Jump to content

Arckangel

Ember
  • Content Count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Points

    4,428 [ Give ]

Community Reputation

370 Fire

2 Followers

About Arckangel

  • Rank
    Altair

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Bundy @Goten21 You both have a good point. Britney, at that time, already had several hit albums under her belt and had amassed tens and tens of millions without his help. Mmm... I'm not sure Lou decided that. Maybe that's what she wanted, but the blame mostly goes to the judge, Reva Goetz, who decided to make it permanent, esp. since Britney had shown great progress within months! When I think of it, maybe Britney should have totally refused to work back then...
  2. Jamie said: "I would hope the conservatorship stands until the end of the year, and then we’ll sit back and evaluate where we are at that time, where Britney is at that time." "where Britney is at that time", the way I understand it (I'm sure many will agree), is a reference to her mental condition and emotional well-being. In other words: "where Britney is (emotionally, psychologically, psychiatrically) at that time. What else could he have meant by that? This is why I typed: "If I understand correctly, he did state he hoped for the c-ship to last until the end of 2008, and that there'd be a reflection time and an evaluation of Britney's mental health, emotional well-being which could have led to termination of the c-ship. He was thereby admitting her condition was *not* incurable." That's my interpretation of Jamie's words.
  3. Yeah. Complete dissolution is needed, but removing Jamie first may be the wisest step. Trying to fully dissolve the personal and financial c-ship now, Jamie would fight it like Hell! I hope and pray Britney is physically protected from Jamie and his henchmen.
  4. In that 2008 OK Magazine interview, Jamie Spears admitted Britney's condition was *not* incurable or so dire she could never be let go of that conservatorship. Jamie Spears to the magazine saying: “I would hope the conservatorship stands until the end of the year, and then we’ll sit back and evaluate where we are at that time, where Britney is at that time. Our relationship is new for both of us. She sometimes calls me 50 times a day and asks me things that light my life up. But like all daughters, she is very manipulative and cunning. So she gets what she wants a lot. God has a way of taking something bad and turning it into something good. If this hadn’t happened, I would never have been able to get back with my daughter and have this relationship I have with these two little boys. Britney and Kevin wanted to settle. It made no sense for the custody trial to proceed so we worked out an agreement. The agreement says that on 1st October we’ll probably get another overnight. Kevin has a wonderful heart, but I don’t agree with giving him more money.” https://www.ukbritney.tv/2008/08/13/ok-magazine-exclusive-interview-with-britney/ If I understand correctly, he did state he hoped for the c-ship to last until the end of 2008, and that there'd be a reflection time and an evaluation of Britney's mental health, emotional well-being which could have led to termination of the c-ship. He was thereby admitting her condition was *not* incurable. But what did he mean by "evaluate where we are at that time"? That was about Britney, not Jamie, his team and the court, right? Now, if Britney's condition was not incurable, why is she still under that guardianship? How much more progress is she supposed to make to prove to Jamie, all of his lawyers, all the doctors, therapists and the court she is no longer gravely disabled, unable to resist fraud and undue influences? What has she done or what is she doing right now that is convincing Jamie that 13 years after that interview, his daughter must still remain under c-ship, esp. his c-ship? We have the smoking gun right there... The question is how much longer this charade is going to be allowed to last.
  5. Beyoncé's I Am... Sasha Fierce had a whopping 9 singles. Inside Out, Drop Dead (Beautiful), Gasoline, Up and Down, Selfish, Don't Keep Me Waiting, Scary and He About to Lose Me would all have made great singles. To answer @ANGRYBLOSSOM's question, I would have released this ballad version of Gasoline (even though fanmade). I would simply have reached out to the creator and asked for permission. This ballad version is just sublime (even better than the original). Actually, I'd have put both version on the single (the ballad first).
  6. @Avatar I agree. It's just that there is now a consensus that Black and partly Black people (incl. artists) may use that term but non-Black people (incl. artists) can't, even if there is absolutely no ill intent like in the Lamar concert example above. The N-word is so widely used in music that it makes it odd to bar any non-Black person from ever speaking/singing/rapping it in a non-racist context.
