+ Reply to Thread
Page 50 of 1093 FirstFirst ... 4041424344454647484950515253545556575859601001505501050 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 10928
Like Tree4543Likes

Thread: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

  1. #491
    Scrappy Spartan Broadway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,963
    A happy change of pace.... Heidi Klum and Seal have had their new baby... another boy!

    Heidi Klum and her husband, Seal, have welcomed a baby boy, according to the supermodel's Web site.

    Johan Riley Fyodor Taiwo Samuel was born Wednesday at 5:01 p.m. in Los Angeles. "He is healthy, beautiful and looks just like his mother," according to the post signed by Seal.

    In announcing the 8 lb. 11 oz. arrival, the new dad wrote, "To our children, a brother/ To our parents, a grandson/ To my wife and I, a son/ To our family, a blessing."

    The baby is the third child for the supermodel and her second with the British singer, who is also father to the couple's 1-year-old son, Henry Guenther Ademola Dashtu Samuel. Klum's 2-year-old daughter, Leni, is from a previous relationship with Formula One manager Flavio Briatore.

    Klum, 33, and Seal, 43, confirmed that they were expecting another child exclusively to PEOPLE in June.

    The couple began dating in February 2004, while Klum was pregnant with Leni, and married in May 2005 on a beach near the singer's home on Mexico's luxurious Costa Careyes.

    From the start, Seal (real name: Seal Henry Olusegun Olumide Adeola Samuel) was like a father to Leni. "The arrival of any child brings you a lot of happiness," he told PEOPLE last year prior to the birth of Henry. "If we're lucky enough, we'll have more."

    Klum, the German-born star of Bravo's Project Runway wholeheartedly concurs. In August she told Life magazine, "We want to have a lot of children. (Seal) always says that he finds me the most beautiful when I'm pregnant."

    Last November, just two months after Henry was born, the proud papa told PEOPLE that he and Klum "try to spend as much time as possible together. There are days we never get out of our pajamas. We play with the kids in bed, watch TV, cook, hang out."

    Added Klum: "Our kids are a constant source of amusement."
    Never let the things you want make you forget about the things you have.

  2. #492
    FORT Fogey Cornedbeef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Twilight Zone
    Posts
    1,652
    Congrats to Heidi Klum and Seal on their giving birth to a baby boy.

  3. #493
    Kanai Nemeses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In my own world
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Lois Lane;2153424;
    Has anyone seen comedienne Linda Cardonelli (sp?) do her stand up act? I saw one of her shows on cable the other day and I was shocked--and laughing. She skewered every single race/ethnic group, straights, gays, fat people, thin people, etc. There was something offensive to be said about everyone (including herself) and somehow, I wasn't offended because EVERYONE was included. And she was funny...
    I think you're talking about Lisa Lampanelli?

    Funny you mentioned this, as my husband and I were just talking about her a couple of days ago after catching her on Comedy Central. It wasn't the first time we'd seen her, I saw her on the William Shatner roast also. The Comedy Central show was just her doing her standup act.

    No offense, but I find her a true pig in the worst sense of the word. The only so-called comedian I can put her in the same class (in this case, classless) with is Andrew Dice Clay. Yes, she skewers every ethic group, gender, sexual preference, etc., but I find nothing funny in her act. She bills herself as an Equal Opportunity Offender and an insult comic, and that's true enough -- she is all that. However, a comedian can 'offend' in his/her act and be funny, or can insult and be funny... but Lisa Lampanelli isn't funny. If you're going to be an insult comic or comic who offends groups, you need to at least be funny. She isn't.

    I love attending comedy shows and watching stand up acts, and am no prude in any sense of the word, not conservative, and find humor in almost anything, but this gal doesn't have anything creative or funny to say, she simply makes outrageous statements for shock value. I don't find shock humor funny, just pathetic because the person doing it isn't creative enough to come up with real humor, they just rely on shock value. Apparently someone told her once that the only way she'll get anywhere in comedy is spewing shock statements + the most vulgar words she can find, and that somehow this magically turns into a funny comedy act. And that's all her act is, extreme vulgarity + shock comments, no humor. Even Andrew Dice Clay, the pig that he is, had more comedy than she does.
    I live in my own world. But it's ok, they know me there.
    Kid Nation... a sad day for society when the exploitation of children becomes acceptable entertainment for television viewers.
    "Online communities, like the Fort, are very snarky and borderline cynical when it comes to celebrities and their shenanigans." -- Leo, FoRT Writer

