On 7/16/2025 at 12:02 PM, j swift said:

It is maddening how a fan can performatively mourn the loss of an actor after being responsible for adding to the discomfort the family must have felt in his passing.  It would seem like anyone with common decency would avoid posting about the topic unless they wanted negative attention from their peers.

Isn't it maddening that someone is so keen to criticize another on topic post that they are right there ready to jump just as soon as the OP posts a link to an article about the soap in question & parties involved in it?

Edit to Add: I wonder if they would think it performative if they knew that elsewhere, where rumble links are completely accepted, that said poster had posted clips of 

Last Day at DAYS

Last Day at DAYS with Deidre

I'm Your Son with Dick Van Dyke

The actor playing a Senator on CRIMINAL MINDS

The actor playing Brian on 7 Brides for 7 Brothers

plus clips with Isabella

 

Edited July 18Jul 18 by Contessa Donatella

Clarification: just to clear my name. Despite the poor syntax in the Countess's post, ⬆️ I wouldn't want anyone to misinterpret the libelous implication that I would ever post video tributes using stolen videos to a MAGA site. I believe she is saying that we've collectively missed the opportunity to watch her other performative posts mourning the loss of an actor after being responsible for adding to the discomfort of his family. 

 

Edited July 21Jul 21 by j swift

22 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Isn't it maddening that someone is so keen to criticize another on topic post that they are right there ready to jump just as soon as the OP posts a link to an article about the soap in question & parties involved in it?

 

It's pretty maddening you are even allowed to post about Drake and use a bunch of stolen clips.  

I know you will tell me it was the worst mistake of your life again, but seriously, anyone with common sense or decency would steer clear of the topic all together.

You are lucky the Hogestyn family didn't sue you.  The least you could do is stop making fake tributes and stop acting all shocked and dismayed when posters rightfully call you out.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DMVkYzqp9is/
1991 Soap Opera Digest Awards
Best Show DAYS OF OUR LIVES!!!
This is the year I said was all bad and also all good. Plus the year I said Dee was robbed. The story of a woman who loved 2 different men ... truly remarkable writing, acting & directing.

These posts were & should be separate. 

You have absolutely no idea of the price that I have paid & continue to pay & since that is so, your opinion on the subject is effectively nil. 

Edited July 20Jul 20 by Contessa Donatella

Donna has mentioned more than once now that she “paid a price” for what happened with the Hogestyn situation. That may very well be true, but what she hasn’t done is show any change in behavior within our community that would suggest she learned from it.

If anything, Donna, you continue to post in the same tone—defensive, attention-seeking, and without any acknowledgment of the damage caused. You still center yourself in stories about Drake. You still deflect when challenged. And you still lash out at people like carolineng who aren’t even criticizing you harshly, just asking for basic accountability.

Paying a price isn’t the same as expressing remorse, Donna. And expressing remorse isn’t the same as doing something differently. It’s hard to see your words as anything other than self-pity dressed up as insight.

No one is forcing you to keep reliving this. That’s a choice you’re making, Donna. But if you continue to insert yourself into discussions that you’ve already compromised, you’re going to keep hearing from people who haven’t forgotten what happened—because you haven’t actually changed.

Edited July 21Jul 21 by j swift

Now someone apparently does not comprehend why I, a lifelong DAYS fan, would post about DAYS. That makes absolutely no sense to me. 

And, someone has mentioned "stolen" videos. I, personally, have no knowledge of anyone stealing any videos. If someone is under the mistaken impression that it is illegal for an individual to own copies of episodes of television shows, or of movies, they are sadly mistaken. That legality was determined in court many many years ago. If it were illegal there would have been no retail ownership of VCRs, TiVos, etc. If you are watching it legally, then you can also have a copy. That's simplistic, but a rule of thumb. Now, if you were somehow stealing the original copy to watch, sure, that would be different. 

My post mentioning Donna was direct, clear, and grounded in behavioral truth. Her post comes shortly after the accountability post, but she doesn’t quote or reference it—because she doesn’t want to respond to the content. She wants to shift the emotional terrain back to her comfort zone: being misunderstood, lecturing about technicalities, and invoking her “lifelong fan” badge as moral insulation. Rather than engaging with the very specific emotional and behavioral critique posted two hours earlier, she turns to quasi-legal jargon and an irrelevant discussion about the history of VCRs and personal ownership laws.

