Courtney told Extra that she and david are expecting. After so many problems, i'm glad she finally gets this.
it's official: courtney's pregnant!!
Jan 6, 2004, 7:02 PM ET53 posts by 13 postersalt.tv.friends
53 posts
"Janie" wrote in message news:[email]...
Christopher should finally be happy ;^)
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:34:15 -0500, "me" wrote:
Not until I see the bump. :-)
Why would that make you so happy? It's not your baby! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:54:35 +0000, Diana Jones wrote:
In his - and not only - dreams.. :)
And, BTW, I spent the New Year's Eve in London and I bought a copy of the National Enquirer. Damn, it's pure trash, but now I know that "TV's Sex and the City is driving women wild"! ;) And Jennifer Aniston ended the bitter fight with her mom. What a news! Let's say that for 99p I had some fun, and since I lost the plane and spent 18 hours in Luton Airport, I just needed it.
Sebastiano
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:36:30 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
True but a bump would be evidence that her spokesperson--can't she talk for herself--isn't talking out of her ass.
Please, let's refrain from using the "bump" description.......
After everything CCA and DA have been through to have a child, I'm quite sure they wouldn't appreciate their baby being referred to as a "bump" by a fan. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:00:56 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Bump diddy bump bump, bump bump.
You mean a couple of rich pampered thespians able to afford the services of top shelf fertility doctors..
Well it isn't a baby yet. And Courtneys got a long way to go yet, she may even miscarry again. It ain't over till it's born. And then David will have to take a back seat.
It doesn't matter if they're rich, poor or in between -- a miscarriage is a very traumatic experience for a couple to go through. Fortunately for the Arquette's, they DO have the means to be able to afford good physicians for this sort of thing. Actually, you should be HAPPY for them instead of being so damn pessimistic.
Also, why would David have to take a "back seat"? Here in the States, fathers tend to take an active interest in their children with sharing responsibilities with mom. It's called being a FAMILY. Apparently, that must be something you male Brits don't care for...... ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
Very childish, Chrissie.
a
OUCH!!!!! Resist Chris Resist!!!! Use the Force Luke lol
That was a low Dig Kathy Lets not Stereo type all the British Males together in one negative lump Speaking from my own personal experience with American Fathers there is no room to be throwing stones. The ideal "family" as you are painting it is a rare American dream most kids grow up having no clue what a functional one is.
So lets throw up the white flag before the flame wars start....
Kukie (who grew up w/ a few loser dads & has brothers who fall seriously short as role models to their kids as well)
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but Chris is being very presumptuous when making a statment like "David will have to take a back seat, now." It's common knowledge that David and Courteney have wanted a child for a long, long time, so I seriously doubt anyone will be taking a back seat in that family! ~~~ Kathy
"ImKukie" wrote in message news:bti17t$7jud0$[email]...
that
as
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:26:43 -0500, "ImKukie" wrote:
The Dark Side is to powerful. ;-)
ImKukie wrote:
Don't you ever learn? There's a reason why your newsreader comes with a killfile function... Leave dumb and dumber alone with their intercontinental prejudices and do something more useful with your time. Like counting Bill Gates's money or something ;)
How funny, doodey! It's amazing to me how jealous Europeans are of American wealth! ~~~ Kathy
"cookie dude" wrote in message news:3fff0649$0$7760$[email]...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:42:30 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Celebs tend to go crying to the media when it happens though.
We British are pessimistic by our nature.
I baby fills up a house, and Courteney will be devoting time to the baby [if it gets born] unless she has a nanny, it might go all sweetness and light for a while, but sooner or later frictions will happen. David I suspect being the semi juvenile that he is will not like having his nose put out of joint so to speak, as eventually he'll want some 'quality time' [a silly American expression] with Courteney and the baby will keep getting in the way.
[email] (Christopher) wrote in message news:...
That's not true. What a ridiculously stupid statement. How could you say that? If your wife had a miscarriage (celebrity or not), it would be a very upsetting situation that you would not want to share with the world. The only reason the public knows about courtney's miscarriages are b/c paparazzi and tabloids went prying, and courtney eventually just told her story to barbara walters last year.
On 8 Jan 2004 11:59:16 -0800, [email] (Janie) wrote:
Because it's true.
The attention of the hollywood paparazzi goes with the job. If Courteney didn't want it she should have stayed in Birmingham.
Barbara Walters works for the ABC network so telling her is like telling all of America.
in america, spokespeople, also known as publicists, do not just make random statements and confirmations. They make statements to the public on behalf on their clients, hence the term PUBLICIST. They talk first to the celeb, so they are not "talking out of their ass." Courtney isn't talking, i would assume, b/c it's generally accepted that celebs have their publicists and managers speak about rumors and such to the public...
On 7 Jan 2004 16:05:00 -0800, [email] (Janie) wrote:
Thespian celebs are apparently not able to think for themselves then.
Why are you obsessed with the word "thespian," BTW?
