S12.E22: Reunion, Part 1

[princelina]

8 minutes ago, ladle said:

 My point was that I would actually have been on Crystal's side, if she had pointed to Sutton's comment as being cringey. Instead she had to go the "things were said that were very dark" route and then clam up, leading people to speculate wildly about what horrible, racist thing Sutton must have said. 

I agree completely.  But I'm going to beat a dead horse and once again point out that it wasn't the pool party conversation because we had all heard that, it was something that no one had heard her say that was "very dark" - so Crystal was full of crap until she had to come up with something at the reunion, and someone mentioned that conversation and she was all "Yeah - the pool party - that's the ticket!"

[ladle]

On 10/13/2022 at 3:47 PM, ancslove said:

About the timing of the friends dropping her, I believe it started after Crystal announced she signed on, but before it aired.  Possibly even before she started filming.  Crystal’s problem is that she worded “after I did the show” to mean “after I signed/did the agreement”.  And the other women all use “did” to refer to filming.

Yeah, I’m not a Crystal fan at all but that seemed like a weird, nitpicky pile on. 

1 hour ago, princelina said:

I agree completely.  But I'm going to beat a dead horse and once again point out that it wasn't the pool party conversation because we had all heard that, it was something that no one had heard her say that was "very dark" - so Crystal was full of crap until she had to come up with something at the reunion, and someone mentioned that conversation and she was all "Yeah - the pool party - that's the ticket!"

Oh Crystal is 1000% full of crap.

[Stats Queen]

I am frustrated over people who find Sutton’s comments about having girls from multiple races in her hot tub and saying - this is how it should be offensive,

If she said, “this is not right, why aren’t all these kids white?” that would be awful.

To me she was saying - “this is how the world should be, people hanging out together and race and ethnicity aren’t even an issue? Why is that offensive? Isn’t the the ultimate goal behind people being people regardless of ethnic differences?

I am white and over 50 and grew up in New Mexico. Very small black population but a very rich integration of white, Hispanic and Native American populations (it took over a century for that to work in harmony) but it was when I was growing up.

I have lived in Metro Atlanta for 28 years. I was a member of a Women’s service organization for 12 years. When I first joined, I was the most diverse of the women only because my sister in law was Hispanic and my husband was Jewish. 

A number of years later ( and finally actual diversity in the club) My wonderful friend (who is black and grew up in segregated South Georgia) and myself were finally able to pull off a fine arts competition for our local underserved high school, which is a very ethnically diverse school. We held this big reception with parents and media present, it was wonderful. Since my friend and I were hosting, we were able to witness the amazing interaction between our white, isolated club members (who years ago were actually hesitant about actually interacting with anyone outside their world view), joyfully interacting and taking care of the students and their parents at the reception.

I could have written these women years before, but I knew they were inherently good and just needed exposure to things outside of their frame of reference and comfort zone.

Some of these women grew up in all white communities and if one of them had said “my granddaughter had 5 friends over and they were all different ethnicities and thought - this is how it should be” - what huge progress.

Why is that offensive? They are showing personal growth in realizing that it is a multicultural world and we are all better for it.

Saying Sutton’s words/actions are dark because she thought a multicultural hot tub was how it should be, is awful.

Do you want people to learn and grow and learn or do you want to shame them because they aren’t where you are, or started at a different point?

Do you want them to meet you or do you just want to pillory them?

Edited October 16, 2022 by Stats Queen

[RoseAllDay]

3 hours ago, endure said:

I think Andy is too involved to do this it should be someone neutral too the show asking the questions or a panel of viewers.

That’s been suggested here, but again this is his baby and I don’t see him giving up control. When you think about it, the reunion shows are pretty much worthless. They don’t tie up any loose ends, don’t answer any questions (except the softballs), and keep the feuds going. 

[ZettaK]

10 hours ago, Cheyanne11 said:

He couldn't be more obvious in his Kyle favoritism/Crystal dislike if he was wearing a sandwich board. 

I think all women had issues with Crystal, especially about the "dark" comments. 

[gingerella]

21 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

So their call time was 6 am, but they don’t step onto the set until almost five hours later.

Hey, that makeup don't spatula itself onto their mugs sister!

