According to the latest National Enquirer. Courteney and Jennifer will now be able to compair bumps, except Courtney apparently hasn't got one yet.
Jennifer is pregnant
Dec 9, 2003, 7:18 AM ET86 posts by 15 posters
86 posts
OMG, Chris......are you EVER going to get off this pregnant kick of yours??? Also, why do you continuously believe every word the NE prints???? It's lies, lies, lies! (p.s.- it's "compare" not "compair") ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:37:41 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Although, I was thinking, what would happen if Jenifer Aniston was pregnant? We could have Rachel, ending up with Ross, but at the end she discovers she is pregnant and, while Ross is happy, she is thoughtful because she remembers a one-night stand with Joey, a night we were not aware of. That could be more tangled than a single episode of "The Bold and the Beautiful". :)
Sebastiano
Sebapop wrote:
Well, leaving aside the fact that the _National Enquirer_ is notoriously unreliable. . . . .
If this were true, JA couldn't be very far along. She probably wouldn't even begin to show until after production had wrapped for the season.
This is true since they are taping the final episode next month. ~~~ Kathy
"Belphoebe" wrote in message news:XbnBb.4528$[email]...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:42:12 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Next month? Really? I didn't know. Well, this time I do hope that spoilers won't leak out, these episodes are our last chance to have something new about Friends. After the finale we won't have more, we'll live on mirror images. Let's enjoy what's left.
Sebastiano
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:59:35 GMT, "Belphoebe" wrote:
Yes, I was only joking. NE is trash.
Probably. We'll never have "Joey, the Bold, and Rachel, the Beautiful". :)
Sebastiano
That would be such a disappointment for us Joey and Rachel fans to be denied the episode where they finally "did the deed"!!!!! ~~~ Kathy
"Sebapop" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:28:24 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
At this point I do not care if Rachel ends up with Ross, or Joey or even if Ross ends up with Joey. I only hope that the finale will be worth watching. It's the finale of Friends, good is not enough. It should be terrific, extraordinary, awesome! Top-notch! We shall remember it. I do hope it, but I fear it's not gonna be that good. I fear I am expecting too much.
Sebastiano
Sebapop �crivait
remember seinfeld's last episode. what a disappointment !!! so I don't expect so much about this episode.
On 11 Dec 2003 11:15:40 GMT, jonkalak wrote:
I've never watched Seinfeld, I don't know if it has ever been aired in my country. Anyway, there are rumors about Seinfel being released on DVD on late 2004, if that's true, I'll buy it.
I can't help myself. I already know I am expecting too much and that's the key to be disappointed. But I can's stand mediocrity, not in the finale of a show like that.
Sebastiano
you didn't miss much.
jonkalak wrote in message news:...
Exactly. Expect a "feel-good" (boring) finale where everything is neatly wrapped up and all of the conflicts are resolved.
In article , schumy2 @lycos.com says...
the last episode of seinfeld was hardly a "feel-good" episode - it sucked mightily, make no mistake, but thats about all it did.
In article , [email] (George Eldredge) wrote:
I liked it. It seemed ironically appropriate.
wg
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:37:41 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Not untill Courteney has a baby, and then it'll be to see how long her marriage lasts, as she'll then have two children to look after.
The NE has sources sources sources in Hollywood though.
Sources who are terribly, terribly, terribly misinformed, though. All the NE and the other tabloids want to do is to sell papers and they've learned by years of making up lies or having "just enough truth" to convince the reader standing in the supermarket checkout line they know what they're talking about. However, once you open up the paper and read the story, you learn they know nothing more than is already common knowledge. Like I've told you in the past (on several occasions), do not believe it until you actually HEAR her say it herself.
On another note, though -- 1) why are you so very, very interested in whether CA's marriage will survive after children? CCA and DA seem to have a very solid marriage. 2) why is it any of your business, anyway? ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
yours???
