Sad report: Sharon Stone aneurysm
Win Place
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From CNN:
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Sharon Stone was under observation
at a hospital on Monday after suffering what appears to have been a
brain aneurysm. The 43-year-old actress was hospitalized Saturday for
bleeding on the brain, according to her publicist, Cindi Berger.
Stone's husband, San Francisco Chronicle executive editor Phil
Bronstein, took her to a hospital emergency room because she was
suffering severe head pain.
An angiogram showed the likely cause was a tiny aneurysm that required
no treatment. Berger said Stone, who was resting comfortably, probably
will remain hospitalized the rest of the week.
"I spoke to her and she sounded great," Berger said.
steve
On 1-Oct-2001, winpl...@eudoramail.com (Win Place) wrote:
> SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Sharon Stone was under observation
> at a hospital on Monday after suffering what appears to have been a
> brain aneurysm. The 43-year-old actress was hospitalized Saturday for
> bleeding on the brain, according to her publicist, Cindi Berger.
Is this real? Or is it like her phony cancer story?
steve
--
"It aint me, man, it's the system."
Charles Manson
Mark Brader
> > at a hospital on Monday after suffering what appears to have been a
> Is this real? Or is it like her phony cancer story?
CNN says it's real:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/News/10/01/sharon.stone.ap/index.html
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Information! ... We want information!"
m...@vex.net -- The Prisoner
ANIM8Rfsk
She had a phony cancer story? I've never heard that one. I've never believed
her 'super high IQ claim' story though.
Andy Averill
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20011002122553...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Or her story that she was shocked when she saw her beaver onscreen in Basic
Instinct.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
steve
On 2-Oct-2001, "Andy Averill" <nospa...@lisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > She had a phony cancer story? I've never heard that one. I've never
> believed
> > her 'super high IQ claim' story though.
> >
>
> Or her story that she was shocked when she saw her beaver onscreen in
> Basic
> Instinct.
Recall about 4 or 5 years ago she announced that she had cancer, but had
cured it through homeopathic medicine. Neither was true. When she was
called on it and confessed, the press virtually ignored it.
I was shocked to discover she wasnt all there. So rare in LaLa land.
Rosanne
I am truly sorry if she is suffering from an aneurysm. But, what amazes me is
that most of us live a life time without so many illnesses or unusual things
happening to us.
Just a short while back Sharon Stone and her husband Phil Bronstein were in the
news. They were visiting a zoo and her husband "was allowed" to step into the
cage/compound of a dangerous lizard, and of course he was bitten. Now he is
supposed to be in an anger control course.
Another Sharon incident, she just happened to be at a restaurant near where a
robbery was happening in a jewelry store and a plain closed armed policeman
grabbed her!
kuei...@-remove-hotmail.com
Sure you're not thinking of Suzzane Sommers?
Also, according to her mrshowbiz bio (yeah, I know) she is a member of
mensa and entered university at age 15 on a scholarship.
steve
On 2-Oct-2001, kueikutzu@-remove-hotmail.com wrote:
> Sure you're not thinking of Suzzane Sommers?
Nope. I'm sure about this.
And when I'm sure, I'm right almost half the time!
> Also, according to her mrshowbiz bio (yeah, I know) she is a member of
> mensa and entered university at age 15 on a scholarship.
So you can sleep your way into mensa, too, huh?
ANIM8Rfsk
Instinct. >>
LOL - I'd forgotten abou that. What did you THINK the guy with the light meter
was doing between your legs?
Jeffrey Davis
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
The shot looks like an animation, a la Jessica Rabbit. It lasts some tiny fraction
of a second and "reveals" far more than available light would have allowed. I can
easily imagine that she was shocked.
Win Place
Here's the account:
http://www.wired.com/news/meanwhile/0,1252,0-2001~6,00.html
Dragon Attack
June 11, 2001 The executive editor of San Francisco's Chronicle
newspaper, Phil Bronstein, underwent foot surgery over the weekend
after being attacked by a Komodo dragon at the Los Angeles Zoo. He and
his wife, actress Sharon Stone, were on a private tour of the zoo when
Bronstein entered the Indonesian lizard's cage. Bronstein was
instructed to remove his white tennis shoes -- to keep the 5-foot-long
reptile from mistaking his feet for the white rats it is fed. But it
attacked Bronstein's shoeless foot anyway, crushing his big toe.