[Mar]

1 hour ago, ZettaK said:

He couldn't be more obvious in his Kyle favoritism/Crystal dislike if he was wearing a sandwich board. 

And he LOVES Rinna and Erika, which I find infuriating. He is gleeful at the reunions of all the franchises when the women scream terrible hurtful things at each other. The look of delight on his face at those moments is sick.

[hoodooznoodooz]

Dorit’s reunion hair looks:

Top center photo kind of startled me. Her face was so doughy.

I liked (last season’s?) bottom right the most.

The others look so tortured. The expression “effortlessly beautiful”? The opposite of that. And painful.

[hoodooznoodooz]

Rinna bouncing up and down in her seat, clapping and screaming makes me want to kick something.

[Salacious Kitty]

She definitely relishes her role as the villain. And the bitch laughs all the way to the bank. 

[Mother of Odin]

22 hours ago, chlban said:

xlowm

What is this?

[ladle]

11 hours ago, Stats Queen said:

Do you want them to meet you or do you just want to pillory them?

Where is Sutton being pilloried? I'm genuinely confused. I don't see her being pilloried at all for the pool party comments, either on the show or on here. The only person who maybe pilloried her was Crystal, and the general consensus among both the cast members and the people on this board seems to be that Crystal was full of shit in how she handled that. On here, I was probably the one who made the meanest comments about Sutton in relation to the pool party, and all I said was that to me it seemed a little bit "cringe" and "eye rolly." That's pretty tame for an online space where people are calling Erika a criminal and Rinna the literal devil! 

Like, we can absolutely agree to disagree about whether Sutton's comments were cringey, or about whether people "can't say anything" about race these days (which is probably beyond the scope of this episode). But I think it's demonstrably false that Sutton is facing any sort of backlash for the pool party comments. (Unless it's happening on social media, which I don't really follow.) Everyone was on Sutton's side during that part of the reunion, even the people like Rinna who really don't like Sutton. 

[Yours Truly]

15 hours ago, Hiyo said:

We all see what ww want to see, I guess. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

But agree to disagree indeed.

Well there’s “seeing what we WHAT to see” and experiencing things that ACTUALLY happen. But ok. 

[Cheyanne11]

9 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Rinna bouncing up and down in her seat, clapping

Like a trained seal.

[Hiyo]

“Well there’s “seeing what we WHAT to see” and experiencing things that ACTUALLY happen”

I suppose that’s true for all, I guess. 🤷🏻‍♂️

As with racist comments, if certain people don’t want others to cringe at what is being saying, maybe best to stop saying cringy things then.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Hiyo

[Lumpier]

2 hours ago, Mother of Odin said:

What is this?

I believe 'xlowm' is just a typo for clown.

Erika is out of her mind if she thinks not guilty is the same as innocent, but when she said "He beat it" in reference to Michael Jackson I took it as a play on words for his most famous song.

Rinna is the kind of person who will claim PTSD because their elderly parent passed away. Be sad, miss her, remember her, celebrate her life, but in the natural order of things everyone loses their parents. How many of the others on the panel still have a living mother? Keep your little bird in your pocket.

Diana is just boring and tedious. Go away.

[Yours Truly]

52 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

“Well there’s “seeing what we WHAT to see” and experiencing things that ACTUALLY happen”

I suppose that’s true for all, I guess. 🤷🏻‍♂️

As with racist comments, if certain people don’t want others to cringe at what is being saying, maybe best to stop saying cringy things then.

When the definition of cringy stays up for debate in this new day then yeah it’s most likely that non problematic will be described as problematic and so…….here we are. The merry go round commences. And this is the point I was making. That we DO live in this ridiculous reality of “perspective as truth”. Denying it is pretty naive. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Edited October 16, 2022 by Yours Truly

[Mother of Odin]

30 minutes ago, Lumpier said:

I believe 'xlowm' is just a typo for clown.

Erika is out of her mind if she thinks not guilty is the same as innocent, but when she said "He beat it" in reference to Michael Jackson I took it as a play on words for his most famous song.

