Mark Zuckerberg married his long-term girlfriend Priscilla Chan last weekend in the back yard of their home. My first thought was “how lovely for them”, but it seems most people’s first thought was “I wonder what the pre-nup says”.

Hmmmm, wonder when I can get this stupid dress off and ring my lawyers ... probably not what was going through Priscilla Chan's mind

Donald Trump can be expected to head straight for this crass territory, and immediately obliged. But AM reported this morning that after an overnight plunge in Facebook’s post-IPO value, “investors are starting to ask for details about any pre nuptial agreement and what Mark Zuckerberg’s changed status might mean for the company’s long term value and stability.”

I wonder how Priscilla is enjoying her honeymoon, knowing the entire investment world is speculating on how much she could take her beloved for if she decides to cut and run.

The assumption that Chan, who has just completed her medical degree and is about to start training as a pediatrician, is someone from whom Facebook must be protected is horrible.

As this cravenly-put piece by Reuters pointed out:

Though there’s no indication that the Zuckerberg wedding had anything to do with the IPO, its timing couldn’t have been better. At least if the pair ever decide to divorce.

The ice hasn’t even melted in the happy couple’s margaritas, but the piece when on to explain that because the wedding came after the IPO, it’s now easier to place a dollar figure on Zuckerberg’s wealth at the time of their marriage, against which to compare his wealth at the time of their (possible) divorce.

Whether or not these legal repercussions had any impact on the timing of the Zuckerberg wedding is unknown. But if they weren’t, the Zuck may have just lucked out.

Maybe Zuckerberg “lucked out” by finding a woman who loves him and supports him and also has her own life. If you want to know more about Priscilla Chan, take a look at this.

Considering a few billion has been wiped off her new husband’s wealth in the three days they’ve been married, Priscilla’s probably got other things to do than plot her inevitable trip to Family Court.

Most commented

88 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Kika says:

      11:46am | 22/05/12

      Hmmm… I don’t know. I don’t know how truthful the facebook movie was. But if her depiction on the movie is anything like the real Priscilla… she seems like a real catch. Ahem.

      Did she convert?

    • SimpleSimon says:

      12:04pm | 22/05/12

      I don’t recall her being depicted in the movie???

    • simonfromLakemba says:

      12:34pm | 22/05/12

      Was she the asian chick in it? the asian chick in it was a skank, although hot..lol

    • Lyla says:

      01:01pm | 22/05/12

      Nope, she wasn’t depicted in the movie.

      From IMDB:

      “One notable change made for the film is that the film totally ignores Zuckerberg’s long time girlfriend Priscilla Chan. The film makes Zuckerberg out to be a lonely socially maladroit nerd who has casual sex with groupies but no meaningful relationships and, even at the height of his power, is still pining away for his college girlfriend. In reality, Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan began dating in their sophomore year at Harvard, around the same time Mark was creating Facebook, and have been together ever since.”

    • Kika says:

      02:13pm | 22/05/12

      No I can clearly remember he had a crazy Asian girlfriend in the movie for a little while. The one who flipped out that day.

    • Kika says:

      02:13pm | 22/05/12

      BUT does anyone know whether she converted to Judaism to marry Mark? Hello! That was my main question.

    • egg says:

      02:48pm | 22/05/12

      @Kika, Eduardo Saverin had a crazy asian girlfriend in the movie, not Mark Zuckerberg.

      Lyla/IMDB are correct.

    • Jeremy says:

      03:03pm | 22/05/12

      @Kika - You’re thinking of Eduardo Savarin’s crazy Asian gf (who burns the scarf and stalks him). But she isn’t Marks gf nor was she based on Priscilla.

    • Lyla says:

      08:46pm | 22/05/12

      @Kika.

      ‘Did she convert?’

      Can’t really find anything to say whether Chan converted to Judaism or not. It’s generally the custom - Isla Fisher and Sacha Baron Cohen didn’t marry for years because she had to convert first.