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:04:40 GMT, "Belphoebe" wrote:
Because thats what Courteney...and David are.
Over here, though, we call them "actors." ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:24:23 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Same thing except Courteney is an actress as she is a woman.
No, actresses in America now prefer to be called actors. "Actress" seems to be too gender specific. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:53:32 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Really? Well, I've learned something new today. I'll keep that in mind, just in case I have the pleasure to be back in the US and the luck to meet an actress, a female actor, or what-the-heck I am supposed to call her. :)
Sebastiano
Sebapop wrote:
how about "dude" - works with everyone IME ;)
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:43:13 +0100, cookie dude wrote:
If you happen to bump into more that one actress you could use 'you guys', even if someone would like 'gals' better. I prefer 'guys'.
Dude is ok, someone might use 'mate', others might write it 'dood'. ^_^
Sebastiano
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:53:32 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
And whats wrong with that. You see the oscars having an award for best actress, not best female-actor.
I don't have any idea why female actors prefer actor over actress, but they do. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
to
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:05:40 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
I do, it's called 'political correctness' a loopy description of a stupid ideology that started in southern California and which has done immense damage to British society.
Sure, but it's a little bit like saying, "Excuse me, I have to micturate" every time have to pee. It's more like something you might say once for effect, not every single time the topic comes up. ;)
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:44:15 GMT, "Belphoebe" wrote:
Well with the case of Courteney I have to be pedantic. ;)
So, in other words, when it comes to Courteney, you're ANAL! ~~~ Kathy
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:09:14 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
No, I'm pedantic.
Pedantic = another fancy, schmancy word for ANAL! Or, in the definition for pedantic, ostentatious is used, which means unduly conspicuous; pretentious; boastful. What do you have to be pretentious about? ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:35 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
I'm probably the only 'fan' of Courteney who is considerate enough to regularly send her a Christmas and Birthday card. :-p
I doubt that. However, that little piece of info isn't something that borders on stalker? ~~~ Kathy
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:44:41 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Yeah. Be interesting to know how many Birthday and Christmas cards she does actually receive from her fans.
For which I have always said I'm no stalker, for me to visit America now and start stalking means I have to 1, Get a passport, 2, Go down to London and que for up to 3 hours to get a visa, 3, Pay Uncle Sam �67 for the privilage and 4, Go all the way to Los Angles on the 12 hours flying flight before I can even start stalking. Sod that, I'll just stick with sending her a Birthday and Christmas card.
As opposed to how many are actually mailed?
But as your love for Courteney is so deep and committed, isn't all that red tape worth it? ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:38:28 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
That would also be interesting to know. Does she get a train load mailed to her every June and December, or a post bag full, or just a handful?
Love, loVE, I have never once ever said I loved her, either on this newsgroup or on a card. Love her?????????? I think she is very attractive, just so adorable and incredibly cute, but love her, narr, I have never even met the lady, so that's a moot point. If she had got rid of that semi juvenile she's married to and was single again, and I was rich enough to keep her in the style she is used to AND much more, and our orbits crossed, plus IF we got on then that would be differnt as I could possibly see us together in a 'relationship'. But she's not, I'm not...yet, and they don't.
No. I may be a fan but I will not 'jump through hoops' to be in the same area as her. Besides I wouldn't know where to look for her in Los Angeles even if I was inclined to stalk her.
"Belphoebe" wrote in message news:PkTLb.5185$[email]...
Maybe he found the thesaurus like Joey did?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:15:24 -0500, "DarkeSword" wrote:
Oh thats low, compairing my with the lovable dim wit.
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:54:35 +0000, Diana Jones wrote:
I like Courteney, but not that much. ;-)
[email] (Christopher) wrote in message news:...
well it's confirmed. Her reps confirmed it and it's been all over tv on all those shows like extra, ET, access hollywood, etc...
On 7 Jan 2004 07:15:50 -0800, [email] (Janie) wrote:
I'll wait till it's in the National Enquirer as we in England don't get those TV shows.
When it shows up in the NE, it'll be one of the VERY FEW times the NE has printed something other than lies and fabrications about celebs!! However, it will be OLD news by then! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
Well, if they print enough crap, then by the law of averages they're bound to get it right sometime. :)
Ah Yes the national enquirer because gullible minds wanna know
here read all about it http://tinyurl.com/2mcft
Kukie
[email] (Christopher) wrote in message news:...
Oh, that bump has been there for a while.... it's called "middle age spread"
Not unless he's the father! :)
It even made CNN Headline news and cnn.com
That would make her due sometime between late July and September/first part of October. (depending on how far along she is).
Except that Alexis Arquette (David's drag-queen brother) actually spilled the beans on a talk-show (I think it was Sharon Osbourne's) in October. I think she waited until she was fairly far along before confirming because she's been disappointed so many times.
Donna My opinions might have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
_Entertainment Tonight_ reported that she's due in the spring, which would mean somewhere between March 18 and June 21.