Rinna is the kind of person who will claim PTSD because their elderly parent passed away. Be sad, miss her, remember her, celebrate her life, but in the natural order of things everyone loses their parents. How many of the others on the panel still have a living mother? Keep your little bird in your pocket.

Diana is just boring and tedious. Go away.

Thanks. I wondered if I needed to learn a new word.

55 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

“Well there’s “seeing what we WHAT to see” and experiencing things that ACTUALLY happen”

I suppose that’s true for all, I guess. 🤷🏻‍♂️

As with racist comments, if certain people don’t want others to cringe at what is being saying, maybe best to stop saying cringy things then.

Who made racist comments?

[Hiyo]

“When the definition of cringy stays up for debate in this new day then yeah it’s most likely that non problematic will be described as problematic and so…….here we are. The merry go round commences. And this is the point I was making. That we DO live in this ridiculous reality of “perspective as truth”. Denying it is pretty naive”

Some things aren’t really up for debate though. And it isn’t really a merry go round. The non-problematic comments usually tend to seen that way by the people making those comments without taking into regard how others may see those accounts, whether coming from a place of ignorance or insensitivity or both. The reality is marginalized people now have opportunities and platforms to call out bs comments in ways they previously could not. Its not being naive, I guess its more being aware of the current world we live in. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

“Who made racist comments?”

Who said anyone specifically made a racist comment?

[Mother of Odin]

6 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

“When the definition of cringy stays up for debate in this new day then yeah it’s most likely that non problematic will be described as problematic and so…….here we are. The merry go round commences. And this is the point I was making. That we DO live in this ridiculous reality of “perspective as truth”. Denying it is pretty naive”

Some things aren’t really up for debate though. And it isn’t really a merry go round. The non-problematic comments usually tend to seen that way by the people making those comments without taking into regard how others may see those accounts, whether coming from a place of ignorance or insensitivity or both. The reality is marginalized people now have opportunities and platforms to call out bs comments in ways they previously could not. Its not being naive, I guess its more being aware of the current world we live in. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

“Who made racist comments?”

Who said anyone specifically made a racist comment?

You did.

[SemiCharmedLife]

15 hours ago, RoseAllDay said:

That’s been suggested here, but again this is his baby and I don’t see him giving up control. When you think about it, the reunion shows are pretty much worthless. They don’t tie up any loose ends, don’t answer any questions (except the softballs), and keep the feuds going. 

The reunion shows are my favorites and I look forward to them with much anticipation, but, of course, they always disappoint and frustrate me.  The viewers' questions are great and put the HWs on the hot seat, but as others have said, Andy can't serve a follow up question if his life depended on it.  He needs a producer in his ear feeding him the follow up questions.  These ladies get away with murder with him as the host.

[Hiyo]

“You did.”

Nope.

[endure]

When Andy made a comment suggesting it's just a TV show, does he not realise it is supposedly a 'reality TV show'?  Maybe he should change the format to a soap opera if that is his opinion and viewers attitudes will respond accordingly.  Or at the very least try to control the negative offensive behaviour of some of the women on the show. I'm sure his bottom line is ratings.  I guess we will see if he does anything moving forward. 

[Jennifersdc]

On 10/13/2022 at 4:57 PM, Beachdreamer said:

I have always thought Kyle's home robbery was an insurance scam.  And leave it to Kyle to find a way to get her things back, and be able to use them, too.  She "bought them back" in a big shakedown from the burgler.  And of course, she needed to interrupt Dorit's storyline- I mean story- to tell us all, so that she can get it out there in public.  This is so she can start wearing her rings and things again.

Dorit, at least, was honest about this much.  She said she wouldn' t be rebuying anything since she's wears things once and is done.  Which really makes one think about how a burglery is a benefit to her.

I’m pretty sure Dorit rents her outfits. I don’t think they have that kind of money. So I believe the one and done and that she’s not “rebuying” anything.😈

Unlike Michael Darby from RHoP, who actually is a very successful developer (he almost lost everything post 2008 but managed to get back on top), PK has no such expertise - he was just a guy who got lucky buying some London commercial real estate in the go go years when you really couldn’t lose. My understanding is that his reputation in CRE is totally shit now. Nobody would give him money to buy a dog house. He’s apparently considered to be pretty sleazy. I know cause that used to be my crowd. Don’t miss them at all.😀

[65mickey]

4 hours ago, Mother of Odin said:

Thanks. I wondered if I needed to learn a new word.