  4. #494
    FORT Fogey misskitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In the Kat House in Kanada
    Posts
    7,704
    Broadway: That is good news! Congrats to Heidi and Seal on their new baby boy! They seem so very happy as a couple!

    prhoshay: I saw that Richards got some PR help too! He needs some.
    Live simply ~ Love generously~ Care deeply~ Speak kindly

  5. #495
    Premium Member DesertRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Reno hell
    Posts
    3,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemeses;2153513;
    No offense, but I find her a true pig in the worst sense of the word. The only so-called comedian I can put her in the same class (in this case, classless) with is Andrew Dice Clay. Yes, she skewers every ethic group, gender, sexual preference, etc., but I find nothing funny in her act. She bills herself as an Equal Opportunity Offender and an insult comic, and that's true enough -- she is all that. However, a comedian can 'offend' in his/her act and be funny, or can insult and be funny... but Lisa Lampanelli isn't funny. If you're going to be an insult comic or comic who offends groups, you need to at least be funny. She isn't.
    I remember watching one of her shows at the Comedy Club in Montreal and finding her totally non appealing. I also don't think that shock value equals funny. She might have been funnier had she toned it down a lot.

  6. #496
    Fool... but no pity. Krom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    21,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway;2151519;
    To believe that Mel Gibson "created an entire movie just to express his hatred of Jews" means that 1) you haven't seen the movie, 2) you don't agree with the Bible, and/or 3) you're Jewish. All of those are absolutely fine, but just understand that Mel Gibson did not write the Bible and he did not create the actions or ethnicities of the characters involved in this movie.
    Um. Gibson chose between four different Gospels, and picked and chose the details which best matched his beliefs. The one he MAINLY wound up using, I believe, is the least conventionally accepted. Plus, he also put his own spin on things on screen in any number of other ways--he didn't just sit down and magically have the bible flow out of his pen, literally, and onto the screen.

    Plus, any number of articles you can find on the web talk about how Gibson drew significant details from other NON-BIBLICAL religious sources, like the visions of two mystic nuns named Sister Anne Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. Which do not appear anywhere anywhere in the bible. Any version.

    And I'm not sure how point #3 would follow at all. People can find things offensive which are about other ethnicities.

    Does this mean Gibson wrote the movie just to vilify Jews? Of course he didn't. But that's not the same thing as him writing the movie and being perfectly happy to vilify Jews as PART of his endevour.

    "You don't rehearse Mr. T, you just turn him loose."
    -----Sylvester Stallone, on Mr. T-----

  7. #497
    Scrappy Spartan Broadway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Krom;2154237;
    Does this mean Gibson wrote the movie just to vilify Jews? Of course he didn't. But that's not the same thing as him writing the movie and being perfectly happy to vilify Jews as PART of his endevour.
    And that's the exact point of my statement; that he didn't write the movie strictly to vilify Jews, as corprip had claimed.

    And your example of items that Gibson threw into the movie has no relevance to the "vilification of Jews" argument. Gibson wrote this from an orthodox Roman Catholic perspective, of which mystics are certainly a part. I don't recall the mysticism scene as having any anti-Semitic views; perhaps you can clarify? The details in the movie that most Jews used to accuse Gibson of slander, racism, bigotry, and whatever were not details that Gibson just created on his own... they were Biblical. And it's more than a little unfair to accuse him of writing a movie that vilifies Jews when Jews encompass the majority of positive characters.

    But you're right, how dare he write a story about the cruxifiction of Jesus because Jesus was killed by Jews? That clearly demonstrates his anti-Semitic views, as he could have left out the people that killed him.


    And my #3 statement was an "or" statement, Krom. Of course people of different ethnicities can find things offensive. Hence my outrage at the Michael Richards incident.
    Last edited by Broadway; 11-24-2006 at 12:27 PM.
    Never let the things you want make you forget about the things you have.

  8. #498
    Fool... but no pity. Krom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    21,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway;2154305;
    The details in the movie that most Jews used to accuse Gibson of slander, racism, bigotry, and whatever were not details that Gibson just created on his own... they were Biblical.
    If they weren't in the Bible, can they really be "biblical"? The scholarly writings of later-day scholars are not biblical, especially since many of them are based on "visions" and not just interpretation of the gospels.