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:23:34 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
1, David is just a big kid, and as for their solid marrige, at the moment there are two people in it, and David has Courtney all to himself when a baby arrives, IF one ever arrives he'll find he has to share Courteney with the baby, then we'll see how much he's grown up.
2, It's people like me who made them what they are, as no thespian gets very far without an audience. As I've told you before K, they are public property, if she dosn't like the attention of fans she should have stayed in Birmingham.
How do you know David is just a "big kid"? Do you know him personally? Spent enough time around him to know his personality? No, you haven't....you cannot judge someone you don't know. In many marriages, a baby is what makes an immature parent step up and be an adult. I know this personally because it happened to my youngest son when my granddaughter was born. Before she was born, we all were afraid he'd never grow up and be an adult, but when the baby was born, it was just like a light switch inside him clicked and voila! My granddaughter couldn't have a better daddy!
When a person is famous, i.e. politician, actor, sports figure....their professional life SHOULD BE the only thing the public should be interested in, not their private lives. However, in this sick society of stalkers and nosey Nellie's, their personal lives have become, too often, center of attention. It's no wonder celebs get so pissed off at all the papparazzi hounding them 24/7 and following them around town like some deranged pervert just so they can snap a photo of Jennifer Aniston buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks!!! Woohoo! What a coup! Jennifer drinks Starbucks! Now, that's something the whole world should know about!!! NOT!!!!!!!!! ~~~ Kathy
It's
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:23:17 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
No but America does, and the general view amongst Americans is he's a dork.
Yeah but he's not David Arquette who still has his Action Man doll.
When they become hyporcrites in doing one thing in private and another thing for public consumption they are fair game. As an American you don't have the same tabloid press pack as we have in Britain, Micheal Douglas and his welsh wife had a shock when our tabloid press turned on them.
Well that goes with the job. All these assorted celebs would be a dam sight more pissed off if no-one paid them any attention. And if they didn't want such attention then some of them shouldn't act in the way that attracts attention.
There is "good" attention and there is "bad" attention. The papparazzi will devour the most hurtful and private moments in a celebrities life and make thousands of dollars on the photos. That's just not right. Everyone - even celebrities - have a right to privacy. They are, after all, taxpaying citizens who adhere to the same laws as everyone else does. Just because they are a celebrity doesn't make them "open targets" for the rest of the world. Their lives do not govern what we do as individuals. If CCA, JA or LK buys a new pair of Manolo's doesn't mean I'm going to rush out and buy the exact same ones.
It's crystal clear that you folks across the pond have a very different view of the treatment of celebrities than we have in the USA. I don't know about the UK, but here, stalkers get jail time. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
this
was
an
interested
pervert
at
that's
her
Jennifer
hasn't
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:38:18 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Over here as well, but our police are apparently not as star struck as the hollywood police are. And our tabloid press are light years ahead of the tabloid press in America in ruthlessness, thats why Micheal Douglas had such a shock when our press didn't act like the hollywood press which is what he's probably used to.
"And our tabloid press are light years ahead of the tabloid press in America in ruthlessness......."
You say it like you're actually PROUD of that fact!! Sounds like the UK has no respect for a persons privacy - celebrity or not. That's criminal..... ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...>> >~~~
personally?
marriages, a
granddaughter
be
inside
figure....their
papparazzi
coffee
to
up.
of
long
prints????
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:46:04 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Well they make sure no celeb either A list or Z list gets above themselves.
Celebrities are fair game here.
"Kathy" wrote in message news:...
actually, that's not true. You and i have not run out and bought something that they own, but there are people who do. Jennifer recently wore a shirt that said something like "leave the drama for your mama" on friends, and people rushed out and bought it. There was a surge, so much so that the designer had to have a lot more made. And remember the famous "Rachel do," the hairdo that women all across America (and possibly even oversees) wanted to have, and took pics of jennifer w/ them to their salon.
