Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Denise and Brooke married him knowing his wild history? Sad

I think Denise was genuinely in love with him and he still had some vestige of decency. Brooke comes off to me as nothing but an opportunist, but that perfectly fit with who he was by the time they got together. Just sad for all the kids, especially the ones with Brooke.

Those kids allegedly are meth babies, thanks to HER.

Anonymous wrote:The sad thing about this to me is that tomorrow morning the news focus will turn to one individual's health issues as opposed to ISIS's terrorism. The terror attack on Paris is so three days ago.

Ha, no. This thing is a diversion from that. We all need to get our minds off of the ISIS horror. Sheen will confirm that he is the HIV Positive Mystery Dude. Everyone on DCUM will say - "See! I told you so!" And then what is there really to discuss from there on out? Which porn stars are infected? I don't know any of the porn stars....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Denise and Brooke married him knowing his wild history? Sad

I think Denise was genuinely in love with him and he still had some vestige of decency. Brooke comes off to me as nothing but an opportunist, but that perfectly fit with who he was by the time they got together. Just sad for all the kids, especially the ones with Brooke.

I agree that Denise was genuinely in love with him. Brooke, on the other hand, who knows. She was so high and messed up when they divorced that she didn't even get sole custody of the boys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one hoping his interview tomorrow will be epic like his Tiger Blood/Warlock meltdown a few years ago?

I feel bad for any of the women he potentially affected but I have not one ounce of sympathy for Charlie so another crazy interview from him will just be great entertainment.

I cannot be the ONLY person who has thought "Winning!" today, can I????

I am not sad for Sheen. I am sad for his family, including his children. I am sad for any women whom he has infected. Or scared the crap out of in this process.

Feel sorry for ex wives sure. But I don't feel sorry for the groupies and whores. It's their responsibility to have safe sex too. Yes he has a moral and legal obligation to disclose but I don't feel bad with whores that sleep around unprotected.

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't he slept with and thus endangered so many p*rn stars that he could, like, singledickedly bring down the whole industry?

From what I've read, many in that field are infected.

Anonymous wrote:Why did Denise and Brooke married him knowing his wild history? Sad

I think Denise was genuinely in love with him and he still had some vestige of decency. Brooke comes off to me as nothing but an opportunist, but that perfectly fit with who he was by the time they got together. Just sad for all the kids, especially the ones with Brooke.

Why did Denise and Brooke married him knowing his wild history? Sad

You all called it! I predict this will have a tragic ending. So sad how the "Hollywood elite" live so recklessly and have such tragic ends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If not for the potential infections for the women he has slept with and exposure to his families, is this really news?

I hate to say this, but in 2016 is a celebrity with an HIV+ status a bombshell news story? It does tie in tabloid favorite Sheen and the crash and burn fall of an obnoxious celebrity that everyone seems to love, but I don't know. Maybe because of the sick way it was teased out has everyone on the edge of their seats.

It's a bombshell because of his promiscuous and blatantly dangerous sexual activity since being infected. He has endangers many many people by not being up front about his condition earlier and still being so recklessly promiscuous. If he had been conscientious and curtailed his wild boy antics and not endangered so many people, it would have been much less news, but he's probably put many dozens of people at risk over the last few years and that's pretty reprehensible. He may also be in danger of criminal charges or expensive lawsuits. If they determine when he was infected, any of his subsequent sexual partners who he did not inform, may charge him with assault. There has been legal precedent that HIV positive people who engage in unsafe sexual practices without informing their sexual partners have been charged with deadly assault or granted large suit damages.

He's probably in a world of legal and financial troubles.

#nolongerwinning

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was some celebrity years ago the Enquirer was about to expose who went public to get ahead of it. I can't recall the person but the circumstances were somewhat similar to the extent that the Enquirer had done an "investigation" and had a very reliably sourced story.

Bristol Palin 2008 pregnancy, for one.

Danny Pintauro from Who's the Boss is who I was thinking of now that I racked my brain. When he talked about his HIV positive status this year he said that back in the 90s the Enquirer called to them him that they were running the story with or without him. He decided to give an interview because he couldn't stop the story and wanted to get behind it. Charlie Sheen is probably trying to preempt the Enquirer. Too bad he was forced into it but it sounds like he is a really despicable human being for not disclosing his status.

Is The Enquirer breaking (or trying to break) this story? It first came from Radar Online.

They are going to expose all the lurid details over an 8-page spread on Weds. so his timing by going on the Today tomorrow is probably related somewhat.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/Charlie-Sheen-AIDS-Crisis-HIV-National-Enquirer

The sad thing about this to me is that tomorrow morning the news focus will turn to one individual's health issues as opposed to ISIS's terrorism. The terror attack on Paris is so three days ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was some celebrity years ago the Enquirer was about to expose who went public to get ahead of it. I can't recall the person but the circumstances were somewhat similar to the extent that the Enquirer had done an "investigation" and had a very reliably sourced story.

Bristol Palin 2008 pregnancy, for one.

Danny Pintauro from Who's the Boss is who I was thinking of now that I racked my brain. When he talked about his HIV positive status this year he said that back in the 90s the Enquirer called to them him that they were running the story with or without him. He decided to give an interview because he couldn't stop the story and wanted to get behind it. Charlie Sheen is probably trying to preempt the Enquirer. Too bad he was forced into it but it sounds like he is a really despicable human being for not disclosing his status.

Is The Enquirer breaking (or trying to break) this story? It first came from Radar Online.

Hasn't he slept with and thus endangered so many p*rn stars that he could, like, singledickedly bring down the whole industry?

Anonymous wrote:If not for the potential infections for the women he has slept with and exposure to his families, is this really news?

I hate to say this, but in 2016 is a celebrity with an HIV+ status a bombshell news story? It does tie in tabloid favorite Sheen and the crash and burn fall of an obnoxious celebrity that everyone seems to love, but I don't know. Maybe because of the sick way it was teased out has everyone on the edge of their seats.

It's a bombshell because of his promiscuous and blatantly dangerous sexual activity since being infected. He has endangers many many people by not being up front about his condition earlier and still being so recklessly promiscuous. If he had been conscientious and curtailed his wild boy antics and not endangered so many people, it would have been much less news, but he's probably put many dozens of people at risk over the last few years and that's pretty reprehensible. He may also be in danger of criminal charges or expensive lawsuits. If they determine when he was infected, any of his subsequent sexual partners who he did not inform, may charge him with assault. There has been legal precedent that HIV positive people who engage in unsafe sexual practices without informing their sexual partners have been charged with deadly assault or granted large suit damages.

He's probably in a world of legal and financial troubles.