Bronstein was able to pry open the lizard's mouth and escape through a
small feeding door in the cage. "We're very grateful for the
professional care of the people at the hospital," Stone said. "And we
certainly don't blame the people at the zoo."
Here's another POV:
http://mrshowbiz.go.com/newsarchive/news/2001/6/stonekomodo062501.html
Bronstein vs. the Dragon — The Saga Continues
The Phil Bronstein vs. the Komodo dragon saga has taken yet another
strange twist: The Los Angeles Zoo recently gave its own account of
the June 9 attack, one that contradicts what both Bronstein and his
actress wife, Sharon Stone, have said about the beastly encounter.
When a giant Komodo dragon attacked the San Francisco Chronicle
executive editor, his movie star wife provided a gripping account of
Bronstein's bare-handed bravery in subduing the massive 7-foot lizard.
Now, the Los Angeles Zoo says that a zoo worker actually forced the
dragon to release Bronstein's toe as Stone screamed hysterically.
"Komo without warning bit Phil on his left foot and held on," reptile
keeper Jay Kilgore said in a written account of the attack in the
dragon's cage, which Bronstein and Stone were touring as part of a
behind-the-scenes look at zoo operations.
"I grabbed Komo by his neck and yelled at him. He let go after an
estimated one or two seconds. I pulled Komo away from Phil and yelled
at Phil to get out of the exhibit. After a delay of perhaps 10 to 15
seconds, Phil stepped out of the exhibit. I had been repeatedly
yelling at Phil to get out," Kilgore wrote.
The eyewitness accounts, required by the zoo in cases of animal
mishaps, were obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
The reptile keeper's version of the dragon attack differs from
accounts offered by Bronstein and Stone, which credited Bronstein with
besting the 4-year-old, 55-pound Indonesian monitor lizard.
Bronstein's own newspaper, in its June 14 account of the incident,
said the editor "slammed his foot down, anchoring the dragon's lower
jaw to the ground. … Bronstein pried the dragon's upper jaw off
his foot, hobbled away, and dived for the door."
The official zoo report also gave a slightly different version of
Stone's role. While crediting the movie star with using a sock
tourniquet to stanch the bleeding from her husband's toe, they said
she then stepped out of the enclosure to make cell phone calls to
relatives.
"She was hysterical," Genie Vasels, an official from the Greater Los
Angeles Zoo Association, the fund-raising arm of the zoo, said in her
written account. "I tried to calm her down. She said that the bite was
bad, down to the bone."
The zoo said the general curator, Michael Dee, then called for an
ambulance as zoo workers applied ice packs.
"He looked scared and pale," Vasels said of Bronstein. "I apologized
to Phil. He kept shaking his head, saying, 'This is not your fault, it
is not the zoo's fault. I made the choice to go into the exhibit.'"
The Times noted that Stone, who initially said she did not blame zoo
officials, this week publicly denounced them as "irresponsible" for
letting her husband into the Komodo's enclosure.
Stone's publicist, Pat Kingsley, told the newspaper the different
accounts were devolving into a "he-said, she-said thing," and added
that she had no trouble believing Bronstein's version of events.
"He was a war correspondent," Kingsley noted, curiously. "He's used to
difficult situations."
Bronstein is still recuperating and taking antibiotics. A Komodo's
bite can be deadly if not treated.
Zoo officials said Bronstein was invited into the lizard's enclosure
after taking off his white sneakers and white socks, which they feared
the dragon might mistake for its favorite snack — white rats.
Bronstein, who suffered ripped tendons and a crushed big toe, told the
Saturday Chronicle that he was sticking to his story but hoped the
whole thing would blow over.
"This was a bizarre accident that became something far larger than it
should be. But that's how it goes when a movie star and a dragon are
involved," he said.
Rosanne <ros...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<3BBA1E92...@dslextreme.com>...
