Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article >,
> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Goomba38 > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>>>> "Janet Bostwick" > dropped this
>>>>> : in rec.food.cooking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish I was stupid like she is. . .her drive and ambition have
>>>>>> made her mega bucks.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO she is just plain lazy and has no culinary talent (not that I
>>>>> do either). IMO she also got where she is by marrying into bucks
>>>>> so she could finance her desire to be in the spotlight. I don't
>>>>> consider that drive and ambition. Martha Stewart has drive and
>>>>> ambition. Rachel Ray (gag) has drive and ambition. IMO SL has
>>>>> nothing. I have to as myself if the wallet hadn't been around,
>>>>> where would she have been?
>>>>>
>>>> I thought all that too until I saw her biography on FoodTV.
>>>
>>> Is that the one that never even mentions the zillionaire she
>>> married?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Star Trek 09:
>> O.k., now you guys are getting my dander up. . .are you saying that
>> a woman can't be a success without a rich husband?
>
> No, we're saying "woman has lame ideas; woman marries filthy rich
> sponsor; woman gets TV show; filthy rich sponsor dumps her for Martha
> Stewart; woman writes bio ignoring filth rich husband and claiming to
> be totally self made" doesn't ring true.
>
> --
> Star Trek 09:
Unless you can come up with the date of her marriage, you can't prove that,
nor can I disprove it. Martha Stewart? Figures how? Neverheless, men and
women through the ages have taken advantage of a monied marriage to get
ahead. Why the ire?
Janet