I'm sorry, but if the Queen can disavow her own kid for his affiliation with Jeffery Epstein, and Bill's wife can do the same, we can disavow Bill Gates. Just because he has money doesn't mean a damn thing w/r to whether we have to hold him to any regard. He's proven over decades to not be a good person. There's a reason Paul Allen ended his relationship with Bill Gates.

I didn't know about Paul Allen, but after searching it seems the top result is about how they managed to regain some friendship: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/bill-gates-patched-things-paul...

I know very little about Gates but can only find information indicating Epstein wanted to do business with him under the guise of it being a great benefit to charity, which in the end turned out to be a ruse of some sort. Perhaps it's untrue, but I don't see damning evidence. There are photos, but surely there are hundreds or thousands of photos of Epstein with people. Is there something that you know that I'm not finding?

When Paul Allen found out his cancer was terminal, Bill phoned him a number of times and Paul refused to take those calls. So much for friendship.

Do you actually believe Melinda Gates divorced him because he wanted to do business with Jeffrey Epstein in a philanthropic fashion?

I don’t believe much about situations I know only what media has enabled me to know.

If I were to assume anything, I’d first guess that a healthy marriage could endure a questionable relationship. If it did in fact end over that, it could have been due to underlying issues rather than something more scandalous.

I’d also guess that Epstein also did legitimate business, and with many people we don’t point fingers at.

Given that with the limited information available, I can’t draw a conclusion.

The difference between Prince Andrew and Bill Gates is that Andrew has been (credibly) accused of sexual abuse, whereas Gates was – as far as we know – just friends with Epstein. Maybe there's something more, but there's no evidence of it – it's not even clear how close they were, exactly.

I mean, Prince Charles and Jimmy Savile had a friendship of sorts; the queen didn't disavow Charles because that's all it was. The problem with Andrew wasn't really his relationship with Epstein *as such*, but the things Andrew did.

So are you suggesting he be completely shunned from society? Why not let him try to atone for his sins and try to do good in the world by giving away a large portion of his wealth to noble causes?

I'm suggesting not to hold him or his money in high regard. He's not worth mentioning.

Aren't the causes that he is championing worth mentioning tho? Why is there a need to purge him from current public discourse when he did something bad in the past? I don't think we should disprove of bad people doing good things. Just because he did something bad doesn't mean he can no longer make commendable contributions to society.

The causes yes, Bill, not so much.

Wow, it's like you're suggesting statutes of limitation on bad reputation? That's like depending on a populace have the memory of a goldfish for that to work. Oh, wait. Damnn, you're genius /s