I was wondering the same thing but was afraid to ask for fear of showing my boomer status. 

[Mother of Odin]

17 minutes ago, 65mickey said:

I was wondering the same thing but was afraid to ask for fear of showing my boomer status. 

I'm Gen X :)

[Mother of Odin]

4 hours ago, Hiyo said:

“You did.”

Nope.

Sorry I misunderstood.

[MMEButterfly]

5 hours ago, Yours Truly said:

When the definition of cringy stays up for debate in this new day then yeah it’s most likely that non problematic will be described as problematic and so…….here we are. The merry go round commences. And this is the point I was making. That we DO live in this ridiculous reality of “perspective as truth”. Denying it is pretty naive. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Throughout history the nature of cringe worthy behavior has always been debatable. 

[Stats Queen]

9 hours ago, ladle said:

Where is Sutton being pilloried? I'm genuinely confused. I don't see her being pilloried at all for the pool party comments, either on the show or on here. The only person who maybe pilloried her was Crystal, and the general consensus among both the cast members and the people on this board seems to be that Crystal was full of shit in how she handled that. On here, I was probably the one who made the meanest comments about Sutton in relation to the pool party, and all I said was that to me it seemed a little bit "cringe" and "eye rolly." That's pretty tame for an online space where people are calling Erika a criminal and Rinna the literal devil! 

Like, we can absolutely agree to disagree about whether Sutton's comments were cringey, or about whether people "can't say anything" about race these days (which is probably beyond the scope of this episode). But I think it's demonstrably false that Sutton is facing any sort of backlash for the pool party comments. (Unless it's happening on social media, which I don't really follow.) Everyone was on Sutton's side during that part of the reunion, even the people like Rinna who really don't like Sutton. 

I wasn’t referring to Sutton at all, I was trying to make a broader point about letting people learn and grow. Obviously, I was not articulate with that for which I apologize.

[Mrs peel]

On 10/15/2022 at 4:39 PM, ZettaK said:

Well, that's Erika!

She also thinks (hopes) she can beat the rap, and then she will tell us she is not guilty.

God I hate saying this, but she wasn’t wrong.  If you are acquitted, you are not “guilty” of the crime.  In this instance, I do think Erika is influenced by having been married to an attorney.

but, for example, OJ Simpson is “not guilty” of murder in the first degree, but he sure as h@@l killed 2 people.

im going to go take a shower now.

[ladle]

3 hours ago, Stats Queen said:

I wasn’t referring to Sutton at all, I was trying to make a broader point about letting people learn and grow. Obviously, I was not articulate with that for which I apologize.

Ah, okay! But to bring it back to Sutton, it does seem like she’s learning and growing. And I think that’s great! 

[Stats Queen]

2 minutes ago, ladle said:

Ah, okay! But to bring it back to Sutton, it does seem like she’s learning and growing. And I think that’s great! 

I concur!! If she continued to say the same things, that would be problematic.

[Cosmocrush]

3 hours ago, Mrs peel said:

God I hate saying this, but she wasn’t wrong.  If you are acquitted, you are not “guilty” of the crime.  In this instance, I do think Erika is influenced by having been married to an attorney.

Yes.  Not guilty is not the same as innocent. 

[ZettaK]

6 hours ago, Mrs peel said:

God I hate saying this, but she wasn’t wrong.  If you are acquitted, you are not “guilty” of the crime.  In this instance, I do think Erika is influenced by having been married to an attorney.

but, for example, OJ Simpson is “not guilty” of murder in the first degree, but he sure as h@@l killed 2 people.

im going to go take a shower now.

Yes, acquitted means not guilty in legal terms, but it doesn't mean innocent. Erika wants to confuse the viewers. 

[RealHousewife]

15 minutes ago, ZettaK said:

Yes, acquitted means not guilty in legal terms, but it doesn't mean innocent. Erika wants to confuse the viewers. 

Why would you say that Zetta? I heard her case was dismissed without prejudice! 