      But according to most reports, Zuckerberg was raised a Jew but has since declared himself an atheist. So who knows?

    • Kika says:

      12:09pm | 23/05/12

      Lyla - Judaism goes deeper than just the religious level! We’re talking about marrying Jewish women to make sure the kids are Jewish. That’s why they ask they convert first.

    • ShamWow says:

      11:46am | 22/05/12

      I still don’t get why Zuckerberg hasn’t cashed out. Get out now and enjoy your life.

    • M says:

      12:46pm | 22/05/12

      Some people have a constant drive. Quitting is never an option.

    • Rickster says:

      11:49am | 22/05/12

      Who’d of thunk that selling horse feathers and hens teeth wouldn’t make a profit? Not to mention Rocking horse shit and white elephants.

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:54am | 22/05/12

      This just goes to show the idiocy of divorce and settlement laws around the world.

      People should only get back out what they directly contributed. None of this “support” drivel especially when you can’t even say she did that because MZ had already created FB before they ever met and she didn’t contribute after that.

      Even stupider is when a guy has been working in a professional capacity for years and the wife sticks her hand out for half when her salary and contribution was nowhere near his. I can guarantee none of the wives were in the office winning clients or doing any work. It’s not like he couldn’t have done it without her because it was all him to begin with.

      This was an absurd concession given to the rad-fems by a bunch of spineless politicians trying to win votes. It should be over-turned.

    • Chris says:

      12:17pm | 22/05/12

      How do you place a value on a wife’s contribution who stays home, keeps house, and looks after the kids?  I would imagine a dollar value is difficult to put on that type of contribution, isn’t it?  You cannot compare having a stay-at-home mum to hiring a live in nanny, tutor, cleaner and chef, although maybe that’s the only way to approach it?

      C

    • Tim says:

      12:51pm | 22/05/12

      Chris,
      I think it’s fair that if both people start with nothing and decide that one of them will stay home look after children, the house etc while the other works, that they deserve half each.
      But where one person has significant assets beforehand, I don’t think it’s fair that the other party gets more than a small percentage of those assets.

    • Bill says:

      01:38pm | 22/05/12

      Tubesteak, marriage is a partnership.  Nuff said.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:55pm | 22/05/12

      In all partnerships the partners take out of it what assets they contributed when the partnership ends. If one partner chooses to not make a contribution then they have nothing to take with them. End of story.

      The idea that it’s about valuing their contribution (which still isn’t half unless the wife did ALL of the cooking/cleaning/child-minding) then it should be valued that the man did all of the financial provisioning and should be able to take the financial assets.

    • blogster says:

      07:12pm | 22/05/12

      @ Tim

      Ahh no.  One doesn’t exist without the other.  One person working in the office can exist in isolation - but a partner keeping a house can’t without money coming in. 

      In event of separation that person can a) get a job and support themselves b) get welfare or c) what can often happen - find some other sap to play the same role.

    • Emma2 says:

      08:48pm | 23/05/12

      Oh and what then tubesteak? Have the woman and her children living on the streets? Or in commission housing if they’re lucky? Society doesn’t work like that and thank god the laws changed otherwise that would’ve been my fate as a youngster when my dad left us after passing his medical specialty exams. Mum stayed home for seven years to raise me and my brother and to support my dad through his medical career. Then he got what he wanted and left. Haven’t seen him since and I was 9. Again I repeat, thank god there were laws in place to protect my mum and my brother and I. Mum then went back to school, got her senior cert. then went on to get her bachelor at uni and the rest is history. We, as a little family of three would not be where we are now if the government hadn’t passed the laws that saved us. We all have degrees and collectively earn more than 290K a year now. That beats slumming it on the streets because my dad was allowed to take off with the lot.

      Use some sense tubesteak and try to be a little bit more community minded.

    • AdamC says:

      11:55am | 22/05/12

      How absurd. Most ultra-rich moguls with large stakes in public companies have spouses. Why would Mark Zuckerberg be any different, and why would a divorce necessarily have an impact on Facebook’s stock price? (One assumes no Court would be idiotic enough to oblige Zuckerberg to precipitously cash out a proportion of his Facebook stake to make good and asset split.)