They did that with Farrah, too. What I meant was, their "behavior" doesn't set the standard for my life. It's not a law. If someone chooses to wear their hair like JA or buy the same clothing, that's a decision made by that individual person. The basis for the comment was made against papparazzi stalking and photographing celebrities doing everyday stuff like shopping, which is totally unrelated to their professional life, IMO. ~~~ Kathy
"hotmamasita" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
buy
In article , [email] (Kathy) wrote:
Actually, US law is less helpful to celebrities than UK law is in one respect: you can, in the US, argue that a picture or story is not invasive because the subject is a public figure. There is no such defense in the UK AIUI.
On the other hand, British libel laws are more ferocious than those in the US, as the burden of proof rests on the person accused of committing the libel.
wg
The rumour mill does *not* count as a source. :)
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:05:23 +0000, Paul Hyett wrote:
Every rumor though has a nucleus of truth. :)
There *are* people who simply enjoy fabricating rumors--they enjoy seeing how widely and quickly they can spread.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:26:33 GMT, "Belphoebe" wrote:
Then it's up to NE to filter the rumours from the non-rumours, which is why they most probably cross reference their stories.
The NE isn't going to filter rumours because that's what their stories are based upon. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:06:12 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
And every rumour has a grain of truth at the centre, or are you saying Matt La Blank didn't get married.
Matt La Blank didn't get married.
I think the grain of truth is that they are trying & they want to get preggers & every month she is a few day late they are hopeful thats why.
Believe me, when its official it will be plastered all over the news EVERYWHERE. Not sure why 2 hollywood celebs gettign pregnant would make such headlines but everyone loves the cutest couple in America & Enquiring minds want to know.
Kukie
MLB's wife is pregnant. That's not news. But, I'm not living day to day on the edge of my seat waiting to hear the "earth shattering" news that either JA or CCA are pregnant! ~~~ Kathy
"ImKukie" wrote in message news:brevrl$2jo9q$[email]...
such
minds
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:38:50 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
I am. ;)
That's only because you're obsessed with CCA and also that you have no life. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
on
either
saying
why.
in
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:08:28 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
I am not obsessed with her, thats Davids job, and I do have a life in the real world. FWIW the only picture I have of her is the one as wallpaper on my screen, and thats going to be changed for the last time on 15 June next year. BTW the Friends official calender here costs $13.82 with the current exchange rate, how much is it in America?
[email] (Christopher) wrote in message news:...
well it's certainly possible that either one or both is/are pregnant. But the National Enquirer is NOT a reliable source. They have reported both pregnancies several times before. And it obviously wasn't true.
On 9 Dec 2003 13:36:43 -0800, [email] (hotmamasita) wrote:
So neither Jen or Courteney is pregnant then?
That's correct. Neither are pregnant. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:17:39 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
So much for all the invetro treatment Courteney has had. Next step I suppose is surrogate mother hood.
Which - again - is none of your business. ~~~ Kathy
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:23:49 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
I am a fan, as she is just so cute, me and thousands like me made her what she is today, so she is public property, and you can bet IF she produces a baby they will have the kid on the pages of a glossy celeb mag like Hello or OK for a fee of course. So don't come that it's none of my business, as they require the public more then we require them.
You can be a fan and think that's she just as cute as a new puppy, but you didn't "make" her what she is today. You cannot take credit for that. She achieved that on her own. Chances are, she and David will try to keep their baby out of the limelight as much as possible. That's the way celebs here are. Except for wacko Jacko who dangles his baby off balconies, but he isn't considered a normal celebrity by any stretch of the imagination. However, I still do not understand your obsession with her having a baby. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
Jennifer
hasn't
pregnant.
reported
true.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:42:08 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Not personally, but thousands of people like me who provide the audience can collectively.
If no-one had watched Family Ties or Friends to make good ratings she'd still be making cheapo B movies that would be going stright to video.
WHEN or IF they ever have one that is.
Babys got to go out sometime then it's click click click... and into the National Enquirer. :-)
True, he's a celeb pedophile.
It's news, and a subject for gossip on alt.tv.friends. ;-)
Ahhh, I finally understand....you love GOSSIP!
