking about Eileen being so offended by her questions as if she had been vulgar and crude with her questions. She was referring to LR as a C-list actress. In that context, I wouldn't interpret her comment as a dig at the industry as I originally thought. The dig can cover many different things, but at the very heart of it, it seems like she's simply taking a dig at LR's acting skills - and referencing her as a C-list actress suggests that she's not very good and LVP is not fooled by her theatrics. At least that's how I interpreted it. I don't find Kim's comment (in isolation) to be a dig at the industry though I can't say for certain because I don't have the proper context. The soap opera world is driven by the 'at all costs' storylines. People go to the most extreme measures to get what they want, to make their point, etc. Eileen has exhibited that type of behavior this season where she has said, done and repeated the same thing over and over again because she wants closure that she finds acceptable and she wants it all costs. Yolanda is offended that the word is even repeated and put out there. But Eileen helped to make it an entire storyline where viewers were constantly reminded of Yolanda's illness = potential Manchausen. She took a bonfire and turned it into a burning building with all the oxygen she fed it - an at all cost attitude. The very thing she was abhorred by, she actually engaged in herself and she's so judgmental that she doesn't even realize it.

I agree that many people speak in absolutes. My mother does it all the time and it drives me crazy actually, haha. Absolutes are easily forgotten when it's made here and there. We're human, we're all subject to doing this from time to time. In context, Yolanda's use of absolutes are likely to draw more conclusion just by the sheer extent of discussion that she surrounds herself when it comes to her illness. She's always talking about it and displaying her journey. There are good and bad moments but when you have many examples of good moments that contradict so many of those absolute statements, I personally think it's fair to say 'what's going on here?'. I do think Yolanda provided a fair explanation when addressing LVP's question. Enough for people on here to give her a break - at the very least about that criticism. Similarly, if you're in the middle of an argument with someone and they try to take what you did and use an absolute statement such as 'you always do this to me', wouldn't you have some sort of reaction to that? It's just as human to react to those kinds of statements as it is to use them.

I voted for LVP, Kyle, Lisa Rinna and Kathryn to stay. LVP and Kyle are staples. Rinna has a loud mouth and can be very annoying, like Brandi, she has more in her before the final straw is drawn. I think the worse thing for Rinna was being given a built in sidekick in Eileen. Eileen has been a vocal supported and defender of LR and big part of why Rinna pushes topics of conversation relentlessly (LVP, Kim). Kathryn showed glimpses of feistiness (not always good) but also reflection. She can go either way. I'd be willing to give her a chance. I voted Yolanda, Erika and Eileen can go. I actually don't mind Yolanda in the sense that she's strategic which works well on the show, however, I don't agree with someone who invites information on camera and then quickly shuts it down when confronted or asked questions. If you want privacy, keep it private. You don't need to broadcast everything to 'Hollywood friends' and then be offended when they talk about the information you've already relayed in front of cameras. Wrong or right, the other women all take the jabs to the chin, whether it produces anger or tears, the fact of the matter is the women sit there and take it. Yolanda sabotages the process to avoid dealing with any information or behavior she doesn't want to address. Erika is useless so far. If her only job will be as Yolanda's messenger and message carrier, then there's no need for her to return. She has to show a willingness to open up truly engaging with the other women but I'm not sure she can do that without being Yolanda's sidekick that wants to take people down who has wronged Yolanda. Eileen can GTFO. The one thing I can't stand is a person who has a holier than thou attitude. Eileen speaks with such convictions, parlaying truths that don't even belong to her but she treats it as if they do. She is projecting a behavior that suggests that she has a higher moral standing than the others and that is the most grating personality trait I can find in someone. It's the reason I can't stand Kenya Moore or Phaedra Parks as well. I'll take all of the Brandi's and Tamra's in the world before I put up with an Eileen type that wants to come at people as a truth warrior. Deal with your own truths before you try to 'fix' everyone else.

Bethenny has always been outspoken and rude at any cost (in the name of honesty of course) but in the beginning she was a lot more laid back and was an underdog in many ways. She didn't have the marriage or the massive wealth. She was still building herself and came from humble beginnings. She wasn't instigating yet she was still very direct with people to their face. There were vibes that suggested that the other women either thought less of her or thought it part of their 'coolness' factor to take in the stray - overall made it easier to root for her and appreciate her humour. She's always been spunky but she's become more assertive with her insults and aggression. Before it seemed like a defensive reaction and now it's more of an offensive attack.

Maybe Heather is repeating the affirmations that Kristen has given her about the status of her marriage to Josh. However, it's not Heather's place to unequivocally denounce any possibility of truth in the Ashley Madison scandal. Even Kristen can't do so but as the spouse, it's understandable for her to speak out in defense of her husband. Heather has no place to do so, especially since the only person who knows the truth is Josh and possibly any woman he may have met from the site (if he in fact is the guy registered on the site and communicating with female members).

I may be mistaken but I use the word in relation to the physical, emotional, and or mental. I've never considered the term to refer to just one singular aspect of well-being. If someone is having suicidal thoughts, I would consider that as being completed debilitated. Someone who questions their need to exist, to me is complete debilitation because to me it represents someone who has reached their most weakest point. I'm not speaking for Kyle or the accuracy of her statement but I don't think a red carpet picture really covers all of the basis of what it can mean to be debilitated. Then again, I may be mistaken with my interpretation of the word.

You hit the nail right on its head. What you explained about LVP and Yolanda in two paragraphs took an entire season and still a boatload of unresolved issues still, lol.