      Facebook investors should be more interested in the company brains trust’s ability to seriously monetise their amazing platform. As it is, whenever they try to implement anything that might enable Facebook to turn a buck, loud groups of members - who seem to have a very possessive attitude to Facebook - tend to kill the move.

    • SimpleSimon says:

      12:07pm | 22/05/12

      What I think is funny is every time Facebook changes, you see a million posts saying “change it back!!” evidently by people who forget that they were the ones complaining when the last format appeared as well…........ That reads very poorly, and might not make sense, but I’m hungry.

    • Pass says:

      12:09pm | 22/05/12

      Facebook is a passing fad.
      Someone will come along and eat their lunch in the next few years.

      Look at the wiley Murdoch. Bought myspace in July 2005 for $580 million. in June 2006 myspace surpassed Google as the most visited website in the United States.
      On June 29, 2011, Myspace was sold for approximately $35 million.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      12:58pm | 22/05/12

      @ pass, myspace never had 900 million users.  Its business model was completely different, so no real relevance to FB

    • Pass says:

      01:23pm | 22/05/12

      Sure thing Keith
      myspace isn’t a social working site never was. What alternate universe do you live in?

      myspace 2006 passed 100 million users
      facebook 2008 passed 100 million users
      Nothing to see here except Keith

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      01:43pm | 22/05/12

      and FB has 900 million users, and an entirely different business model,  but yeah they are both social networking sites…
      Shoe company 1 goes out of business does this mean Nike is doomed?
      same relevance

    • AdamC says:

      01:52pm | 22/05/12

      My view is that Facebook’s platform itself is far more resilient than MySpace’s ever was. Even more so than with search, there are tendencies to monopoly with social networking, as everyone wants to be on the platform that all their friends are on. The challenge is how to get Google-like returns from Facebook’s model, when so many people are so hostile to the sorts of measures that would enable this to happen.

    • Punters Pal says:

      04:08pm | 22/05/12

      I just cannot see Facebook ever having a same success as Google. The main reason is function - people go to Google to search for things or information and the whole business model is working around AdWords and paid searches. Facebook meanwhile is a social networking site which at this stage relays mostly on advertising. Despite of the large number of users, most users earn nothing to Facebook. Good luck for them to try to charge people for use, most casual users will just leave.

      In future, people will look back and will be amazed anyone paid $38 per share.

    • Tim says:

      11:56am | 22/05/12

      All the talk shows is just how ridiculous the divorce laws are that she could possibly be entitled to any of his money in the first place.

      It’s not like she was at home looking after kids and sacrificing her career so he could bring home the bacon. 

      Can anyone honestly say that they think she would deserve any of his money if they got divorced?

    • Fred says:

      12:48pm | 22/05/12

      I think she would deserve some, but certainly not half. I think life is much easier and more motivating for a guy if he knows he’s getting some at the end of the day.

      I think we should bring back at fault divorce. That’s something that Abbott should do.

    • M says:

      11:59am | 22/05/12

      I doubt she’d be all that worried about losing a few billion here and there. She’s married to the man who created the biggest social network in the world. I don’t think she’ll file for divorce.

    • Gregg says:

      12:11pm | 22/05/12

      She’s probably a lovely lass and in studying medicine you’d think she has a good mind with feet firmly planted and all but don’t some wedding photos make people look a bit odd.

      That one at the top in article linked, in the corner of the backyard as King Geek and the bride both having geeky looks, heads not very symmetrical and all.
      Hopefully they go on to have many more decades of bliss and little geeks geeking about.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      12:18pm | 22/05/12

      You’d think that a young billionaire who has had an entire movie made about him by Hollywood, could pull a pretty hot babe, if not a drop-dead gorgeous Victoria’s Secret model. No, geek-boy goes for a plain-looking woman who you wouldn’t look at twice in the street or when ordering Chinese takeaway. Suggests he is pretty unstable.

