self-accusation

Actually, it doesn't. Click the link. Forbes explains everything. Glad we took care of that.

The New York Times is very credible; the New York Post is not. The New York Times did not report on Madonna's potential billionaire status at all. Glad we took care of that.

The New York Post is not credible, and any articles citing the New York Post's claims are, therefore, not credible. Forbes has far more credibility than the New York Post. Glad we took care of that.

No, it doesn't suggest that the gap in earnings is so large that their incomes aren't even "close," as you said. They're actually only $10 million apart.

Every statement here I've backed up with a credible source time and time again. I'm not the ridiculous one here.

Do you know what self-accusation means? You're the one that accused me.

What the fuvkllck is going on

Actually it does.

That's the opinion piece I was reffering to.

It's littered with factually incorrect information.

Here's an example.

6 years ago lol (that probbaly even made you laugh)

Here in 2004 you can see Madonna was paid 10Million pounds for her share in Maverick records:http://www.theguardian.com/business/.../citynews.arts

You'll also notice that she also recieved a settlement which was undisclosed. The NY daily news reported this as 200 million. Others reported it as 90Million - 150Million.

So given that, 10 years ago Madonna made 200 Million in one transaction. That's not including her music or business endeavours or tours or merch. The opinion piece which you provided says 6 years ago Madonna was worth 325 million when 10 years ago based on ONE business transaction she made 200M. LOL

This is the kind of trouble you'll find yourself in when you quote opinion pieces dear Quietly Trek.

I admire how hard you try though.

I won't bother going through the rest of your linked articles claims and how they're factually incorrect though, it would be amusing for me.

What the **** is going on

No, it doesn't. The article I linked explains what they factored in to come up with the $125 million estimate. That article doesn't say her merchandise sales from tour or DVD sales were factored in as you tried to pass off. I think I'll stick with the Forbes writer on what Forbes calculated to churn out that $125 million estimate. That's where the association with that piece ends. I have never cited any other information from that piece. For what seems to be the 100th time, reading is essential.

someone who claims to be a big madonna fan writing essays trying to discredit her. the usual.

madonna doesn't like people knowing her NET worth, which she said plenty of times.

"Forbes knows ****". - Madonna.

She doesnt work with them. They're part of the Rupert Murdoch crowd anyway, so good on Madonna for sticking to her beliefs (instead of other celebrities) and not wanting to deal with them.

Holy mother of F that is a flawless deluxe package.

It should also be noted that the article claiming Madonna isn't a billionaire is not an opinion piece. It's a statement from Forbes stating why they have not included her in their list of billionaires. Read up on what an opinion piece actually is.

Oh, so we are back to the logic where you take what you want from a source and ignore everything else.

The source is correct in talking about the calculation of Madonna's earninings but you can clearly see it's littered with factually incorrect info - Seems trustworthly to me.

But hey, if that's the route you wanna take who am I to stop you.

In my personal experience if a source is littered with incorrect info, it can't really be trusted.

The writer of this btw wrote a biography about Michael Jackson in which he disses the eff out of Madonna. I know, because as i said I know this guy. We talk. He's not a fan.

No, it's not.

I even know this guy. Im actually considering revealing my identity so i can show you our tweets from his official account where he talks about how he doesn't really know.

statement from forbes lol

only the Queen

If you stop to think for a moment you'll realize that I'm actually trying to defend Beyoncé from someone who is trying to discredit her by making it seem like Madonna earns some huge undisclosed amount yearly that somehow eclipses what she takes home from touring seemingly creating a large gap between her earnings and Beyoncé's even though that's unlikely.

He works for Forbes. His article has to be approved before it's published if he's going to give an explanation as to why Forbes did not include Madonna in their billionaires list. It's a statement from Forbes, lol.

Just out of curiosity, did you know Madonna (like Michael Jackson) owns the rights to all of her music and distributed her merch through her own companies Webogirl and boytoy inc

So to get my head around your frame of mind what do you think the royalties on 300million records would be, and her companies webogirl and boytoy moving merch make, per year?

It's a Forbes article explaining what Forbes calculated to come up with the $125 million estimate. Why does it matter what other information is stated in the article? It has nothing to do with the $125 million estimate. Everything else in that article is trying to explain why she was not included in their list of billionaires.

How are we not going to trust that source about what Forbes used to come up with the $125 million number when it's published by Forbes?

HOWEVER, I'm glad you agreed that what the article lists as calculation for the $125 million estimate is correct, which is the only part of the article I sourced.

If you "talk" to him or not, that's irrelevant. His article was approved by other Forbes employees before it was published, which can only mean that Forbes acknowledges the article.