ANIM8Rfsk
fraction
of a second and "reveals" far more than available light would have allowed. >>
Uh - you ARE kidding? You think thats animation?????????
Kevin FilmNutBoy
The giveaway was when her labia broke into a rousing rendition of "Bad to the
Bone."
--Kevin
***
"The only thing infinite is our capacity for self-deception."
Jeffrey Davis
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
No and yes. As in '"reveals" far more than available light would have allowed.'
Try a little experiment. (I haven't done this. I'm making this up as I type.) Wrap
a doll in a small blanket. Put the head at one end. Create a little tunnel with
the remainder of the blanket. Say 18" long with an "aperture" of around 3".
Maximum. How much detail of the doll's head can you imagine seeing from a distance
of several feet? How much light do you think would fall on the doll's head at all?
I imagine what happened on the set was that Verhoeven had Stone flash the camera.
They later "sweetened" the shot by adding in far more light than would have been
possible absent on set illumination by disco laser lights. If they needed shadows,
they added shadows. Hence, what the audience saw in its half second of titillation
was no more the "real" Sharon Stone than Jessica Rabbit's flash was real.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> E Pluribus unum
Nimrod``
wrote:
Hmmmm. Me thinks you've devoted far too much unhealthy attention to
this area, Jeffrey....
N``
ANIM8Rfsk
camera.
They later "sweetened" the shot by adding in far more light than would have
been
possible absent on set illumination by disco laser lights. If they needed
shadows,
they added shadows. >>
Nope. Nope for a lot of reasons, mostly technical. But here's a big one - if
they'd done something like that, I guarantee you we'd have read interviews with
the guys that did it - it would be their big claim to fame. They'd get a
really hysterical credit, too. And Basic Instinct was pre digital - you're
talkin stone knives and bearskins here.
What happened was, they spent hours setting up and lighting that shot, making
sure lots of light got all the way up her dress, and then she made this
ludicrous comment about not realizing they were doing it.
The Avocado Avenger
>What happened was, they spent hours setting up and lighting that shot, making
>sure lots of light got all the way up her dress, and then she made this
>ludicrous comment about not realizing they were doing it.
When I saw the interview when she said she didn't know what was going
on, it seemed unbelievable to me, even though I had not watched "Basic
Instinct" yet. Having seen it since then I have no doubt that either she
was so dumb she didn't know what they were doing with all those lights, or
she was lying.
What a horrible movie that was. Men get all worked up about the cooter
shot when, to my mind, the scenes of Michael Douglas in a low-cut v-neck
sweater and gold chains were more noteworthy. It was as though he didn't
realize he had a big, hairy, ugly man-chest and instead thought he'd flash
some cleavage. Yucko.
The real tragedy is that I saw "Basic Instinct" on a weekend I also
rented "The Untouchables" and "Strange Days". I'm lucky I didn't slit my
wrists after that triad of bone-achingly bad movies. The finale was the
B-grade erotic thriller "Night Eyes", clearly the best movie in the group.
Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
http://world.std.com/~stacia/ * Full of sound and fury,
There is no guacamole anywhere. * Signifying nothing.
Nimrod``
Avenger) wrote:
>anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) writes:
>
>>What happened was, they spent hours setting up and lighting that shot, making
>>sure lots of light got all the way up her dress, and then she made this
>>ludicrous comment about not realizing they were doing it.
>
> When I saw the interview when she said she didn't know what was going
>on, it seemed unbelievable to me, even though I had not watched "Basic
>Instinct" yet. Having seen it since then I have no doubt that either she
>was so dumb she didn't know what they were doing with all those lights, or
>she was lying.
> What a horrible movie that was. Men get all worked up about the cooter
>shot when, to my mind, the scenes of Michael Douglas in a low-cut v-neck
>sweater and gold chains were more noteworthy. It was as though he didn't
>realize he had a big, hairy, ugly man-chest and instead thought he'd flash
>some cleavage. Yucko.
Exactly! I remember seeing that shot where Douglas comes cruising
into the disco with that v-neck sweater and honestly thought at first
that they were playing it for laughs, only to realize fairly quickly
that they weren't. It really was a dreadful, dreadful movie.