    • PJ says:

      12:37pm | 22/05/12

      She’s gorgeous and I hear very bright, so he’ll never be bored.

    • M says:

      12:37pm | 22/05/12

      Or, maybe they’re genuinly in love?

    • Fred says:

      12:50pm | 22/05/12

      They’re the real deal. It shows character and honour for him to stick with her rather than go on the prowl for a ho.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      01:06pm | 22/05/12

      M, how charmingly old-fashioned. A guy like Zuckerberg doesn’t ‘fall in love.’ He uses game theory to calculate the likely market effects of familial stability vs personal fiscal risk; commissions a think-tank to research the psychological effects of male non-pairing; and finally, uses probability to determine the likely IQ of his progeny/future heirs. There is no love in Silicon Valley for Gen y-ers, only risk and rewards.

    • Alicia says:

      01:19pm | 22/05/12

      I think it’s nice that he hasn’t let his fame and fortune go to his head and has stuck with the girlfriend he had before he hit the big time. They obviously love each other and I think it’s sad that people are already talking about potential divorce. Why not just be happy for them?

    • M says:

      01:30pm | 22/05/12

      I did say maybe…

      If they’re going to split, I’ll bet good money on him doing the splitting instead of her. Zuckerberg is a high status male, she’d be hard pressed to find a better deal than him. Money isn’t everything, status and power have their influence on hypergamy as well.

    • mike says:

      01:32pm | 22/05/12

      she looks lovely to me,,and if you look at the timings she was with him before he became mega wealthy so at least he knows its not only money ,i wonder what your woman looks like.if she is not a model you must be unstable,what a dick you are

    • Not a Facebook Fan says:

      01:44pm | 22/05/12

      I think it suggests the opposite. Coming from somebody who never really liked Mark Zuckerberg, knowing that he hasn’t gone for some stereotypical ‘hot babe’ who is nothing more than eye candy makes me respect him MORE. The fact that he has gone for someone who he clearly has connected with intellectually and emotionally rather than someone he has essentially bought says a lot about him. You sir, are the one who seems unstable.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      02:15pm | 22/05/12

      Mike and Non-Facebook fan:

      You are assuming MZ has the same emotions, needs, wants, vulnerabilities as you and me. You are wrong; no-one with his drive and hunger is like you and me. So your crack about what my own wife looks like is not valid point - for your information she is quite comely thank you. He is a freak who fills his mind with freakish things. But lucky for his new wife, he doesn’t appear to have a strong need for Alfa(lfa) Male stuff, such as hypergamy as M puts it. But make no mistake, he is not like us at all, and please don’t compare him to me, I take it as an insult. FB is a stupid program that only lowers the collective intelligence of the hoi polloi.

    • Kika says:

      02:16pm | 22/05/12

      I’m with you Scotchfinger. She’s bigger than him and I’ve seen better heads in a Fishmarket.

    • John says:

      02:35pm | 22/05/12

      “A guy like Zuckerberg doesn’t ‘fall in love.’ He uses game theory to calculate the likely market effects of familial stability vs personal fiscal risk”
      Really? So I take it you’re a mind-reader or an extremely close personal friend? Or are you just someone living in another country who has watched a movie and read some articles in the news about him and think that means you understand his every emotion and understanding? Another armchair expert.

    • subotic BookFace says:

      02:47pm | 22/05/12

      subotic status update:

      Kika - Hanger-outta of local fishmonger joints….

      “LIKE”

    • M says:

      02:51pm | 22/05/12

      “he doesn’t appear to have a strong need for Alfa(lfa) Male stuff, such as hypergamy as M puts it.”

      Hypergamy is the phenomenom of women dating/marrying up, it’s not a male need, but a female drive.

    • miloinacup says:

      03:02pm | 22/05/12

      Scotchfinger - the man who knows the inner workings of a total strangers brain.