Rather than confront it, she’s now:

• Recasting herself as the misunderstood victim
• Arguing a different topic entirely
• Distracting from community harm with performative innocence
• It's not just a deflection. It’s an evasion strategy built on misdirection.

The Latest Post  — The Faux Legal Authority Play

❌ Illogical Claim #1:

“If it were illegal there would have been no retail ownership of VCRs, TiVos, etc.”

This is a category error. Owning a VCR is not the same as redistributing copyrighted television clips online. VCRs were never illegal—unauthorized public sharing and reproduction is. She conflates personal use with broadcast rights.

❌ Illogical Claim #2:

“If you are watching it legally, then you can also have a copy.”

This is false and ignores the legal distinction between licensed viewing (e.g., via streaming platforms) and owning or copying material. Streaming is not the same as having lawful ownership or the right to upload/distribute.

❌ Poor Logic:

“That legality was determined in court many many years ago.”

No case is cited. No precedent is referenced. She uses the phrase as a rhetorical fog machine—pretending that vague legal “determinations” somehow justify her past behavior. This is argument by assertion, not evidence.

 

Part 2: Her YouTube History — The Involuntary Confession

She was twice terminated from YouTube for:

• Copyright violations

• Spam, scams, and deceptive practices

Yet in her new post, she claims:

“I have no knowledge of anyone stealing any videos.”

But earlier she said:

“They closed me down twice... The 1st time was some unknown entity... The 2nd time they said was for spam, scams & deceptive practices.”

She knows. She just doesn’t accept responsibility. That’s not lack of knowledge—it’s motivated denial.  

The message above is not about whether she’s a fan. So, let me be even clearer. It’s about:

• Her refusal to change her behavior after disturbing Drake Hogestyn’s family

• Her ongoing self-centered tone

• Her lack of remorse and continual reinsertion into sensitive discussions

That’s a choice you’re making, Donna. But if you continue to insert yourself into discussions that you’ve already compromised, you’re going to keep hearing from people who haven’t forgotten what happened—because you haven’t actually changed.

Edited July 20Jul 20 by j swift

Gosh can we just go back and talk about Days in a more pleasant manner

27 minutes ago, AMCOLTLLover said:

Gosh can we just go back and talk about Days in a more pleasant manner

I'm sorry for any unpleasantness. I'm doing the best that I can & I will keep trying. 

“I’m doing the best that I can & I will keep trying.”
—rings hollow because it contradicts her actual behavior.

If she were truly doing “the best she can,” then the bare minimum would be:

• Not continuing to post about Drake
• Not using other posts as props for image rehabilitation
• Not reviving controversy through passive-aggressive legal monologues

Instead, she is:

• Actively escalating with posts about legality and ownership rights
• Responding to accountability with redirection and self-pity
• Prolonging the centering of herself in this chat by avoiding any contact with the actual points raised by others who know her history

That’s not “doing her best.” That’s doing what protects her ego.  And it provides no informational or engaging content with which to participate, either pleasently or otherwise. This isn’t about punishing Donna. It’s about her actions invalidate the integrity of a space for people who do want to talk about DAYS in a meaningful way

Edited July 21Jul 21 by j swift

Look, there is literally nothing I can do about one thing here. But, I will say again what I've said before & that is that it is my belief that we do better when we post about the topic at hand, and not about each other.  But, if someone is going to be contrary & post about me instead, I expect them to refer to me as Contessa. 

Wrong show, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but when it comes to this topic ...

 

4 minutes ago, Franko said:

Wrong show, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but when it comes to this topic ...

 

LOVE THAT DUET but for here, I will counter with this ... RIP Music Man

 

I truly cannot believe that someone is so tone deaf that they will mention Drake Hogestyn’s name after what they did to him and his family. Incomprehensible. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/DMZKeQJJDSV/
DAYS Happy New Year 1991

Roman & Marlena

Bo & Carly

Jack & Jenn 

Molly & Tanner

Ginger & Brian

John & IzzyB

Hawk, Julie, various merry makers

Oh, and Shawn-D who it would seem got a camera for Chistmas