[hottesthw]

On 10/15/2022 at 12:08 AM, Chalby said:

Say what? Sorry, but I feel Garcelle's constant grace under pressure attitude is soothing compared to the screeching chaos of the others.

I guess that’s my point. Under pressure from what exactly? All she’s done since she started is sit around and wait for these women to make some perceived slight against her so she could get offended. Every story she’s been in has been her reaction to something that didn’t really involve her (Sutton, Erika etc). And then complain “how dare they”, meanwhile she’s using them as stories on her own daytime show (Erika). Them bringing in her “friend” to make her more interesting and give her a sidekick is backfiring too IMO

Edited October 17, 2022 by hottesthw

[Hiyo]

Any examples of her waiting around some perceived slight against her so she could get offended? Just curious since I’m not seeing any examples, not counting the time Ericka cussed out her son…

“Them bringing in her “friend” to make her more interesting and give her a sidekick is backfiring too”

If by backfiring you mean she became an extremely popular HW, then Bravo did something right. Maybe they should try doing the same for Rinna and Ericka and Diana…

[Yours Truly]

15 hours ago, MMEButterfly said:

Throughout history the nature of cringe worthy behavior has always been debatable. 

Agreed. Which is why people shouldn't go around trying to weaponize EVERY awkward and clumsy conversation or interaction. It seems, in this day and age we have lost a big part of that nuance that makes human interaction very, very important.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Yours Truly

[Yours Truly]

2 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Any examples of her waiting around some perceived slight against her so she could get offended? Just curious since I’m not seeing any examples, not counting the time Ericka cussed out her son…

“Them bringing in her “friend” to make her more interesting and give her a sidekick is backfiring too”

If by backfiring you mean she became an extremely popular HW, then Bravo did something right. Maybe they should try doing the same for Rinna and Ericka and Diana…

I think this observation by some is due to the fact that Garcelle doesn't step in shit like the others do. She also doesn't allow the ladies to "create" a slight outta thin air using something she's done or said. Garcelle does go against the premise of this show and that's why she has so many fans. She's a refreshing change. Someone who interacts with them but manages not to fall into their traps. Erika started on the show trying to be the one that was reserved and unbothered about things and even still she got dragged into pantygate her first season (I believe). Garcell engages, shares her story and maneuvers through her interactions with the others rather smoothly. Has Garcelle done anything that rates some kind of "gate"? Nope.

Kyle tried it when she threw out the whole Garcelle didn't pay her charity. Now, normally that may have given us half a season cause usually it's one decent nugget that starts us off and the rest of these "scandalous" messes stem from mishandling any attempt at a resolution, plus the gossiping and spreading of misinformation by the others to enhance the tension between the strained parties involved. That will give us a few episodes and it will also designate the two as on again off again foes, moving forward. Makes any future petty slight a possible storyline. Viola, housewife recipe. Rinse, Lather, Repeat. 

Instead, what Garcelle did was shut down the dragging out of said offense by confronting Kyle, talking it out and in the process she managed to graciously cut Kyle down a few pegs. No possible retaliation for that exchange because Garcelle handled it intelligently and gracefully and Kyle had NO POSSIBLE WAY to turn that around in her retelling to the others to paint Garcelle in any negative light. This in turn gave them nothing to runteldat throughout the group which, would have normally reignited the issue. Garcelle doesn't allow them to grab stuff and turn it into some merry go round of slights and implied misbehaving on her end.

Erika tried to put Garcelle's feet to the fire about her talking about Erika's "problem" multiple times with the other wives. That could have been way more dramatic than it turned out but because Garcelle doesn't mince words and she doesn't shy away from the conversations she does have it didn't go in the direction Erika wanted it to go. She also knows how to direct the flow of a conversation when they try to create a sinister narrative regarding her actions and words. Garcelle held strong and didn't shy away from the fact that she was discussing it with the others. She was ready to discuss any of Erika's concerns with her without fear. That's how you disarm this crowd. If they know they can't fluster or confuse you into digging yourself into a hole they are less and less likely to drag you into a conflict. 