    • egg says:

      03:03pm | 22/05/12

      @Scotchfinger, there is something wrong with you. You tell everyone here to stop assuming how MZ thinks, but then go ahead and tell us how *you* think he thinks? Well, you must be right, because you said so!

      Seriously, you know him as well as anyone here, and your opinion is worth as much. Just try to remember that before giving someone shit for disagreeing with you.

    • mike says:

      05:54pm | 22/05/12

      your wrong about this scotch,even freaky geeks have emotions,and kika i imagine your a fat white girl jelous of her so petty insults demeans you not her,but i must admit i have always found asian girls the most delicate and beautiful but i come from boganville mount druitt so what would i know??i have married a miss phillipines ,she left took my house but wow was she beautiful plus 18 years of me is enough for anyone,then married a chinese beauty,,she left took another house but again she was worth it now im looking for trhe next ex mrs mike,,and i hope its pricilla chan

    • Kika says:

      12:12pm | 23/05/12

      HA - Jealous fat white girl. Not quite.

      Sounds like you have a racist stereotype in your head that all asian women are demure and lovely. You are Sir, and A Grade idiot. No wonder why your wife left you. Don’t be fooled.

      Listen. I have many asian friends and a lot of them are beautiful. But this chick is particularly scrubberlicious.

    • Just some guy says:

      12:34pm | 22/05/12

      A plant to destroy Facebook? One can only hope.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:42pm | 22/05/12

      Obviously, it’s important for THEM to discuss.  That’s just being smart.  Marriage is still a merging of assets, and I’m sure they nutted out a deal they were both comfortable with.

      The rest of the world discussing it though, is just bloody rude.

    • M says:

      02:05pm | 22/05/12

      If I were Zuckerberg, I’d be pretty comfortable with a water tight prenup.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:52pm | 22/05/12

      @M, I don’t think these things are always a black and white decision.  Like I said, no one is privy to the finer details of their relationship, and as such, it is crass to assume anything about him, her, the fortune and who owns what.

    • M says:

      03:53pm | 22/05/12

      It’s pretty simple to me. If zuckerberg were smart, he would have done it like this:

      “I’ll commit when you commit to not run away with half my shit. You sign the paper, you get the ring. “

      That’d be a deal I’d be comfortable with were I in his shoes.

    • HeatherG says:

      09:48am | 23/05/12

      Geez, M. She was with him when he was a no-name geek (before it was “trendy” to date geeks) with no money thinking about creating FB. I think that’s fair evidence of commitment.

      I’m with Elphaba. None of anyone’s business.

    • Timinane says:

      12:43pm | 22/05/12

      For me it was the photo I saw of the couple that inspired the thought.

      Chan looked smug while Mark had this dorky grin.

      Just made me think the smugness was “oh yeah, I got me a rich one” while Zuckerburg looked like he was thinking “Oh yeah, finally going to home base tonight”

    • Tchom says:

      01:47pm | 22/05/12

      Yeah, women are all gold diggers and nerds never get any! Football! FOOTBALL!

    • blogster says:

      01:02pm | 22/05/12

      Predictable the punch would come out with this.

      Trump made the comment - it’s not the case of the whole world wondering - the media created a story out of it, which you Tory are part of.

      Tory, please specify about what is crass about protecting your wealth which you are responsible for?  Do you feel a woman should be entitled to it even though she had nothing to do with it?

      The assumption you talk about isn’t about Facebook per se, rather the incentives and encouragement women have to cash out on marriages.  And Zuckerberg’s situation is ripe for the picking. 

      Women initiate approximately 70% of divorces in America, there is a 70% divorce rate in some counties of California.  I would think it would be prudent to consider the issue.

    • RyaN says:

      01:07pm | 22/05/12

      Obviously some still remember the dotcom boom and bust!

    • Bob Higgs says:

      01:30pm | 22/05/12

      Dotcom business looks like replicating the property market in a 15 year cycle.  Just long enough for the next generation to arrive with some cash unaware that busts do happen.

