Quote:
Originally posted by Lover
m.e.s.s.  |
If 2014's new rule means what I think it means, they're really trying it with this one. What about when Madonna must leave town for work? Is it against co-op rules for David and Mercy to continue to live at home with a nanny till mom's back? Get real. These kids attend school in NYC and can't always be trotting the globe. At the same time, Madonna can't be expected to stay pinned down in Manhattan all year.
What's most tiring is the way the article depicts her as a diva who expects special treatment, as if who she is wasn't exactly why this new requirement was introduced in the first place. I don't think it's a coincidence the board voted it through just a year following certain problems involving a former second unit of hers. And so what if the other shareholders aren't complaining about the new rule? If any other neighbour took off for a few days and allowed staff or family full use of their apartment, no one would care or even notice. Madonna, whose presence is felt and whose absence is noted, will never have the luxury of anonymity. Seems to me she's absolutely being targeted here, and it's sad. I don't doubt that living so close to a star of her stature can be tricky, but, like it says in her court filing, the g0rls should have known what they were getting into all of those years ago.
Best wishes, always. You've got this!
With you at the helm, we could count on it being done with love and respect for her work.
Trickier than convincing someone to buy Rebel Heart on iTunes.