So Garcelle HAS actually been involved in a blip here and there but she isn't worried about her words being thrown back at her or them being twisted because she will not deny saying something, or try to repackage her words as something else because she's flustered and caught off guard. She won't recoil at her own words and when her words are being used against her she wastes no time setting the record straight shooting down their deliberate confusion and twisting of what she actually meant. They've realized that they have to tread lightly with Garcelle because they are used to things being confused very quickly and count on the target getting flustered and creating more bumbling dialogue they can pick apart. Not with Garcelle though (or Kathy for that matter). 

This makes it seem like all Garcelle does is sit in waiting but in reality she's so good a swatting away the flies it does tend to seem like she's just lounging by the pool sipping on margaritas while the others go at it all season. LOL. 

I, for one, LOVE EVERY MINUTE OF IT!

Edited October 17, 2022 by Yours Truly

[Mrs peel]

13 hours ago, Cosmocrush said:

Yes.  Not guilty is not the same as innocent. 

Which I said.

[ChristmasJones]

Honest question re: the threat text/message/post sent to Garcelle's son.

If Diana was actually behind it, would she really be dumb enough to write "leave Diana out of this" in it?  That seems like such an amateur thing to do. 

Is it possible that someone else did this to stir up problems and divert attention from themselves?

Does Garcelle have any other corroborating information that this came from Diana? To make such an accusation, I would hope so, as it seems so easy for someone else to drop a line about Diana in there.

I ask this not because I support Diana in any way. I find her utterly loathsome.  I guess I just find that one particular detail puzzling.

Also what motivation would Diana have for saying such a threat to Garcelle's son in the first place?  It just seems a bit random and bizarre, unless I am forgetting something.

Edited October 17, 2022 by ChristmasJones

[ladle]

5 hours ago, ChristmasJones said:

Honest question re: the threat text/message/post sent to Garcelle's son.

If Diana was actually behind it, would she really be dumb enough to write "leave Diana out of this" in it?  That seems like such an amateur thing to do. 

Is it possible that someone else did this to stir up problems and divert attention from themselves?

Does Garcelle have any other corroborating information that this came from Diana? To make such an accusation, I would hope so, as it seems so easy for someone else to drop a line about Diana in there.

I ask this not because I support Diana in any way. I find her utterly loathsome.  I guess I just find that one particular detail puzzling.

Also what motivation would Diana have for saying such a threat to Garcelle's son in the first place?  It just seems a bit random and bizarre, unless I am forgetting something.

Yes! I posted about the same thing upthread. I am wondering about this as well! What would motivate Diana to go after Garcelle’s child in this way? Why would Garcelle suspect her? Why HER, and not any of the other women on the show who may have wanted the spotlight off of them? I don’t really follow these women on social media — is there some context that I’m missing here? 

[Surrealist]

12 minutes ago, ladle said:

Yes! I posted about the same thing upthread. I am wondering about this as well! What would motivate Diana to go after Garcelle’s child in this way? Why would Garcelle suspect her? Why HER, and not any of the other women on the show who may have wanted the spotlight off of them? I don’t really follow these women on social media — is there some context that I’m missing here? 

Diana had been having a bug up her ass about Garcelle all season.

She weaponized her miscarriage to avoid going to Garcelle's birthday, sent that long group text claiming Garcelle would be an asshole toward her if she hadn't sent an apology about needing to be on bedrest, but then showed up to the party anyway with her boytoy and saying how boring it was.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Surrealist

[realityplease]

9 hours ago, ChristmasJones said:

If Diana was actually behind it, would she really be dumb enough to write "leave Diana out of this" in it?  That seems like such an amateur thing to do. . .

Is it possible that someone else did this to stir up problems and divert attention from themselves?. . .

Also what motivation would Diana have for saying such a threat to Garcelle's son in the first place?  It just seems a bit random and bizarre, unless I am forgetting something.

The theory is that housewives (like Diana, Rinna or Erika) want to push Garcelle off the show (whether threatened by her popularity, offended by things said, miserable human beings, or whatever) & they could do so by going after her boys.  Stands to reason she'd rather quit the show than open her kids up to attack.  I think she said as much. 