    And it's more than a little unfair to accuse him of writing a movie that vilifies Jews when Jews encompass the majority of positive characters.
    You mean like Jesus? Putting him aside for a moment, its not the characterization that's necessarily at fault, its the picking and choosing of only certain pieces of different gospels which suited Gibson's own interpretation, as well as the inclusion of inferences from those scholors.

    Sister Anne Emmerich wrote her book in the 19th century. That's hardly "biblical". Gibson drew tons of material from her book. Actually, several citations I found debate if SHE even wrote the book. Apparently she was some raving visionary, and a writer/poet named Clemens Brentano transcribed her visions and possibly embellished them (which is one of the reasons why her writings, apparently, are not recognized by the Vatican).

    But you're right, how dare he write a story about the cruxifiction of Jesus because Jesus was killed by Jews? That clearly demonstrates his anti-Semitic views, as he could have left out the people that killed him.
    I don't recall saying anything close to that. But since you brought it up, the last time I checked, the very statement that "the Jews killed Jesus" was one of those unverifiable, unprovable statements used to do a lot of harm based on very little proof, and a lot of supposition based totally on interpretation of one or two vague statements in certain gospels, as well as the so-called "visions" of self-proclaimed prophets and seers centuries after these events.

    The plural, "the Jews" is the most disturbing thing, both in the way its always been used to try and present what allegedly happened as a conspiracy, as well as a justification to persecute people totally unrelated hundred or even thousands of years later. The ruling power in Jerusalum at the time was supposedly split between two men, and two alone--Pontius Pilate, the Roman, and the Jewish high priest, Joseph Caiaphas. The high priest supposedly couldn't hand down death sentences, although he did authorize arrests. Pilate was the only one who could authorize a death sentence. Even if he did so at Caiaphas's urging, that's ONE Jew, not a nation. Who, if he was as heinous as has been suggested, hardly takes on the mantle of total and eternal Jewish responsibility as a nation of "God killers". There are apparently some inferences in Sister Anne Emmerich's book about the "High Priests" (note the plural) paying off witnesses to testify against Jesus. Well again, even if that were true, based on the ravings of a 19th century nun, that's not enough to place a burden of murder on an entire people. Now I'm not saying you are doing that, or even necessarily Gibson, but if you wonder why some Jews might have a hair trigger about this, I'm supposing this is part of it. Its just a bit much to say that Gibson is following "the Bible", when he's just another in a long line of people interpreting and putting his own spin on some pretty vague (and often self-contradictory--especially if you factor in the different gospels) words written almost two millenniums ago. Does that mean the story shouldn't be told? No. But it also pulls the rug out from any claims that Gibson is just "transcribing" the Bible. Bull. There's no such thing, and for him to even claim it was the height of ego.

    "You don't rehearse Mr. T, you just turn him loose."
    -----Sylvester Stallone, on Mr. T-----

  9. #499
    Scrappy Spartan Broadway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Krom;2154683;
    If they weren't in the Bible, can they really be "biblical"? The scholarly writings of later-day scholars are not biblical, especially since many of them are based on "visions" and not just interpretation of the gospels.
    Reread my quote, Krom. I never said that putting mystics in Passion was biblical.

    The rest of your post was pretty and educational, but didn't have anything to do with my statement.

    The plural, "the Jews" is the most disturbing thing, both in the way its always been used to try and present what allegedly happened as a conspiracy, as well as a justification to persecute people totally unrelated hundred or even thousands of years later.
    Tsk, tsk, Krom. I certainly hope you weren't trying to accuse me of persecuting an entire group of people. If so, that is one of the more irresponsible acts of reading that I think I've seen anyone perform on here.
    Never let the things you want make you forget about the things you have.

  10. #500
    Fool... but no pity. Krom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    21,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway;2154692;
    Reread my quote, Krom. I never said that putting mystics in Passion was biblical.

    The rest of your post was pretty and educational, but didn't have anything to do with my statement.



    Tsk, tsk, Krom. I certainly hope you weren't trying to accuse me of persecuting an entire group of people. If so, that is one of the more irresponsible acts of reading that I think I've seen anyone perform on here.
    I thought I was pretty clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by Krom
    Now I'm not saying you are doing that, or even necessarily Gibson, but if you wonder why some Jews might have a hair trigger about this, I'm supposing this is part of it.

    "You don't rehearse Mr. T, you just turn him loose."
    -----Sylvester Stallone, on Mr. T-----

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.