Weld_E

I mean one saved the others career in 2020. So no, i'm not surprised.

A top 10 would suffice. Care to share that list? "wHy Do yOu CoMpArE gAgA tO sOmEOnE wHo DeBuTed 10 yEaRs LaTeR??!1111" For the same reason you've been comparing Gaga to artists who debuted a decade earlier? Liddos are always READY with them excuses that somehow ONLY apply to Gaga. That wheel about to fall off at any moment now

All of a sudden Liddos lost their spreadsheets and Spotify daily stream counts to justify voting for Gaga, lol.

Her performance skills are giving a girl performing in her bedroom to an imaginary crowd. The arm flailing and pointing is just embarrassing at this point compared to the other MPGs.

SO WHY COULDN'T THEY TELL HER THAT IN THE STORE WHEN SHE ENQUIRER??? That's her whole point! They immediately assumed she couldn't afford it so they didn't even bother offer to reach out to the creator because they didn't deem her a "serious buyer"

So once again:

So why couldn't they tell her that? "This item is not for sale, but if you want a similar piece that's the price the artist is selling it for" Instead she got: "Yes but it costs $15000 so let's find you cheaper alternatives" It's not that complicated.

The essays, the meltdowns, the deflections At the core of the story, Gaga had a nasty attitude and was unnecessarily rude even if she didn't know Stephanie would show up. She couldn't even be cordial and polite.

Everyone on Twitter is on Kelly's side so ATRL loses again

Why was it put on auction then???

I've never encountered a store displaying an item with a price tag that's not for sale. The footage released shows her pointing at the price tag, which effectively proves her point. He informed her of the price and immediately dismissed her as someone who couldn't afford it. The entire "you can buy it from the artist for that price" argument only emerged after they were exposed for having an actual price tag, something they could have easily communicated to Kelly when she inquired about it. Why didn't they? Either they assumed she couldn't afford it or they concocted that ridiculous excuse afterward. Also after two statements and multiple interviews, they still failed to address her main point of their rude and dismissive behavior.

None of that was explained to her then and was only articulated in their SECOND statement, so it's completely irrelevant to her experience then. Again, in the shop itself, when she asked about the bird, the response was:

Translation: It's for sale, just not to her. They priced her out before she asked and offered a cheaper substitute she never requested. What made them assume she couldn't afford it?

Which of her two smashes is bigger: Nicole or Ain't in LA?

That's not what they told her and that was not even mentioned in their original response. They only made that claim after they got clocked. Also, why would she take offense she they said "you can buy another piece for the same price"? That doesn't make any sense.