Actually, I feel the "Scream" crapola movies are less than "B"......
Papparazzi taking pics of someones baby really isn't the biggest "issue" I have with it. It's when those papparazzi go to extreme measures (i.e., scaling a fence, bushes, etc. and actually violating privacy laws is what pisses me off so much.
Remember what the papparazzi did when Burt served Loni with divorce papers? If it'd been me, I would have slapped harassment lawsuits on each and every one of the tabloid rags that had the gall to send a photographer to B&L's home!!! That was such a sickening invasion of privacy!!! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
you
I
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:53:14 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Err K, 99% of humanity loves gossip, the rest are liars.
No, Scream 123 were B movies, expensive B movies but B movies all the same, as Courteney is that good an actress to play in an A movie let alone carry one, and neither are the rest of the cast.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:53:14 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Err K, 99% of humanity loves gossip, the rest are liars.
No, Scream 123 were B movies, expensive B movies but B movies all the same, as Courteney isn't that good an actress to play a supporting role in an A movie let alone carry one, and neither are the rest of the cast.
In article , [email] (Kathy) wrote:
Really he oughtta be in alt.showbiz.gossip.
wg
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:00:29 +0000 (UTC), [email] wrote:
And you don't love gossip I suppose.
No, I don't deal in gossip. I deal in the truth, facts and what's real and provable. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:42:04 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
So you are the only woman in America who dosn't gossip with your female friends. Gosh. ;)
Probably not. I know lots of women who don't indulge in childish gossip. It seems gossip is more prevalent in the UK. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:09:14 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
What a dull crowd you hang out with.
It's also more prevalent in America as well. Or are you saying that American's are differnt to the rest of us.
1. The crowd of people I "hang" with thankfully are all adult enough to know gossip is for kids. 2. Yes, THANK GOD, we ARE different! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
[email]
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:41:32 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
So what do you talk about?
How?
We talk about our horses, our jobs, our children, our grandchildren.
How? American's don't live and breathe celebrity gossip -- apparently the way UK-ites do. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
to
gossip.
[email]
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:10:44 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Can't stand horses, rode one once, funny to thing that an animal full of grass can be so hard on your butt, Nice to hear you have managed to get another job, can't comment on them, and I certainly can't comment on grandchildren, but I'm a grand uncle so does that count.
America is the home of the National Enquirer though. ;-)
Well, that horse probably couldn't stand you, either. Horses can sense bad riders, scared riders and riders who hate them. Horses are smart enough, though, to be able to tell them apart. Horses will help the bad, inexperienced and scared riders, but the ones that hate them? They'll give the rider the "ride of their life", so to speak.....
I didn't "manage" to get another job....I was hired on my skills and abilities. You make it sound like I finagled landing the job somehow. Thanks so much..... :-p.
Unfortunately, the NE is a real boil on our butts. It's in Florida because no other state will take it and Florida is trying to get rid of them, too! Anthrax was found there. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
the
enough
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:54:08 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
What ever, I prefer horsepower to the real thing.
You are now earning again aren't you?
If the NE goes I won't beable to get my occasianal Courteney fix. :-(
Yes, but not at the salary I made at my previous job. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
because
too!
childish
that
your
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:59:03 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Better then welfare though. ;-)
I wasn't on welfare. I was receiving unemployment compensation. Very different from welfare. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
grandchildren.
full
to
comment
apparently
saying
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:01:32 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Two countries similar lanuages differnt systems then. It's all the same over here, the dole = job seekers allowance.
Over here, welfare is generally for indigent, disabled, elderly, etc. However, we have extreme welfare abuse here. People that receive it that shouldn't be, i.e. able bodied men and women who could work, but don't want to - for whatever reason :-\ ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
them,
:-(
managed
adult
with
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:48:01 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
Same over here, but we give it to economic migrants at the expense of our old age pensioners.
I guess I am the second woman in America, behind Kathy, that doesn't gossip with her female friends. I dislike gossip and do not associate with women who sit around and do that.