I read somewhere, that Diana is suspected of having purchased "bots" (I'm not very internet savvy but I think bots are purchased to be fans, loyal followers, or fakes.  They can be stirred up or directed to plague or bombard those on the purchasers' "shit list" with negative tweets or comments on Instagram & I don't know where else.  Allegedly, one of Diana's bots was the one that went after Jax.  It was thought to be a Diana-driven bot, because the threat made was protective of Diana - included in a very heinous threat to Jax, were the words, "leave Diana out of this."

The threat didn't come directly from Diana but thought to requested, prompted, or paid for by Diana.  No one knows yet, though Garcelle said at the reunion that she was investigating the source of the threat.  

Edited October 18, 2022 by realityplease

[ChristmasJones]

53 minutes ago, realityplease said:

It was thought to be a Diana-driven bot, because the threat made was protective of Diana - included in a very heinous threat to Jax, were the words, "leave Diana out of this."

On this point though, if Diana wanted to drive Garcelle off the show, and wanted to pay bots or hire whoever to send a message to Garcelle's son to make that happen, how does it benefit Dianna to include the phrase "leave Diana out of it."  It seems it would be much more effective if these horrible threats and comments were made to appear from someone else other than the person who made them.

Is it possible Lisa or Erika did it rather than Diana?

Edited October 18, 2022 by ChristmasJones

[amarante]

20 hours ago, ZettaK said:

Yes, acquitted means not guilty in legal terms, but it doesn't mean innocent. Erika wants to confuse the viewers. 

Also Jackson had significant civil liability so he didn't "beat" that portion nor did he win in the court of public opinion because I don't think anyone with half a brain doesn't think he was a pedophile who exploited young boys - it's well documented. 

Erika isn't in danger of criminal liability - she is fighting tooth and nail to avoid having to repay the stolen money and the items, like the earrings, that were bought with the stolen money.

The boys who were molested - or at least many of them received multi-million dollar settlements. I think many parents would have a moral quandary if their child were molested - do you agree to take $10 million and go away quietly - an amount that is life changing for your middle class kid or do you attempt to bring charges against a powerful super star who has all the resources in the world to hire lawyers to beat the rap (no pun intended).

FWIW "beating the rap" really implies that the person actually committed the crime but somehow was able to "beat the charges" because of legal ploys or some other factor having nothing to do with guilt or innocence. OJ Simpson also "beat the rap". 

Edited October 18, 2022 by amarante

[Blondie]

20 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Why would you say that Zetta? I heard her case was dismissed without prejudice! 

In law, "without prejudice" means that the charges can be brought up again.  "with prejudice" means that it's over, done with, and can not be brought up again.  

[RealHousewife]

16 minutes ago, Blondie said:

In law, "without prejudice" means that the charges can be brought up again.  "with prejudice" means that it's over, done with, and can not be brought up again.  

I was poking fun at Erika and her trying to mislead people. :)

[realityplease]

2 hours ago, ChristmasJones said:

On this point though, if Diana wanted to drive Garcelle off the show, and wanted to pay bots or hire whoever to send a message to Garcelle's son to make that happen, how does it benefit Dianna to include the phrase "leave Diana out of it."  It seems it would be much more effective if these horrible threats and comments were made to appear from someone else other than the person who made them.

Is it possible Lisa or Erika did it rather than Diana?

We're not talking about brain-trusts here. Some of the fans are quite over-zealous in their fan-dom. Even IF Diana (or Lisa or Erika) hired bots, I don't think SHE'D tell whoever programs the bot to include a phrase that could draw attention to her.  Or tell them specifically what to say.  Maybe the direction to harass was general - but the bot (or whoever programs the bot) improvised - stupidly - or went overboard - or slipped up by drawing attention to Diana - or thought attention would be deflected from Diana because why would she be so stupid to include that.  Anyone that would go so far as to threaten Jax with a knee to the neck isn't too bright to begin with --

This is being WAY overthought.  I don't know whether Diana or Erika or Rinna or bot or otherwise - was behind that attack.  Or really, how bots actually work.  But I do not discount that any of these ladies would not stoop very low to achieve their means if their intent was to retaliate or rid the show of Garcelle.  They've done so in the past with others. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by realityplease

[Jel]

Bots are not people writing the posts, right? So sometimes they mess up and don’t get the messaging right. Could it be that?

And if it is, go humans!