    • Good Grief says:

      01:18pm | 22/05/12

      Funny how the media (and the general public) seems to have a prejudice against the rich and famous; in that they will never find a meaningful relationship.

      Why is it that whenever we see an actor, billionaire, or singer marry someone, the first thing we ponder is “well, I bet he/she married him/her for his/her wealth/fame/status, wonder how long this is going to last”. Is it jealousy? Is it so hard for us to accept that someone so successful is also capable of finding true love? I think that deep in our hearts, there’s a green eyed monster that constantly believes, “someone that successful has to be lacking in something to be THAT successful. He/she can’t always win”.

    • M says:

      01:41pm | 22/05/12

      Kim Kardashian
      Brittany Spears.

    • Good Grief says:

      01:55pm | 22/05/12

      @M

      yeah, but you have people like Kim and Brittany (who make destructive life decisions) who aren’t famous nor rich and still end up in divorces. I think that just boils down to personality

      I agree one thing though, when you become rich and/or famous, you tend to attract more attention. Most of that attention are not altruistic (in this age of materialism and entitlement) and reciprocating the wrong attention can end up with disastrous results.

    • Gayle says:

      01:23pm | 22/05/12

      What nasty comments.  How dare people speculate like this.

    • tourist says:

      01:56pm | 22/05/12

      yep… sad people with sad speculations.

    • subotic says:

      02:49pm | 22/05/12

      Yes, how dare people have their own damn thoughts or opinions, esp when they’re not the same as yours, Gayle.

    • PeterV says:

      01:37pm | 22/05/12

      She’s been there for him almost from the start. She shared the tough decision with him on whether to cash out for $1Bn to yahoo and now he’s worth easily $15Bn+ she’s influenced him in countless ways and I’m sure Zuck just told the world what he thinks she’s worth to him by marrying her. It’s his money to lose anyway. None of your business, or mine really.  I recall all the same moaning about when Bill Gates married Melinda, but hasn’t that worked out well? An especially good outcome for the charity world.

    • Hmmm... says:

      01:39pm | 22/05/12

      as the world is speculates ??

    • Woodsy says:

      01:46pm | 22/05/12

      A glorious reflection of the current world we live in.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:10pm | 22/05/12

      So sad woodsy but so true!

    • Al says:

      02:06pm | 22/05/12

      I personaly think that anyone who gets married without a pre-nup is simply an idiot (regardless of their sex).

    • Inky says:

      02:19pm | 22/05/12

      See previous comment from Woodsy.

      I just don’t plan on getting married, seems the simplest solution.

    • Jane Jetson says:

      02:14pm | 22/05/12

      What misogynistic insults. Does a man’s fast fortune really need protection from a woman entirely able to provide amply? Especially when he retains control to lose the fortune faster? What some people really value, really isn’t worth digging for.

    • Mr Spacely says:

      02:41pm | 22/05/12

      This from the person that has a female robot slave, steals her husbands wallet on the way to work and is such a lazy b***h even got a treadmill to walk the dog. Hell, you don’t even cook, food pills my ass!

      You wouldn’t even know what work is. Your the prime example of why a man should protect his wealth from a woman!

    • Mike says:

      03:05pm | 22/05/12

      Yes, Jane, in the current legal framework a man’s fortune does need protection from litigious ex-spouses, particularly those that know they don’t need to make an effort to support themselves since they can milk their poor unfortunate ex and essentially retire from the work force.

    • Sucker-Boy says:

      03:49pm | 22/05/12

      +1 Mike

      I’m currently enjoying a divorce that WAS fairly amicable until my ex-wifes new lawyer pointed out that she could employ his services and ask for “spousal maintanence” as a reward for years of geting used to the perks of a high income earned by her husband that she no longer wanted to be with. I mean why go out and work when you can continue to have your social life subsided by your ex-partner for no valid reason beyond some bizarre sense of entitlement?

      No Jane Jetson. Guys need to protect themselves. You have NO idea how vulnerable they are in a divorce.