Well for one, Brandi is connected to their society through her husband's status which would lend to why others would consider his feelings and opinions on his wife's behavior (as she is a representative of both of them at these gathering). I didn't interpret it as an expectation she should be submissive but it's more of a reflection of how they view their own image. Their image is so precious that they couldn't fathom associating with someone who showed up to a 'sophisticated' charity event dressed the way she did. Seeing as how they felt embarrassed for her, they made the assumption that her husband likely does as well so why would he let her go out in public and embarrass him like that? It all ties into their very conservative and judgmental views on how someone should dress, speak and behave.

She wasn't making fun of them for being soap actresses. She did take a dig at the attitude towards soap opera actors in their industry (honestly, calling a soap actor C list is fair when it comes to Hollywood standards) but I think the real motivation behind the soap references is to say that these women comes from the world of over dramatics and fake storylines. She's trying to draw the comparison that they're creating a very over the top scripted version of reality similar to their experience in the soap opera world. It's a way to discredit their accusations from the show, not to discredit their work as professionals. LVP's response to Eileen's comment about the RHOBH polls supports that theory of LVP's soap opera references.

LVP doesn't need that permission, nor any of the women, when their mother is sharing their personal information TO these women in front of cameras. Yolanda made her children fair game for discussion by bringing them into the fold. However, I can understand if there's certain expectations of the context that her children are spoken of, especially from someone who she has acknowledged as having been around her children since they were young and has an actual relationship with them. LVP didn't contest anything that the children said that could be assumed to be talking negatively about the children. I think the crux of the matter here is that Yolanda sees LVP's response to Kyle's question as a stab at Yolanda's integrity, perhaps even an intentional way of creating division within her family. LVP's 'thing' is never committing to a comment or accusation. She likes to throw things out there and leave it up to the interpretation of the listener but it keeps herself covered. For example, she did seem begrudging to say what Mo had told her, but before she said relayed her interpretation of Mo's comment, she said 'if their mother says they have then they have it'. At that point Kyle said 'but what does Mo say?'. LVP's behavior is all the more reason why I'm convinced that Rinna is retelling stories in matter of fact language based on how she interpreted the situation. Knowing LVP, she says things in a way that can have more than one meaning.

I love how each time Rinna is backed into a corner of owning (aka blaming LVP) for the Manchausen thing, she finds another tidbit to add. First it began with the calls, then Kyle was mentioned (which actually had nothing to do with Rinna bringing up Manchausen), now it's LVP saying their storyline is gone after Harry's comments. There's no way any of the women are stupid enough to make a comment like that in a serious tone. If LVP did say that she was most definitely passing it off as a joke. It's like Rinna writes notes down of every little thing that was said and done and figures out what she can use to make people believe that LVP manipulated her. And finally, assuming LVP did say this in a serious manner, how was Rinna manipulated when she willingly involved herself by bringing the conversation on camera and telling everyone BUT Yolanda about what she had discussed? I honestly wonder where Eileen ranks in the common sense scale. Why are you constantly preaching about OUR truth as if you're actually involved in this matter with Rinna and LVP? Trusting Rinna and repeating her accounts of what happened doesn't make it your truth as well. You can't adopt someone's story, repeat it and then say 'look, we both have the same story, it's 2 against 1 clearly we're telling the truth'. Woman please. I'm not sure what to think about Yolanda and LVP's relationship. They politely throw digs at one another, yet other times they seem civil and cordial and Yolanda went as far as to say that she didn't think LVP disliked her but they just weren't close friends. Unless Yolanda is intentionally trying to make a statement that opposes the theory that all of this is about a Yolanda vs LVP feud, I'm not sure what benefit she would have to frame her answer in such a way where she implies that LVP doesn't have it out for her. I think they're playing an emotionally detached game of chess with one another. Perhaps they butt heads because they are each other's biggest competition rather than it being anything to do with genuine dislike for one another.

If there's one thing I give Cait credit for is that she has been very understanding and accommodating, especially to her loved ones, when it comes to people getting used to her authentic self. It's easy to finally feel like you're finally the person you were always meant to be. It's not such an easy mental and emotional transition for those who are so accustomed to knowing you just one way. This show exposes/highlights so many flaws of Cait, it's nice for me to take a step back and recognize something positive for a change.

Brandi is trying too hard to try and set herself apart from the 'society' she frequents with. Seems like a desperate effort to project herself as a laid back, personable girl in contrast to the prim and proper socialites. You can be funny, entertaining and have fun anywhere without having to resort to juvenile tactics. Donating lots of money doesn't give you a pass to behave and say whatever you want. She may not have come from much but her comments reek of someone who seems to think that her hubby's money and social status buys her way through life. Stephanie reminds me of Leslie Mann. In the way she looks and in the way she speaks. Maybe it's not an obvious similarity but for whatever reason, she reminds me of her. Stephanie is really immature. Not as much as a try hard as Brandi but still, fun and young energy doesn't mean being stuck with a grade school humour. Leanne is socialite wannabe. How does someone who was raised by the carnival lack humour to that degree? I'm still waiting to see that humour she supposedly has. Her charity work is going toward worthwhile causes which is great, but I think it's fair to discuss the intent behind her involvement in the charitable circles. It's hard to be that impressed with someone for such work when all the efforts shown thus far portray them to be someone who is using great causes for the purpose of climbing the social ladders of their community.

I like the shorter hair though generally speaking her hair is still on the long side. I find the shorter do more refreshing on her. But she sure does have luscious locks.