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
and
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:12:38 GMT, "EriLynn" wrote:
Maybe you two can get together and form a duet.
There are tons of people who Gossip & many who don't In ALL cultures
I agree that Gossip is horrible but it never fails that everyday somewhere within earshot somone is attempting to share gossip. Sad part is much of the time they don't even realize what they are doing.
gossip
n 1: light informal conversation for social occasions [syn: chitchat, small talk, gab, gabfest, tittle-tattle, chin-wag, chin-wagging, causerie] 2: a report (often malicious) about the doings of other people; "the divorce caused much gossip" [syn: comment, scuttlebutt] 3: a person given to gossiping [syn: gossiper, rumormonger, rumourmonger, newsmonger] v 1: wag one's tongue; speak about others and reveal secrets or intimacies 2: chew the fat; shoot the breeze [syn: chat, confabulate, confab, chitchat, chatter, chaffer, natter, jaw, claver, visit]
Kukie
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:19:43 -0500, "ImKukie" wrote:
Bit like alt.tv.friends then.
In article , [email] (EriLynn) wrote:
Fortunately, you can still hang out with men who gossip. :)
wg
Christopher pisze:
Are you trying to say that Bill Gates, for example, is public property, because millions of people buying Windows made him what he is today? By watching the show you just buy a product - you don't buy an actress herself.
Very nicely said, whiteleaf!! ~~~ Kathy
"whiteleaf" wrote in message news:qkh0nprxyoej$[email]...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:29:02 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:
But a tad misinformed.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:58:57 +0100, whiteleaf wrote:
If no-one had bought Micro$oft products and had instead used Apple mac's instead Gates would have gon bankrupt.
People like me provide the audience and the ratings, are you saying that if Friends had crappy rateings it would still be going 10 later. We made them, like we getting our asses into the cinema made movie stars what they are, lets see how big a stars star shines in hollywood if 5 of there movies become turkeys one after another. Kevin Costner was the biggest star going when he made Dancng with Wolves he was an A* list actor, and look what happened to him after Waterworld. :)
Christopher pisze:
I didn't argue with that, please read _carefully_ my previous posting once again.
No. What made you think I am?
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:00:16 +0100, whiteleaf wrote:
I did, and my answer is still the same. Gates ows his success to the public, the public owns a piece of him--mine is his wallet.
Your previous post.
Christopher pisze:
Nope, his wallet belongs to him. By buying Windows, you don't say "hey Bill, I like you and I want you to have some of my money". It's a transaction - you pay for using his product, giving money for that. From that moment, the money belongs to him only.
It's the same thing with actors. You pay for watching tv not because you like paying. You pay because you want to watch the show, and it isn't free, just like any other work. So you pay and you watch - and the business is over, the money doesn't belong to you any more.
If somebody wants to sell you the show, you can buy the show. If you go to shop and they're selling meat, you can buy meat, not the seller's life.
Which part of it, precisely?
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:26:12 +0100, whiteleaf wrote:
Thespians require an audience to succeed.
This part where you implied: By watching the show you just buy a product - you don't buy an actress herself.
Christopher pisze:
Oh please, you just keep repeating this. I don't see this thread going anywhere, except for becoming a flame, and I don't feel like flaming. EOT from my side.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:27:41 +0100, whiteleaf wrote:
EOT = End Of Eternety? No probs, this thread appears to be just about dead anyway.
In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:
Not even remotely. Microsoft is the biggest single supplier of Mac software.
Gates is, however, public property in the respect that the money he is paid by his publicly listed company and thge number of shares he owns of same are damn well public information and snould be.
wg
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:22:07 +0000 (UTC), [email] wrote:
Only because Mac had no option.
whiteleaf wrote:
That's Christopher for you.... Stupid beyond the wildest imaginations
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:53:44 +0100, cookie dude wrote:
Thats you Cookie Dude....an ignorant piece of shit, talking out of his ass.