  7. Some of you may have read about the ongoing cancellation attempt of country superstar Morgan Wallen. What did he do? Use the N-word during a drunken exchange... Madonna also got, years ago, in a bit trouble for using it on Instagram as a term of endearment for her own son who is White... To make matters even more ridiculous... Kendrick Lamar’s Onstage Outrage: Why Rap Should Retire the N-Word for Good Writes Jeremy Helligar: "Is it really fair to have one set of rules for black fans and another for white fans?" What happened is three years ago, Kendrick Lamar "invited a group of people from the crowd for a rap-along to his 2012 single “m.A.A.d. city.” Things were going great until one young fan, a white female who introduced herself as Delaney, got the lyrics a bit too right." Okay... Here are the lyrics. See for yourselves! The song contains that lyric, but that one White fan was supposed, according to Lamar, to bleep or mute the word... So, if as group of people are rapping along to that song or any other song that has the N-word, all non-Black people should stop singing/miming any time the word comes up, but Black (incl. partly Black) folks can keep at it. Way to obtain an odd performance, right? Well, that's exactly how things should be according to Lamar and others. Doesn't make any bloody sense! In those songs, the N-word is usually used as a term of endearment or reappropriation (and there'll no ill intention). If no ill or racist intention, then what's the problem? Besides, the N-word is commonly used in everyday conversations in Spanish and Haitian Creole (maybe other languages too). In Spanish, it is the term used to refer to the black colour or shade, Black people and so on. In Haitian Creole, it is often used to refer to a man, a guy, a dude... It only seems to be such a huge problem in English and French. I understand all the baggage it carries in these last two languages, so would it be better for Black rappers and singers to just stop using that term altogether? Why not if such a no-no for any non-Black fan? Constant use and airplay of that term (even on music TV channels and some radio stations) may end up confusing people, esp. younger non-Black fans. I hope I'm making sense.
  8. I think a new Blackout (kind of) could occur if Britney were her own agent again (maybe even executive producer) and wanted to go this musical route. @Jamiea1112 @rennen @Slayer
  9. I fully agree with those saying cancel culture is going too far. Isn't it ironic that Black and partly Black artists are allowed to repeatedly use the N-word in so many songs, but it is such a scandal if a non-Black artist does so in a song or in a drunken conversation? I understand Black artists use it in their songs as a term of endearment or as reappropriation, but still... Just days ago, Marilyn Manson was being, when innocent until proven guilty, cancelled, dropped by his label and the Creative Artists Agency, and now Morgan Wallen? I suspect some form of jealousy behind all of these cancellations. Keep in mind Britney was once accused of ***ual harassment by a disgruntled former bodyguard, and there was a settlement. Should Britney have been deemed guilty and cancelled over that? After all, Fernando Flores was an alleged victim, right? I hope I'm making sense. @GMFlop
  10. The first part is Myah (she's the credited background vocalist).
  11. The first part is Myah, the second is Brit.
  12. This is more accurate: @rr_174
  13. I honestly think it's a great idea. You live, spend time, have fun with the one you love and more or less occasionally also get to have fun with others. Such relationships can last longer since both partners won't get bored only mating with the same face, body, soul all the time for the rest of their lives. Many adult actors, for instance, are in open relationships. Monogamous relationships can work too, but oftentimes, one partner (if not both) get bored, and cheating/adultery occurs. How many monogamous marriages ended up in a divorce? Open relationships can of course end, but if both mates truly agree to it, it may definitely add spice to that living arrangement. What matters is the mates actually love each other; the others are just fun on the side.
  14. Thanks. J.Lo sang live, and I don't think her ear monitors were just a prop. It's really not fair... If a performance is somewhat shaky, she's dragged through Hell. If a performance is amazing, "she must have lipped." Fact is, she sounded better than most of the people criticizing her ever would.
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block