    • blogster says:

      05:20pm | 22/05/12

      on topic jane:

      http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8471305/ex-wife-gets-6000-a-week-to-fund-lifestyle

      how can ANYONE justify NEEDING $6000 a week?  How can you justify demanding any amount of money (other than to care for a child) from someone you want nothing further to do with and did nothing to earn in the first place?

      I go to a restaurant and eat steak, like it and become accustomed to it.  Does that mean the restaurant owes me a steak when I leave too?

    • Craig McDonald says:

      02:56pm | 22/05/12

      “As this cravenly-put piece by Reuters pointed out:

        Though there’s no indication that the Zuckerberg wedding had anything to do with the IPO, its timing couldn’t have been better. At least if the pair ever decide to divorce.”

      ... you mean the article I just read on news.com.au, which then linked to the Punch? Surely the Punch wouldn’t be involved in anything so craven.

    • Sandra says:

      03:03pm | 22/05/12

      Just a thought here - but given that they have been together since BEFORE Facebook.  Perhaps the lady has been paying her share or more while he was building his business. It has been known to happen. She has certainly been living through the stress and development.

    • blogster says:

      05:14pm | 22/05/12

      please give me a break.  while she’s been working as a teacher and studying to be a doctor?  after an undergraduate degree? 

      And how does living through the “stress and development” qualify you for a share?  She has not been building it last time I checked, he has.

    • Sam says:

      03:37pm | 22/05/12

      the true value of facebook is a little over $250 000 but congratulations anyways zuckerberg.

    • SydneyGirl says:

      04:49pm | 22/05/12

      Hey Priscilla the sisterhood says hullo, looking nice there and good on you for letting Mark out in that tie! We also advise you to take him to the drycleaners in due course. Triple the payout if he acquires a Trump Toupée.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      05:28pm | 22/05/12

      I know that Priscilla reads The Punch, so she is almost certainly nodding her head knowingly as she prepares a list of chores for her small army of domestic helpers. Oops, apparently I don’t know what she is thinking at all! Or anyone!! How dare I speculate on how she thinks!!! Her mind is a Secret Grotto that no-one else has access to. Right, John, Mike etc?

      Clearly no-one here is familiar with Gilbert Ryle’s Concept of Mind, where he debunks the myth of the Ghost in the Machine. *mutters at the Philistines*

    • SydneyGirl says:

      05:49pm | 22/05/12

      Hey Team Mark is out in full force and oversharing today. I am assuming Peerless Priscilla of the lowly degree has far more time on her hands to read comments on The Punch. Go Priscilla, its a woman’s duty to drain a man of all his wealth thereby restoring the balance of the universe! Don’t let the side down!

      This is the Punch. Evoking Gilbert Ryle will result in you being asked to sod off. Unless you can connect it to Craig Thommo.

    • AnthonyG says:

      06:28pm | 22/05/12

      Does anyone know how much she cost?

    • James Mathews says:

      07:54pm | 22/05/12

      In affect I think that with Priscilla Chan, Facebook wouldn’t have introduced the world’s biggest Organ Donor database and other Health & Wellness features, in face Facebook has been the world leader in creating an open environment for everybody including the media that have found it a useful tool. I think that she isn’t a plant to destroy Facebook in fact she’s improved it

    • Loxy says:

      10:20am | 23/05/12

      Tory, I too was sad to see so many comments around divorce and pre-nups etc following the wedding, however I think it is a symptom of a much bigger problem. The concept that someone would be entitled to half or more of someone’s fortune after a split is idiotic - however the family courts in USA and Australia follow this principle. The sad reality is that it is far more often men who get the raw deal in the event of a split, especially if kids are involved. I’m guessing Chan has an easy life, top school fees paid for by hubby, free accommodation and all life’s luxuries. I don’t begrudge her that, in fact I think she deserves it as she has been with him for a long time and before he made his wealth. However, to award half his fortune to Chan if they split is plain wrong and investors have every right to be nervous. Until they change the laws in this area, people will continue to be cynical and negative.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter