Any sign of a bump yet? It should be showing by now.
Not a thing about it in the latest National Enquirer.
Courteneys pregnancy IRL?
Jun 12, 2003, 10:56 AM ET44 posts by 7 posters
44 posts
Yes, and of course the National Enquirer is the "trusted source" to obtain the true story about anything!!! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:01:30 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Of course it is, its a professionally run celebrity magazine based in tinsel town where the industry is based on film people and their assorted activities.
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
obtain
You gotta be joking right?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:10:59 +0100, "Rach" wrote:
The national Enquirer isn't a professionally run magazine celebrity magazine based in tinsel town. Hmmm why does it have pictures and articles about all sort of famous American thespians in it then?
Correct, the National Enquirer ISN'T a professional run magizine celebrity magazine (?) based in tinsel town.
It's based in South Florida and if you check into the other tabloids, chances are they're not based in Hollywood, either. A rag doesn't have to be based in Hollywood to have pics of celebs in it. Jets fly in and out of LAX on a semi-minute basis. ~~~ Kathy
"> The national Enquirer isn't a professionally run magazine celebrity
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:35:17 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
So not a single source of the National Enquirer is based in tinsel town?
Of course, but if its not professionally run, are you implying its run by amatures, who only work for the NE for part time, and have second jobs?
I'm not sure what you mean by "source", but the paper is published in South Florida. I'm sure they've got a couple of reporters and photographers lurking around in Hollywood, etc. I wouldn't say the publisher or editor or any of the staff aren't "professionals", but they aren't very ethical when it comes to reporting the truth. As for your third question, it isn't hard to email a few photographs and a couple of stories to South Florida. Actually, South Florida (Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Palm Beach) is home to a wide array of celebrities, also.
I'm not sure where you're from, but I'm thinking you're British. If that's the case, there are also tabloids in the UK. I hope you don't think of them as the gospel when it comes to news reporting!! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:45:28 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
English, British is a dieing term.
Depends on which tabloid you mean. The report of Courteney being pregnant was reported in the The Sun, which is more up market then The Sport. As your obviously a yank/American, you'll have more access to story from Hollywood land then me, so any sign of a bump on Courteney?
I fail to understand why you are so interested in this tidbit of info, anyway. That sort of information is strictly personal and isn't the business of the general public. Also, the term "bump" is stupid. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
In article , "Kathy" wrote:
For the benefit of any Americans reading this, I should point out that while Christopher is correct, it's only because The Sport is incredibly far down-market. The Sun is still an unreliable tabloid newspaper.
It's of genuine interest, since if CCA is pregnant, then Monica will be.
Tennant Stuart
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:15:54 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
<nods head>
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:40:48 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
She's the best looking woman on Friends, and her character is most durable and appealing...to me.
She and the rest of the cast are public property, thats the price for being a well know thespian.
Two nations divided by a common language.
She's really not the "best looking" of the ladies on the show. They are all EQUALLY attractive and have their own attractive qualities. Nobody outshines the other. Actors are not "public property." I don't know what archaic society you live in, but here in the states we don't OWN celebrities just because they're celebrities. They are citizens with their own private lives. If we OWNED them, then why did CCA and JA spend thousands and thousands of dollars on security to keep the "public" out of their very PRIVATE weddings????? I suppose in your opinion, it should have been open door, right?
Also, calling a first trimester pregnancy a "bump" is totally disrespectful. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
run
celebrity
and
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:21:05 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Mmm, each to their own.
Oh yes they are. They are thespians who the public by going to see their movies, and supplying the ratings for the TV shows are what made them what they are. Without us they would be nowhere.
Its called British society, and we don't bow and scrape to thespians, as much as they do in America, ask Mrs Douglas if you don't belive me.
A celebrity is just an ordinary person with a well known face who has forsaken privacy as the price of fame.
And when it suits them they make sure they get their faces all over the glossy magazines which deal with such things. And then they have the cheek to complain if they can't get their own way or if it dosn't turn out as they had planned.
Having a elaborate wedding like CC & DA had in the middle of a city like San Francisco plus the JA & BP do on a cliff top is hardly 'private', like Mrs Douglas's nuptual in that hotel, if they wanted to get married so badly they could have done it in a quite way, no fuss no messing around with security. Kate Winslett did it right for a 'private' wedding, Matt LaBlank also did it nearly right.
Well when it start to grow its definatly a bump or, would you prefer saying 'she's got a bun in the oven' then? Thats also a British expression for pregnancy.
So anyone that makes a living because of other people is now public property?!?! That would mean that clothing designers are public property, because people buy their clothes. Farmers are public property, because we eat their food. Construction workers are public property because we drive on their roads...etc,etc. Everyone makes a living because the public demands their goods, and *nobody* would be anywhere without supply and demand. Just because you see the person everytime you use their products (in this case, watch their movies/shows) does not mean you own them.
They may have forsaken privacy, but they have not forsaken property of their own being. And the only reaosn they are forced to give up their privacy is because people become obsessed.
Everyone promotes their business, that's why we have ocmmercials and advertisements... putting their face on a magazine is their way of doing promotional things.
Just because they are famous does not mean they should be forced to sacrafice their wedding day... would you want to do that just because poeple "invited" themselves if you didn't keep it low-key??
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:55:04 GMT, [email] (Jess) wrote:
Clothes designers, farmers... are not in the entertainment industry.
Not so, they become addicted to the lime light.
The tangent was not about advertisements, thats them doing there job, but being in the glossys for private purposes, get hold of an edition of Hello, OK or Heat.
Then they shouldn't make it a public circus.
Id want to marry the woman I love, not turn the event into a circus. If I went for all the bells and whistles, then Id expect a large amount of public intrest. You can't have your cake and eat it.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:46:09 GMT, [email] (Christopher) wrotE:
Doesn't matter what industry they are in.... being in entertainment doesn't mean you should be expected to sign away possession of your own life. There is just no way you should think the actors are public property....that's our point.
I'm sure you have seen many actors trying to get away from the cameras on their personal time... that's not addiction
Don't exaggerate ....you know very well that you wouldn't expect the public to be at your wedding just because it's big.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:25:27 GMT, [email] (Jess) wrote:
Yep, they court publicity.
Then why do they frequent places where the paraprazzi frequent?
Public curiosity and big celebrity weddings go hand in hand.
Celebrities don't "frequent the places the paparazzi frequent" -- it's the other way around. I seriously doubt (with an added bet to boot), that Jennifer says to Brad something like , "Hey, hon...why don't we have dinner at Spago tonight? You know, that's where all the photographers hang out and maybe they'll take our picture!!!"
Celebrities are not public property. Pres. Lincoln freed the slaves for us here in the good ole' US of A!! Celebrities, politicians or anyone else that finds themselves in the spotlight still have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY. I don't know how it works in the U.K., but we have stalking laws here and if you think that you can just waltz up to an actor's door and think you're going to nab a autograph or they'll invite you in for tea, you're going to find yourself in handcuffs in the back of a squad car. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
very
open
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:47:01 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Get hold of a copy of the celeb mag Hello, OK or Heat. Then you can see the fallacy of what you've just typed.
Never heard of any of those three publications. They must be exclusive to the UK. However, from their names, it sounds like three more tabloid rags who dwell on pushing the envelope when publishing a story about a celebrity. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
the
dinner
and
us
if
to
(Jess)
made
a
has
of
their
been
to
fuss
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:34:36 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Not quite as other British posters here will verify Hello and OK are at the top end for quality photographs, and exclusive...items concerning various famous faces. And Heat is a little behind, and has been stealing Hello and OK's thunder so to speak.
"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...
all
celebrities
private
disrespectful.
kathy, dude, you are losing it.
Sorry.....I have a low tolorance for ignorant people. I tend to get a little bit vocal!! ~~~ Kathy
"trisha gg" wrote in message news:[email]...
what
open
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:24:12 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
You also have an ignorance of the way other nations discribe things.
On the contrary -- I feel it's very disrespectful to refer to the early stages of a pregnancy as a "bump." I very much dislike that term. Plus, it still isn't anyone elses business if CCA or JA is pregnant. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
are
very
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:39:17 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Oh don't be such a prude. IF Courteneys pregnant IRL--which seems in light of no additional evidence to be unlikely--she's got a bump, due to having a bun in the oven, and is commonly also expressed round here as been eating to much fresh bread when the bump get big. :p
As an other poster pointed out if she get pregnant IRL that Monica will also have to be pregnant, and as it the final series, then that what the scrip writers will have to put in the script, for our 30 minutes of TV entertainment.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:39:17 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Oh don't be such a prude. IF Courteneys pregnant IRL--which seems in light of no additional evidence to be unlikely--she's got a bump, due to having a bun in the oven, and is commonly also expressed round here as been eating to much fresh bread when the bump get big. :p
As an other poster pointed out if she get pregnant IRL that Monica will also have to be pregnant, and as it the final series, then that what the scrip writers will have to put in the script, for our 30 minutes of TV entertainment.
FYI.....CCA lives in America and hopefully (since she is from the South, yea!!), is a independant, strong woman who would also be offended by referring to her baby as a "bump."
I'm not a prude -- you're just an ignorant Brit. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
They
Nobody
know
own
and
been
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:15:10 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Why is she married then if she's so 'independent' seems she needs a man.
And your an over sensitive American neurotic. Get a life.
Much to your chagrin (and chauvinistic attitude, apparently!), women CAN be married and be fully independent. We CAN survive with or without a man. In America, getting married doesn't equal losing your independency.
You're a total male chauvinist cretin. I guess you want your women barefoot and pregnant, too.....that is, if you LIKE women! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
early
get a
don't
OWN
thousands
their
have
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:06:21 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Much to your surprise (and stuck up feminist attitude, apparently!), women CAN be that over here as well.
Till you want to get pregnant and have a bump that is.
Of course not, they loose that when they get divorced.
And your a stuck up feminist scrubber.
Now your becoming a paranoid stuck up feminist scrubber. Are you a lesbian?
Well I dont like this one!
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
The national enquirer is often full of bullshit to be fair!
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:17:30 +0100, "Rach" wrote:
So when its has an Oscars edition its all bullshit as the oscars didn't take place, and the pictures of the various famous lady thespians on the back with differnt outfits are just made up?
Any newspaper or magazine (tabloids included) can send a photographer to the Oscars or Emmys to snap photos. That's nothing new. I said in another post that the NE is 90% inaccurate in it's STORIES. However, they have been known to "doctor" a photo every now and then!! ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message >
I hate to burst your bubble.....the NE is published in South Florida. It's a tabloid with 90% inaccurate stories in it. The NE has had more libel and slander suits filed against it than any other tabloid in publication today. If you're believing the stories you read in the NE, you live a sad, sad life...... ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
obtain
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:31:11 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Name 12 stories.
I don't normally waste my time or money on the NE. If I'm in the supermarket line, I may pick it up if it has a story about one of the "Friends" cast, but it's usually a story that is already common knowledge. No new information because they don't have that kind of 'clout' to get any more details than what we've already found out through other sources. Stories are "s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d" and altered. Headlines are very misleading, which is what prompts most people to buy one. Then they find out nothing new or any "inside information." It's a rag and is best used lining the bottom of my puppy pen. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
It's
and
today.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:38:05 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Ditto.
"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...
OK, how about this idea, though. The point was that there's no report of any CCA pregnancy in the National Enquirer, and therefore she probably isn't pregnant. Think about this. This would be a big story for the National Enquirer, and they would definitely run such a story if there was any information indicating that CCA might be pregnant, and might even run the story based on information they knew was unreliable, or even knowing that it was false. I think that if the Enquirer ran a story that she WAS pregnant, you couldn't count on that being true, but if they are NOT running any story about an alleged pregancy, she probably isn't pregnant.
Lowell, direct your post to Christopher. My post was meant to be sarcastic. I agree with you 100%. Also, to add to your post for additional though -- IF the NE ran a story saying CCA was in fact pregnant and she really isn't, they open themselves up to yet ANOTHER lawsuit. I don't think they're that stupid. They want to make the readers THINK they know for a fact that she is when all the while, they don't know anymore than we do!! ~~~ Kathy
"Lowell" wrote in message news:Nj7Ga.966019$Zo.219704@sccrnsc03...
obtain
isn't
it
pregnant,
story
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:48:43 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
It was sarcastic, ohh right, Christopher was under impression it was an American attempt at irony. ;)
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:40:45 GMT, "Lowell" wrote:
Then the original report in The Sun was false, ah well, better luck next time Courteney, BTW yesterday was her 4th wedding anniversary.