N``
ANIM8Rfsk
rented "The Untouchables" and "Strange Days". I'm lucky I didn't slit my
wrists after that triad of bone-achingly bad movies. >>
LOL
Finally, somebody else who doesn't like 'The Untouchables'!
Nimrod``
wrote:
Hell...I agree with both of you. THE UNTOUCHABLES sank on arrival,
mostly as a result of another watery performance from Kevin Costner.
It was all much b.s. about nothing, a trumped-up, empty affair.
N``
Wafa Eata
infamous scene or the film "Basic Instinct. Fortunately, my
collection of porn more than makes up for that sore deficiency.
"Andy Averill" <nospa...@lisco.com> wrote in message news:<3bba0...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
Andy Averill
"Wafa Eata" <waffl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:67b43792.0110...@posting.google.com...
> I'm proud to admit that I haven't been suckered in to see that
> infamous scene or the film "Basic Instinct. Fortunately, my
> collection of porn more than makes up for that sore deficiency.
Yes, you're right to be proud.
Bob
Andy Averill wrote:
> "Wafa Eata" <waffl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:67b43792.0110...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm proud to admit that I haven't been suckered in to see that
> > infamous scene or the film "Basic Instinct. Fortunately, my
> > collection of porn more than makes up for that sore deficiency.
>
> Yes, you're right to be proud.
>
>
Yes, I bet he's got "ONLY" the highest quality porn.
Bob
steve
On 4-Oct-2001, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Yes, you're right to be proud.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I bet he's got "ONLY" the highest quality porn.
> Bob
Uh, so you guys hide your eyes? Pictures of nekkid chics doesnt do anything
for you?
Please.
Andy Averill
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:9pj1dq$n4k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>
> On 4-Oct-2001, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, you're right to be proud.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I bet he's got "ONLY" the highest quality porn.
> > Bob
>
> Uh, so you guys hide your eyes? Pictures of nekkid chics doesnt do
anything
> for you?
Um, no, actually. Fortunately I think most people understood the point I
was making.
> Please.
I love it when you beg :>)
Bob
steve wrote:
> On 4-Oct-2001, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, you're right to be proud.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I bet he's got "ONLY" the highest quality porn.
> > Bob
>
> Uh, so you guys hide your eyes? Pictures of nekkid chics doesnt do anything
> for you?
>
> Please.
>
> steve
>
There is one hell of difference between a nude photo of a beautiful woman, and a
photo/film/tape of people ACTING fucking. If you don't know the difference, I
feel very sorry for you. IF you want porn, that's fine for you, go for it.
After you have grown up, and had some experience in sex, you soon find that
there is a definite limit to the amount of things that two (or more) people can
do with each other THAT DOES NOT HURT - and I am not into pain. I find no
originality in port. That's just personal.
Bob
Steve Oldham
wrote:
Porn is a sad ugly business.
Steve
steve
On 5-Oct-2001, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> There is one hell of difference between a nude photo of a beautiful woman,
> and a
> photo/film/tape of people ACTING fucking. If you don't know the
> difference, I
> feel very sorry for you.
Actually I do know the difference and I prefer the nude woman (as my message
implied). In fact I prefer nude girls in the flower of youth. The
transition from young girl to woman is a beautiful thing. But I digress. I
just find it hypocritical when people take a condescending stance against
feeding the libido.
Perhaps that was not what you two were doing, and that may be because you
interpret the word "porn" rather strictly (and, I suppose, correctly) to
exclude artistic erotic material. OK. But if you read the original message
you will see that Wafa provides no description beyond the broadly used
"porn", so I suggest your strict interpretation may do him a disservice.
Further, though I don't choose to watch it myself, I would not disparage
anyone who enjoys the material you describe. Whatever blows your hair back,
barring personal violation, is OK with me.
Bob
steve wrote:
Whatever two or more consenting adults want to do with each other is their own
business, and none of my own. I prefer to not watch it. There is nothing in
sex that is original. Again, (and it IS a part of the larger definition of
pornography), inflicting or receiving pain does not turn me on.
Bob
ANIM8Rfsk
originality in port. >>
Not even in the new Napa vintages?
steve
On 5-Oct-2001, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> inflicting or receiving pain does not turn me on.
Who was talking about that?
steve
On 5-Oct-2001, Steve Oldham <stev...@rocsoft.net> wrote:
> Porn is a sad ugly business.
Much of what people generally (and mistakenly?) call porn is really
wonderful erotic art. Nothing sad about that.
But I do understand and agree with your sentiment as it applies to the low
end of the food chain. Troubled people in an ugly business.
Bob
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
Nope. Although the chocolate dolcetti I acquired last week
at Viansa Winery in Sonoma is utterly superb.
Bob
Wafa Eata
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message news:<9pj1dq$n4k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
Bob
steve wrote:
> On 5-Oct-2001, Steve Oldham <stev...@rocsoft.net> wrote:
>
> > Porn is a sad ugly business.
>
> Much of what people generally (and mistakenly?) call porn is really
> wonderful erotic art. Nothing sad about that.
>
> But I do understand and agree with your sentiment as it applies to the low
> end of the food chain. Troubled people in an ugly business.
>
> steve
I saw one porn film, years and years ago, done as a cowboy-comedy. It had
humor and wit, and I enjoyed it. But porn with wit is so damned rare. Most
of it is Hi, my name is Lois, lets fuck.
B O R I N G.
Bob
Patra
Joe Gillis
"steve" (st...@steve.com) wrote:
> Pictures of nekkid chics doesnt do >anything for you?
"Chics"?
I've noticed this spelling online quite a bit recently.
When -- & why -- did "chick" become "chic"?
Why is it chic to say chic? Especially if you're dancing chic to chic...
=================================================
"I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy." -- Samuel Butler
steve
On 5-Oct-2001, "Patra" <pat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> How old are you?
Old enough to see beauty and not just sexual attraction...but not too old
for the latter!
Patra
>
> On 5-Oct-2001, "Patra" <pat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > How old are you?
>
> Old enough to see beauty and not just sexual attraction...but not too old
> for the latter!
>
steve
On 6-Oct-2001, "Patra" <pat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Old enough to see beauty and not just sexual attraction...but not too
> > old
> > for the latter!
> >
> Uh-huh. Thought so.
Hmmmm...are you suggesting something? That attraction to young girls is
unnatural, perhaps?
It is (literally) the most natural thing in the world. Recognizing sexual
maturity in it's earlier stages provided a biological advantage in the days
of evolution. Still applies, though it is politically incorrect to
acknowledge (in much of western culture, anyway).
steve
On 7-Oct-2001, how...@brazee.net wrote:
> I loved it when my daughter was between a girl and a woman. I enjoyed her
> glow and beauty. And her frustration when the junior high girls went to a
> dance and the boys went to the food tables instead of to the girls.
Did she know they were watching the girls out of the corner of their eyes?
Perhaps terrified as well as attracted?
That is a wonderful time of self discovery.
Brian Dickson
Joe Gillis wrote:
> "steve" (st...@steve.com) wrote:
>
> > Pictures of nekkid chics doesnt do >anything for you?
>
> "Chics"?
>
> I've noticed this spelling online quite a bit recently.
>
> When -- & why -- did "chick" become "chic"?
>
> Why is it chic to say chic? Especially if you're dancing chic to chic...
>
Chic please...
-B.
steve
On 6-Oct-2001, cinema...@aol.comedy (Joe Gillis) wrote:
> > Pictures of nekkid chics doesnt do >anything for you?
>
> "Chics"?
>
> I've noticed this spelling online quite a bit recently.
>
> When -- & why -- did "chick" become "chic"?
I'm one of the spelling challenged individuals. Unless I spell check (which
means pasting from my news browser into Word) I might spell the same word
three ways in three tries.
Ivan G. Shreve, Jr.
news:3BC5B5D1...@alcatel.com...
Chic and double chic...
Ivan
--
"There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that's all
some people have? It isn't much, but it's better than nothing in this
cockeyed caravan." ---John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea), SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS