James was married?
luvthistle1
anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
nimue
> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
information about his private life out there. I heard he used to date Liz
Stauber the actress who played Leslie (Russell Hammond's wife, NOT
girlfriend) in Almost Famous.
--
nimue
"There are things I will not tolerate: students loitering on campus
after school, horrible murders with hearts being removed... and also
smoking." Principal Snyder
"It enrages me to be told I have a temper."
Rose
Tirya
news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> luvthistle1 wrote:
> > I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> > anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
>
> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
> information about his private life out there.
Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
nimue
Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be prepared
to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This doesn't
mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives with
the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
expects a little something in return.
Lianne
"luvthistle1" <luvth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f856e762.03062...@posting.google.com...
> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
Well, what I heard/learned when I was on the Spike Girls mailing list was
that he used to be married to Liane Davis. I don't think she was an
actress, but I could be mistaken. I heard they also had a son together, but
that could be absolutely wrong. When I attended the Origins con in 2000 and
met James, after he asked me my name, he said "Oh, I used to have a
girlfriend named Liane"... so he at least used to date her. After that I
was convinced that he was destined to be with a Lianne, he just pickedt he
wrong one the first time <g>
Lianne
Ken
> Tirya wrote:
> > "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >> luvthistle1 wrote:
> >>> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> >>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
> >>
> >> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
> >> information about his private life out there.
> >
> > Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
>
> Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
> curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be
prepared
> to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This
doesn't
> mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
> that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives
with
> the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
> expects a little something in return.
>
> --
> nimue
Why?
Sure, JM, like a lot of actors, wants PROFESSIONAL fame. Why should he have
to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence and great taste
love his work, but the same goes for the builders and assemblers of Accura
automobiles, but no one demands to who they dated, married, divorced, where
they lived, or dined or visited.
-- Ken from Chicago
BTR1701
<cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> luvthistle1 wrote:
> > I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> > anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
>
> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
> information about his private life out there.
That's why it's called a "private life." Because it's private.
Perhaps the reason there's so little info is because the man likes it
that way.
BTR1701
<cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tirya wrote:
> > "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >> luvthistle1 wrote:
> >>> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> >>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
> >>
> >> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
> >> information about his private life out there.
> >
> > Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
>
> but hey, they have to know
> that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives
> with the public.
They don't have share anything. If people find out, fine, but they are
under no obligation to make regular annoucements about who they are
dating or sleeeping with or whatnot.
> They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
> expects a little something in return.
They can expect all they like. Doesn't mean they're entitled to have
those expectations met.
Shuggie
>Tirya wrote:
>> "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>> luvthistle1 wrote:
>>>> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
>>>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
>>>
>>> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
>>> information about his private life out there.
>>
>> Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
>
>Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
>curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be prepared
>to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This doesn't
>mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
>that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives with
>the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
>expects a little something in return.
The public do get something in return, they get what they paid for, they
get an acting performance.
--
Shug
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.
- Douglas Adams
Jane Davitt
> Tirya wrote:
>
>>"nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>>luvthistle1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
>>>>anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
>>>
>>>If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
>>>information about his private life out there.
>>
>>Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
>
>
> Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
> curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be prepared
> to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This doesn't
> mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
> that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives with
> the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
> expects a little something in return.
>
> --
> nimue
Sorry but if he wants to keep it quiet, possibly to save her (and don't
they have a child?)from getting hassled, then more power to him. The
perception that actors, royalty, rock stars etc are owned by the public
goes way beyond what is reasonable.
JM owes me nothing. As a viewer, as a fan, I get what appears on screen
and interviews; what he wants to share. In return he gets my eyes glued
to the screen and maybe some of my money spent on merchandise (though he
probably doesn't get much of that). Our 'contract' is simple; you
entertain me, I'll keep watching. Nowhere does it say, 'oh and James, if
I want the dirt on you, stuff I'd die if the world knew about me, I've
got the right to demand it, dig for it, spread it around.'
It's all about respect and common courtesy.
Jane
--
Read my Buffy the Vampire Slayer fiction at
http://members.rogers.com/jdavitt01/index.html
http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=231516
Tazzy
He Still deserves a private life outside of prying eyes.
--
~~~~~~~~
Tazzy :)
Nick Cassaro
> to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence and great taste
> love his work, but the same goes for the builders and assemblers of Accura
> automobiles, but no one demands to who they dated, married, divorced, where
> they lived, or dined or visited.
>
"If you didn't want people going through your garbage and saying
you're gay, you shouldn't have tried to express yourself creatively."
å¹½omer Simpson.
That about sums it up.
CC Zona
Jane Davitt <jdav...@rogers.com> wrote:
> nimue wrote:
> > Tirya wrote:
> >
> >>"nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >>
> >>>luvthistle1 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> >>>>anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
> >>>
> >>>If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
> >>>information about his private life out there.
> >>
> >>Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
> >
> > Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
> > curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be prepared
> > to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This doesn't
> > mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
> > that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives with
> > the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
> > expects a little something in return.
> >
> > --
> > nimue
>
>
> Sorry but if he wants to keep it quiet, possibly to save her (and don't
> they have a child?)from getting hassled, then more power to him. The
> perception that actors, royalty, rock stars etc are owned by the public
> goes way beyond what is reasonable.
Every celebrity is entitled to maintain privacy around their personal life.
It's up the individual to decide how much they want to share with fans and
where to draw that line. Though it's not splashed across the official bio
or anything, JM and Liane Davidson don't hide the fact that they used to be
married. He even appeared at a fundraiser in Modesto for her theater
<http://www.obsidianmoonlight.com/factfiles/modesto2.html>.
While discussing his upcoming movie "Italian Heat" at a recent convention,
he was surpisingly candid with the audience about the cause--from his
perspective, anyway--of the marriage's breakup. Between finally ending the
coyness about the age thing, and some recent oblique references to their
child, he seems to be getting more comfortable this year with sharing a few
glimpses into the personal side of his life. Though, smartly, it's been
*just a few*. Go James. And boy does that movie sound good. Can't wait.
--
CC
"Has Cordy been a bad, bad girl?" -Lorne
"All I'm saying is soulles Spike would have had me upside down and
halfway to happyland by now!" - Anya
Dawn: "I feel safe with you..." Spike: "TAKE THAT BACK!"
Lee S. Billings
wtfa...@yahoo.com says...
Does anyone REALLY think that modeling our real-life behavior on the example of
Homer Simpson is a *good* idea?
Celine
--
Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:49:01 GMT, Jane Davitt <jdav...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It's all about respect and common courtesy.
>
>
>They're not called 'fans' because they are good at circulating air.
Referring to the etymological origin of "fan" as a shortening of "fanatic"?
Good point.
Chris Zabel
fair game. Even though I don't personally care about JM's personal life, a
public figure such as a television actor knows what they're getting into
when they go down that career path of stardom. If they wanted a large zone
of privacy around their life there are plenty of careers that you can live
in relative anonymity.
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>Tirya wrote:
>> "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>> luvthistle1 wrote:
>>>> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
>>>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
>>>
>>> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
>>> information about his private life out there.
>>
>> Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
>
>Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
>curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be prepared
>to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This doesn't
>mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
>that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives with
>the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
>expects a little something in return.
Either I completely missed a <sarcasm> tag, or some people need to get a life.
Tirya
news:g5rrfvgvveom6ek0r...@4ax.com...
>
>
> They're not called 'fans' because they are good at circulating air.
LOL... I like it. =D
Tirya
--
TDC Inca Jeeper
A dirty Jeep is a happy Jeep.
Tirya
news:bdkrt4$fli$4...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <krhLa.436$6Q6.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, cup_o...@yahoo.com
> says...
> >
> >Tirya wrote:
> >> "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >>> luvthistle1 wrote:
> >>>> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> >>>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
> >>>
> >>> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
> >>> information about his private life out there.
> >>
> >> Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
> >
> >Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
> >curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be
prepared
> >to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This doesn't
> >mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
> >that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives
with
> >the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
> >expects a little something in return.
>
> Either I completely missed a <sarcasm> tag, or some people need to get a
life.
They're trying to get a life. It's just not THEIRS...
Ken
> In article <db8f5127.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> wtfa...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> Sure, JM, like a lot of actors, wants PROFESSIONAL fame. Why should he
have
> >> to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence and great
taste
> >> love his work, but the same goes for the builders and assemblers of
Accura
> >> automobiles, but no one demands to who they dated, married, divorced,
where
> >> they lived, or dined or visited.
> >>
> >
> >
> >"If you didn't want people going through your garbage and saying
> >you're gay, you shouldn't have tried to express yourself creatively."
> >
> >That about sums it up.
>
> Does anyone REALLY think that modeling our real-life behavior on the
example of
> Homer Simpson is a *good* idea?
>
> Celine
Here's a rod of radioactive uranium. Have fun.
-- Ken from Chicago
BTR1701
<ccz...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <3EFDC6FE...@rogers.com>,
> Jane Davitt <jdav...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > nimue wrote:
> > > Tirya wrote:
> > >
> > >>"nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:yyfLa.267$kW5....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > >>
> > >>>luvthistle1 wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> > >>>>anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
> > >>>
> > >>>If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
> > >>>information about his private life out there.
> > >>
> > >>Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
> > >
> > > Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to
> > > be curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be
> > > prepared to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This
> > > doesn't mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to
> > > know that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their
> > > lives with public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
> > > expects a little something in return.
> > Sorry but if he wants to keep it quiet, possibly to save her (and don't
> > they have a child?)from getting hassled, then more power to him. The
> > perception that actors, royalty, rock stars etc are owned by the public
> > goes way beyond what is reasonable.
>
> Every celebrity is entitled to maintain privacy around their personal
> life.
Just above you said theiur fames demands they share certain facts about
their lives with the public.
Which is it?
BTR1701
> In article <db8f5127.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> wtfa...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> Sure, JM, like a lot of actors, wants PROFESSIONAL fame. Why should he
> >> have to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence and great
> >> taste love his work, but the same goes for the builders and assemblers of
> >> Accura automobiles, but no one demands to who they dated, married, divorced,
> >> where they lived, or dined or visited.
> >>
> >
> >
> >"If you didn't want people going through your garbage and saying
> >you're gay, you shouldn't have tried to express yourself creatively."
> >å¹½omer Simpson.
> >
> >That about sums it up.
>
> Does anyone REALLY think that modeling our real-life behavior on the
> example of Homer Simpson is a *good* idea?
Considering the people who put those words in Homer Simpson's mouth were
satirizing the idiotic idea that actors deserve to have their most
personal information publicized, I think it's a pretty pithy observation.
Ken
"BTR1701" <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-75AA0D...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> In article <bdkrnt$fli$2...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> stard...@mindspring.com (Lee S. Billings) wrote:
>
> > In article <db8f5127.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> > wtfa...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > >> Sure, JM, like a lot of actors, wants PROFESSIONAL fame. Why should
he
> > >> have to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence and
great
> > >> taste love his work, but the same goes for the builders and
assemblers of
> > >> Accura automobiles, but no one demands to who they dated, married,
divorced,
> > >> where they lived, or dined or visited.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >"If you didn't want people going through your garbage and saying
> > >you're gay, you shouldn't have tried to express yourself creatively."
> > >
> > >That about sums it up.
> >
> > Does anyone REALLY think that modeling our real-life behavior on the
> > example of Homer Simpson is a *good* idea?
>
> Considering the people who put those words in Homer Simpson's mouth were
> satirizing the idiotic idea that actors deserve to have their most
> personal information publicized, I think it's a pretty pithy observation.
But was the quoter citing the quote on its face value or on its sarcastic
value?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
Really? Are you sure that's not quoted text that CC was replying to as oppos
ed to something CC was saying?
-- Ken from Chicago
nimue
Actors need us to survive in their profession. They need our interest, our
willingness to shell out our money to pay people we have never met to
entertain us. If they don't engage us -- they are out. The builders of
Accuras are important -- but they do not depend on our interest in their
individual selves to get their paychecks, nor are their paycheck anything
like those actors receive.
nimue
Well, he shared it with you guys! Maybe you could share the info with us?
I *am* interested. So are most people -- that's why People Magazine, and Us
Magazine, and all those mags exist.
>Though, smartly, it's been *just a few*. Go James. And boy
> does that movie sound good. Can't wait.
--
Al Smith
>>>>>> >>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very little
>>>>> >> information about his private life out there.
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
>>
>>>
>>> but hey, they have to know
>>> that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives
>>> with the public.
>
>
> They don't have share anything. If people find out, fine, but they are
> under no obligation to make regular annoucements about who they are
> dating or sleeeping with or whatnot.
>
Can you imagine how hard it must be to be famous? I'm serious. It
must be hell on earth. Sure, you usually get a lot of money to go
with your fame, but in return, you lose the ability to go anywhere
or do anything without being under a microscope. I wouldn't want
to be Tiger Woods, even if I could have his millions. He can't go
anywhere without everyone around him constantly watching every
move he makes and evaluating him and criticizing him. It would
wear anybody down after a while. Recently Rollings, the woman who
wrote the "Harry Potter" books was quoted as saying she wished she
could be invisible. I bet she does, too. You can buy almost
everything, but no amount of money can buy privacy, as people like
Howard Hughs and Bill Gates have discovered. Christ, Michael
Jackson rented an entire supermarket, just so that he could shop
for groceries once like a normal person -- except, of course, he
wasn't shopping like a normal person, because he was the only one
in the store apart from a few other "customers" who had been paid
to pretend to shop there.
Some celebrities deal with fame well, others deal with it poorly,
but for all of them it is a hell on earth from which they can
never escape until they are dead. That's the price they pay for
wealth -- fame.
Shuggie
>
>Actors need us to survive in their profession. They need our interest, our
>willingness to shell out our money to pay people we have never met to
>entertain us. If they don't engage us -- they are out. The builders of
>Accuras are important -- but they do not depend on our interest in their
>individual selves to get their paychecks, nor are their paycheck anything
>like those actors receive.
No actor depends on my interest in their private life to get the part of
their paycheck I provide.
I know little to nothing about my favourite actors' private lives, but I
will go and see anything they're in.
--
Shug
"Well that's ok except of course that none of it is true"
- Tonio K, It Ain't Worth Nothing Without Love
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>Ken wrote:
>> Sure, JM, like a lot of actors, wants PROFESSIONAL fame. Why should
>> he have to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence
>> and great taste love his work, but the same goes for the builders and
>> assemblers of Accura automobiles, but no one demands to who they
>> dated, married, divorced, where they lived, or dined or visited.
>>
>Actors need us to survive in their profession. They need our interest, our
>willingness to shell out our money to pay people we have never met to
>entertain us. If they don't engage us -- they are out. The builders of
>Accuras are important -- but they do not depend on our interest in their
>individual selves to get their paychecks, nor are their paycheck anything
>like those actors receive.
All of this is true, but completely irrelevant to the issue under discussion.
There's no connection between "actors engaging our interest" and "actors giving
us all sorts of information about stuff which is none of our damn business
anyhow." An actor who is *good* engages my interest; an actor who isn't good
isn't going to make me any more interested by telling me who he's sleeping
with, or how much he paid for his house, or what's in his garbage can.
Go-ta Maga-nus
because _enough_ people are interested to make them a profit.
"nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4CoLa.1550$TH4...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
nimue
> They exist becuase _most_ people are interested in it? No. They exist
> because _enough_ people are interested to make them a profit.
I accept your correction. Still, I believe that A LOT of people are
interested, otherwise these magazines wouldn't sell the way they do, and
shows like ET, and Access Hollywood, and all those Barbara Walters specials
would not exist.
>
> "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4CoLa.1550$TH4...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> Well, he shared it with you guys! Maybe you could share the info
>> with us? I *am* interested. So are most people -- that's why People
>> Magazine, and Us Magazine, and all those mags exist.
--
TE...@webtv.net
Ken
They need your PROFESSIONAL interest--in their work. If you don't like their
professional work, then don't patronize their works. Just because SOME
actors crave not only professional publicity but personal publicity, doesn't
mean all have to sacrifice private lives. The confusion is that part of the
present day deal for professional publicity by various talk shows is a
trading personal privacy because current movies focus so much on opening day
buzz so they pimp-er, parade out their actors to morning talk shows (Today,
GMA, CBS This Morning), daytime talk shows (The View, Wayne Brady Show,
Caroline Rhea Show), cable talk shows (CNN American Morning, Fox and Friends
in the Morning, Screen Saver's Bit Chat), nighttime talk shows (Letterman,
Leno, Orlando Jones Show, The Daily Show).
For fun, check Chicago Sun-Times' tv critic, Phil Rosenthal's tv column
feature "What are you watching?":
http://www.suntimes.com/index/rosenthal.html
Especially on Thursdays and Fridays when actors tend to make the junkett
rounds on a ton of talk shows, to hype a movie just about to be released,
often discussing the same stories, over and over and over.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:3QoLa.847$5q6.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
He could probably do so if he did NOT walk around with frelling surgical
mask and a ton of body guards. He could probably wear a wig, shades, blue
jeans and no one would notice.
> Some celebrities deal with fame well, others deal with it poorly,
> but for all of them it is a hell on earth from which they can
> never escape until they are dead. That's the price they pay for
> wealth -- fame.
Michael Jordan responded to those who said they'd love to be Michael Jordan
for a day is that they should try to being famous for a YEAR. A day or week
or even a month may be fun, but a year would likely be most telling about
the cost of fame.
-- Ken from Chicago
BTR1701
<inv...@address.com> wrote:
> >>>>>I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> >>>>>> >>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
> >>>>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very
> >>>>> >> little information about his private life out there.
> >>>> > Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
> >>> but hey, they have to know
> >>> that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their
> >>> lives with the public.
> > They don't have share anything. If people find out, fine, but they are
> > under no obligation to make regular annoucements about who they are
> > dating or sleeeping with or whatnot.
> Can you imagine how hard it must be to be famous? I'm serious. It
> must be hell on earth. Sure, you usually get a lot of money to go
> with your fame, but in return, you lose the ability to go anywhere
> or do anything without being under a microscope.
I was talking to my friend Bianca about this and she told me she has no
desire to become famous. If there was a way to become a successful
actress without fame (an impossibility to be sure), she'd take it in a
heartbeat. She loves to act and she likes the money but she has no
desire for fame.
BTR1701
<cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The question then becomes why the hell you need to know about who the
guy dates in order to be "engaged"?
I mean, I don't need to know anything about Cam Carpenter's personal
life to appreciate her beauty and enjoy her performance as Cordelia.
nimue
I don't. I see an actor, and admire his or her talent first. Then, like
most people, I wonder about the person. Like most people, I read People, or
check out websites, or watch tv interviews to learn more about the actor.
What on earth is wrong with that? The thing that sparks the initial
interest is the person's talent. However, part of an actor's job is being
able to interact with the public on some level. Celebrities who can't do
that (I am thinking of Axl Rose) often lose their fame, despite their
talent.
>
> I mean, I don't need to know anything about Cam Carpenter's personal
> life to appreciate her beauty and enjoy her performance as Cordelia.
No, you don't. BTW -- is Cam her nickname or something? If it is -- how
*did* you find that out? However, it's pretty normal to be curious about an
actor you admire. That's why we go to conventions (I have never been to a
BTVS convention, but I hope to attend one in the future), create websites (I
have never done that, either), buy magazines about the stars, etc. I am
amazed at this thread. So many of you are acting as if it is a sin to be
interested in the life of an actor you admire. Someone tell imdb.com,
because they list all kinds of information about actors' families! Someone
let ET and People and Us know. People are and have always been interested
in the personal lives of the famous. What is the big deal?
Tirya
> Actors need us to survive in their profession. They need our interest, our
> willingness to shell out our money to pay people we have never met to
> entertain us. If they don't engage us -- they are out. The builders of
> Accuras are important -- but they do not depend on our interest in their
> individual selves to get their paychecks, nor are their paycheck anything
> like those actors receive.
And what does "who an actor is dating/married to/divorced from/etc." have to
do with their ability to entertain us?
nimue
As an actor -- nothing. As a celebrity -- a whole heck of a lot. I am
astonished by these posts! Have any of you ever read People or watched
Access Hollywood, or are you too pure for that?
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>Tirya wrote:
>> "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:FxoLa.1540$TH4...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>> Actors need us to survive in their profession. They need our
>>> interest, our willingness to shell out our money to pay people we
>>> have never met to entertain us. If they don't engage us -- they are
>>> out. The builders of Accuras are important -- but they do not
>>> depend on our interest in their individual selves to get their
>>> paychecks, nor are their paycheck anything like those actors receive.
>>
>> And what does "who an actor is dating/married to/divorced from/etc."
>> have to do with their ability to entertain us?
>>
>> Tirya
>
>As an actor -- nothing. As a celebrity -- a whole heck of a lot. I am
>astonished by these posts! Have any of you ever read People or watched
>Access Hollywood, or are you too pure for that?
You're astonished that people disagree with your opinion? I'm shocked, nimue,
simply SHOCKED! <g>
"People" is one of the magazines I consider "mind-candy" -- something to pick
up in the doctor's office. Generally I skim past all the boring "who was seen
where with whom" stuff; I'll read the movie/TV/book/record reviews, and some of
the articles about ordinary people and current events.
TV shows that are about nothing BUT "who was seen where with whom"? Why the
HELL should I waste my time on that?
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to be
>curious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be prepared
>to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create. This doesn't
>mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they have to know
>that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their lives with
>the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money, and the public
>expects a little something in return.
You mean ENTERTAINMENT? Sorry, I see nothing in the job description
of 'actor' that suggests that their PRIVATE life is any of your damn
business.
nimue
Look -- if someone want to be a celebrity (different from being an actor),
that person had better expect that lots of people are going to be interested
in his life. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with being
interested. When I was younger, I loved the Anne of Green Gables books. I
learned everything I could about their author, LM Montgomery. I even bought
all the volumes of her diaries. Whenever ANYTHING interests me, I want to
know all about it. I google it, I buy books, magazines, whatever. I really
enjoyed learning about the 6 wives of Henry VIII, too. When I was in
England, I went to one of his castles. It fascinated me to see a place he
had lived. Let me tell you, I was not alone on this visit. There were a
lot of people milling around. Those who weren't there, I believe, were at
the home of another actor/director/writer, William Shakespeare. Of course,
these people's lives are none of our business, but we are interested, and
what is the big deal that is making everyone act all holier-than-thou?
There is nothing wrong with wondering whether or not James Marsters is
married, or has kids, or whatever. If the information is easily accessible,
I will find out. If not, whatever. I'll live without it. If he is going
to be a celebrity, he should expect that people will be interested in his
life. People who go into acting KNOW that this is part of the job. As for
the interest people have in celebrities, well, it's very common. I think
it's natural. I mean, whenever I meet people I find interesting in real
life, I like to find out about their lives. The same thing happens when I
am intrigued with an actor. I don't understand why people think there is
something wrong with this. It never even occurred to me that this might be
an issue. I just have always taken it for granted that people are
interested in the lives of celebrities they like.
nimue
> In article <SyrLa.2404$TH4....@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> cup_o...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>
> You're astonished that people disagree with your opinion? I'm
> shocked, nimue, simply SHOCKED! <g>
>
> "People" is one of the magazines I consider "mind-candy" -- something
> to pick up in the doctor's office. Generally I skim past all the
> boring "who was seen where with whom" stuff; I'll read the
> movie/TV/book/record reviews, and some of the articles about ordinary
> people and current events.
>
> TV shows that are about nothing BUT "who was seen where with whom"?
> Why the HELL should I waste my time on that?
>
> Celine
Look -- there are entire threads on this group about whether or not the
actors really get along with one another or not. There were a ton about the
drug problem the actor who played Doyle on Angel had. There was speculation
about an affair between SMG and DB, about why CC was really let go from ATS,
and even more speculation about SMG's religion and relationship with her
husband. Come on, guys. THIS is a gossip ng as well as an ng devoted to
discussing a tv show. Admit it. Well, you probably won't, but I know I
didn't create all those threads all by myself, you know. In fact, I didn't
even post in many of them, because they were too darn boring. Oh -- wait --
what about the endless threads devoted to JM's true age. Please! You guys
are such hypocrites, or else you are completely oblivious to what you do.
CC Zona
BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
No. You have mistaken me for someone else (which is surprising since the
line of attributions seem intact). The only part of the above that was
written by me is: "Every celebrity is entitled to maintain privacy around
their personal life."
--
CC
"Has Cordy been a bad, bad girl?" -Lorne
"All I'm saying is soulles Spike would have had me upside down and
halfway to happyland by now!" - Anya
Dawn: "I feel safe with you..." Spike: "TAKE THAT BACK!"
AE Jabbour
Look, I have no idea to whom you were addressing those comments. But
I find most, if not all, of those threads tasteless. I really do.
That those threads exist is not a sign of their relevance or their
deservedness here. This is an unmoderated group, and thus anyone can
post anything he wants about any topic he chooses. That's the reality
of unmoderated UseNet (go to rec.arts.movies.current-films sometime).
But that doesn't mean that's the way it *should* be.
Do I ever have a craving for a bit of Eliza Dushku or SMG gossip?
Oh, probably, though not often. But I generally find other places
to gather that info and sate that need. I think most people here
would rather that this were not a "Gossip NG" as much as a newsgroup
devoted to a show. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows?
--
A.E. Jabbour
"Oh! I know this one: Slaying entails certain
sacrifices ... blah blah bitty blah, I'm so
stuffy, give me a scone."
Buffy, "Inca Mummy Girl"
nimue
I love that this ng is mostly devoted to the discussion of the show. There
has been great analysis and truly intellectual discussions about the
characters, etc. I don't deplore the posts that speculate about JM's age,
or SMG's romantic life, however. It's part of the ng. I have to say, I am
thrilled that you had the guts to admit that sometimes you like a little
gossip, even if that "tasteless" comment sounded a little stuffy. This ng
really isn't tasteless. Go to alt.gossip.celebrities, and you will find
tasteless.
AE Jabbour
[big snip]
> it's natural. I mean, whenever I meet people I find interesting in real
> life, I like to find out about their lives. The same thing happens when I
> am intrigued with an actor. I don't understand why people think there is
> something wrong with this. It never even occurred to me that this might be
> an issue. I just have always taken it for granted that people are
> interested in the lives of celebrities they like.
People ARE interested in the private lives of those whom they
think of as celebrities. Yes. I agree.
So? Does that make it any less tasteless? No.
I think that the all the "See! I told you Glenn Quinn ODed!" posts,
with people who were happy with themselves for apparently scooping
the story way back when, are a perfect example of how utterly
disgusting human beings can sometimes be.
I would have thought that Princess Diana's death would have
taught someone, somewhere, something. Alas, I was far too
mistaken, and far too naive about human nature.
nimue
> nimue <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [big snip]
>
>> it's natural. I mean, whenever I meet people I find interesting in
>> real life, I like to find out about their lives. The same thing
>> happens when I am intrigued with an actor. I don't understand why
>> people think there is something wrong with this. It never even
>> occurred to me that this might be an issue. I just have always
>> taken it for granted that people are interested in the lives of
>> celebrities they like.
>
> People ARE interested in the private lives of those whom they
> think of as celebrities. Yes. I agree.
>
> So? Does that make it any less tasteless? No.
>
> I think that the all the "See! I told you Glenn Quinn ODed!" posts,
> with people who were happy with themselves for apparently scooping
> the story way back when, are a perfect example of how utterly
> disgusting human beings can sometimes be.
I understand your point about that. THAT is very unfeeling. To triumph
over a person's death because it validated your gossip is just awful.
However, someone could have posted that he felt bad about Glenn Quinn's
death, and he saw it coming, and dreaded it, and he felt terrible for his
family -- that would have been ok. Also, I don't see anything wrong with
trying to figure out how old JM really is, or wondering what exceptionally,
astoundingly lucky women he has dated. That is harmless.
>
> I would have thought that Princess Diana's death would have
> taught someone, somewhere, something. Alas, I was far too
> mistaken, and far too naive about human nature.
There is a big difference between being curious about a celeb's private
life, and hounding one to her death in a high speed car chase. I know that
some people will say that it is exactly the same, and that the thirst for
information on celebs caused that -- but that is nonsense. Celebs give
enough information in interviews, etc., and most people are satisfied with
that. No one wants anyone to be killed. That was a terrible thing.
Lee S. Billings
says...
>Look -- there are entire threads on this group about whether or not the
>actors really get along with one another or not. There were a ton about the
>drug problem the actor who played Doyle on Angel had. There was speculation
>about an affair between SMG and DB, about why CC was really let go from ATS,
>and even more speculation about SMG's religion and relationship with her
>husband.
Yes, I've seen all of that. Ad nauseam. But that's what the <Next> key is for.
I don't care whether *you* read or post in those threads. What bugs me is your
assumption that your interest in that sort of thing is universal -- and the
further assumption that information about things like that is something the
actors OWE you. That's bullshit, pure and simple. They don't owe you anything
they don't want to discuss.
The Babaloughesian
"Nick Cassaro" <wtfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:db8f5127.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > Sure, JM, like a lot of actors, wants PROFESSIONAL fame. Why should he
have
> > to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence and great
taste
> > love his work, but the same goes for the builders and assemblers of
Accura
> > automobiles, but no one demands to who they dated, married, divorced,
where
> > they lived, or dined or visited.
> >
>
>
> you're gay, you shouldn't have tried to express yourself creatively."
> -Homer Simpson.
>
> That about sums it up.
IOW, people are stupid, and you can't change them. But you can plan around
it.
The Babaloughesian
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:1loLa.4601$BM.22...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-75AA0D...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > In article <bdkrnt$fli$2...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > stard...@mindspring.com (Lee S. Billings) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <db8f5127.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> > > wtfa...@yahoo.com says...
> > > >
> > > >> Sure, JM, like a lot of actors, wants PROFESSIONAL fame. Why should
> he
> > > >> have to lose his private life? Sure audiences with intelligence and
> great
> > > >> taste love his work, but the same goes for the builders and
> assemblers of
> > > >> Accura automobiles, but no one demands to who they dated, married,
> divorced,
> > > >> where they lived, or dined or visited.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"If you didn't want people going through your garbage and saying
> > > >you're gay, you shouldn't have tried to express yourself creatively."
> > > >-Homer Simpson.
> > > >
> > > >That about sums it up.
> > >
> > > example of Homer Simpson is a *good* idea?
> >
> > Considering the people who put those words in Homer Simpson's mouth were
> > satirizing the idiotic idea that actors deserve to have their most
> > personal information publicized, I think it's a pretty pithy
observation.
>
> But was the quoter citing the quote on its face value or on its sarcastic
> value?
I thought the idea was that the speaker was Homer Simpson, one of the
stupidest, most immature, selfish jerk-asses on TV, and that he's not really
a reliable source of wisdom.
The Babaloughesian
> Tirya wrote:
> > "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:FxoLa.1540$TH4...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >> Actors need us to survive in their profession. They need our
> >> interest, our willingness to shell out our money to pay people we
> >> have never met to entertain us. If they don't engage us -- they are
> >> out. The builders of Accuras are important -- but they do not
> >> depend on our interest in their individual selves to get their
> >> paychecks, nor are their paycheck anything like those actors receive.
> >
> > And what does "who an actor is dating/married to/divorced from/etc."
> > have to do with their ability to entertain us?
> >
> > Tirya
>
> As an actor -- nothing. As a celebrity -- a whole heck of a lot. I am
> astonished by these posts! Have any of you ever read People or watched
> Access Hollywood, or are you too pure for that?
I'm too pure for that. Also, IIRC, Access Hollywood is on at the same time
as Seinfeld.
The Babaloughesian
Aren't there character actors who seem to get a lot of roles, are fairly
successful, but don't develop anything more than a small cult following?
Rose
>Someone tell imdb.com,
>because they list all kinds of information about actors' families! Someone
>let ET and People and Us know. People are and have always been interested
>in the personal lives of the famous. What >is the big deal?
It's only a big deal if in order to feed audience interest, someone goes around
digging up private information the actor did not want revealed. Or that his
family did not want revealed.
We all have the right to want to know the name of James' ex-wife, and to read
interviews and articles in order to try to find out. We don't have the right
to dig in his garbage to find out her name if he doesn't choose to tell us, or
to encourage others to do it and then print the information. (Who knows, maybe
she is the one who doesn't want anyone to know.)
We have the right to want to look at pictures of stars, but we shouldn't
encourage paparazzi to jump out of bushes at them and scare them half to death,
hound them at personal family functions, look in their windows and backyards
through telescopic lenses and pick fights with them in order to get a "Johnny
Handsome Goes Crazy!" headline in a tabloid.
So I guess in short, it's a matter of degree.
Hoping to one day learn who is ex-wife is (by honest and non intrusive means,
like reading it in an interview), is perfectly fine. Hoping someone will sell
his medical records to a tabloid is not perfectly fine, imho. I hope that
makes sense.
Rose
Rose
>
>I was talking to my friend Bianca about this and she told me she has no
>desire to become famous. If there was a way to become a successful
>actress without fame (an impossibility to >be sure),
It's not impossible, unless you define success as "famous movie or TV star."
Bianca could be come a successful working character actress in TV or film, or
become a successful stage actress, and yet never become famous. Think of the
many actors and actresses who work a great deal, who known as "industry stars"
but are not household names.
Rose
Ken
"The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bdls09$u9f5v$1...@ID-177202.news.dfncis.de...
That would be the sarcastic value.
-- Ken from Chicago
Rose
>From: AE Jabbour aej17D...@comcast.net
>Date: 6/28/2003 9:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bdlpfr$tkhj2$5...@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de>
>
>nimue <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[big snip]
>
>> it's natural. I mean, whenever I meet people I find interesting in real
>> life, I like to find out about their lives. The same thing happens when I
>> am intrigued with an actor. I don't understand why people think there is
>> something wrong with this. It never even occurred to me that this might be
>> an issue. I just have always taken it for granted that people are
>> interested in the lives of celebrities they like.
>
>People ARE interested in the private lives of those whom they
>think of as celebrities. Yes. I agree.
>
>So? Does that make it any less tasteless? No.
>
IMO it's not tasteless if people limit their quest for knowledge to what the
celebrity is willing to reveal. If I wonder whether Harrison Ford has kids, so
I start reading articles about him and find out from an interview that he
indeed has kids, is that tasteless? I don't think so.
I think a lot of people aren't quite seeing Nimue's point. She's (at least, so
I glean) not advocating the practice of rifling through their garbage or
filming them with telephoto lenses while they sunbathe naked in their
backyards. She's saying that if she likes someone's work she becomes curious
about him or her. It seems from what she says that she attempts to find out
more about them via legitimate means.
Rose
Rose
>- that would have been ok. Also, I don't see anything wrong with
>trying to figure out how old JM really is
Well, that particular thing could conceivably hurt his career.
Rose
Ken
Ah, but you need to know if she's single--to know if you have "a chance",
because ALL that's standing in the way of CC/BTR is if she's got some loser
taking up space that's rightful yours.
Or so fantasizeth some fans, and so thinketh some fanatics.
-- Ken from Chicago
Rose
>Date: 6/29/2003 3:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MWyLa.5459$BM.23...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>
Some actors, or at least their publicists, feed that fantasy. Sometimes
they'll hide the fact that the actor or actress is married so as not to turn
off the fan base. Or they'll do "Win a Date With Johnny Handsome!" contests.
Or Johnny Handsome will tell the interviewer what kind of woman he loves...and
he always says looks don't matter, what he's looking for is a sense of humor
and a down-to-earth attitude. Then he shows up at a movie premiere with a
supermodel, who no doubt has the best sense of humor and most down to earth
attitude of every woman he's ever met. ;)
None of this applies to James, I'm getting off on a tangent about some other
actors.
Rose
Ken
I think there's a difference between being interested in the actor as a
person, and feeling the actor OWES it to audiences to reveal personal
information. If an actor WANTS to share, all well and good, but if they
don't, then many people still seek it out, and many "entertainment"
magazines send in or buy from papparazzi who invade the privacy of
celebrities--for the benefit of those willing to pay to see those photos or
hear the gossi-er reports.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
> In article <3QoLa.847$5q6.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
>
> > >>>>>I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> > >>>>>> >>> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> >>
> > >>>>> >> If anyone could find out, that would be nice. There is very
> > >>>>> >> little information about his private life out there.
>
> > >>>> > Could that maybe be why it's called his PRIVATE life?
>
> > >>> that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about their
> > >>> lives with the public.
>
> > > under no obligation to make regular annoucements about who they are
> > > dating or sleeeping with or whatnot.
>
> > Can you imagine how hard it must be to be famous? I'm serious. It
> > must be hell on earth. Sure, you usually get a lot of money to go
> > with your fame, but in return, you lose the ability to go anywhere
> > or do anything without being under a microscope.
>
> desire to become famous. If there was a way to become a successful
> heartbeat. She loves to act and she likes the money but she has no
> desire for fame.
Act on the stage, in live theater.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
Independent films. Yeah, but those can sneak up and become widespread
commercially successful. Amanda Donahue has managed to parlay work in a
teeny weeny tiny flick called THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT into movie rolls in
BODY SHOTS, THE NEW TWILIGHT ZONE and a major role in Scifi channels
10-part, 20-hour, Steven Spielberg mini-series, TAKEN.
Paryam K. Minder(sp) has went from starring in BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM to an
upcoming role on ER.
Then there is Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarentino.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20030629055906...@mb-m12.aol.com...
For example?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
<TE...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3535-3E...@storefull-2177.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Since when is being married(or not) part of one's "private life".
When said person chooses not to reveal it. And by what right does anyone
have to know their marital status?
-- Ken from Chicago
t r a c y
son. i believe at one point she and james founded and ran a theatre company together.
sorry if this was mentioned further down the thread. i would have checked all the posts but most of
them seemed to be pointless bickering about celebrity private lives.
t r a c y
http://playfortoday.com
"luvthistle1" <luvth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f856e762.03062...@posting.google.com...
nimue
> In article <f9tLa.311$kW5.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> cup_o...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Look -- there are entire threads on this group about whether or not
>> the actors really get along with one another or not. There were a
>> ton about the drug problem the actor who played Doyle on Angel had.
>> There was speculation about an affair between SMG and DB, about why
>> CC was really let go from ATS, and even more speculation about SMG's
>> religion and relationship with her husband.
>
> Yes, I've seen all of that. Ad nauseam. But that's what the <Next>
> key is for.
>
> I don't care whether *you* read or post in those threads. What bugs
> me is your assumption that your interest in that sort of thing is
> universal -- and the further assumption that information about things
> like that is something the actors OWE you. That's bullshit, pure and
> simple. They don't owe you anything they don't want to discuss.
>
> Celine
I do think it is part of the job. I really do. Oddly enough, my favorite
actor for years and years was Harrison Ford, and he NEVER (or never used to)
discusses his private life. I got what info I could from whatever he gave
out, and left it at that. I don't know why you guys are acting like I go
through their garbage. I think my interest is normal and I think that a lot
of people share that interest, and I do think that part of being a celebrity
is the fact that you are going to generate interest in your life.
nimue
I never watch Seinfeld. It's odd -- I am a NYC Jew whose brother lives right
near that restaurant (is it Tom's?) in the show, well, whose exterior is in
the show, and yet I never watch it. I don't like it. I never watch
Friends, either. I don't think I have ever seen a full episode of Friends.
Go figure.
nimue
It makes perfect sense to me. I agree with it 100%. I
nimue
Ah, Rose, I love you. I agree that most people are NOT seeing my point. It
astounds me. I am not sure if they just don't get it (like people did not
understand that I posted two of my students' exra-credit papers because I
thought they were adorable and hilarious in their professions of love for
Buffy --my kids have real comedic talent and I am proud of them! People
thought I was encouraging others to laugh at the errors in the papers. I
would kill anyone who hurt my kids. Man, that misunderstanding STILL
offends and bothers me), or if they just want to bash me. I think I have
made it pretty clear that I don't rifle through anyone's garbage (ewww), and
that my information hunting extends to google.com, or Us, and no further. I
can't imagine how that would really offend people, but I guess it does,
because people are acting as if I am the next Big Bad because I like to read
People on the check-out line at the supermarket.
nimue
Really? Honestly -- it just made me love him more. He is older than I am.
Thank god!
>
>
> Rose
nimue
People may or may not have a right to know -- but there is nothing unusual
about wanting to know. I mean, that is something I always talk about at
work with my friends -- is my friend's new boyfriend handsome, smart, funny,
tell me all about him. It's human behavior. If you choose a career that
will make you known to a lot of humans, you really should expect it. They
may not have a right to know, but it's silly for a celebrity not to expect
that his fans will be interested in his life.
nimue
> james is divorced from actress/director liane davidson, who
> apparently lives in modesto with their son. i believe at one point
> she and james founded and ran a theatre company together.
>
> sorry if this was mentioned further down the thread. i would have
> checked all the posts but most of them seemed to be pointless
> bickering about celebrity private lives.
It's not exactly pointless bickering. It's more like a lot of people are
willfully misunderstanding me, and using my rational comments to make
themselves look morally superior.
>
> t r a c y
> http://playfortoday.com
>
> "luvthistle1" <luvth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f856e762.03062...@posting.google.com...
> I just found out that actor "james Marster" was once married. Do
> anyone knows to who? is his ''ex-wife" an actress?
--
Ken
> Ken wrote:
> > <TE...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:3535-3E...@storefull-2177.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >> Since when is being married(or not) part of one's "private life".
> >
> > When said person chooses not to reveal it. And by what right does
> > anyone have to know their marital status?
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago
>
> People may or may not have a right to know -- but there is nothing unusual
> about wanting to know. I mean, that is something I always talk about at
> work with my friends -- is my friend's new boyfriend handsome, smart,
funny,
> tell me all about him. It's human behavior. If you choose a career that
> will make you known to a lot of humans, you really should expect it. They
> may not have a right to know, but it's silly for a celebrity not to expect
> that his fans will be interested in his life.
>
> --
> nimue
Interested? Sure. Entitled? No. It's when fans think they are entitled to
know all about a celebrity's personal life, that's where lines are being
crossed from fan toward fanatic toward stalker, and to quote one Alexander
Lavelle Harris, "that way lies spooky carnival death".
-- Ken from Chicago
nimue
Ooooh, nice line. What ep was that? BTW -- I never said fans are
*entitled* to know stuff. Are you implying I did -- or do I just
misunderstand your meaning? Why is everyone acting as if I said everyone
should stalk a star, or something? I said fans want to know about their
favorite celebs, and if you are going to be a celeb, you should expect that
fans will want to know about your life. I am getting tired of this. I
guess I am foolishly hoping someone will say nimue -- we know you don't
advocate stalking stars, and we agree that many, many people enjoy hearing
about the lives of the stars, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't
think that will happen. It would be too honest, and then people wouldn't
have the fun of acting as if I were the First. Geez. Rose -- thanks for
being sane.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
Tirya
> > I mean, I don't need to know anything about Cam Carpenter's personal
> > life to appreciate her beauty and enjoy her performance as Cordelia.
>
> Ah, but you need to know if she's single--to know if you have "a chance",
> because ALL that's standing in the way of CC/BTR is if she's got some loser
> taking up space that's rightful yours.
>
> Or so fantasizeth some fans, and so thinketh some fanatics.
You ain't just whistling Dixie. A TV show mailing list I was on 3 or 4 years
ago discussed the private lives of the actors (and some fans went to extreme
lengths to find out information, we're talking borderline stalking here, which
is probably why this is such a hot issue for me), and I'll always remember
when it was discovered that one of the lead actors had gotten married, one of
the mailing list participants wailed about how she couldn't watch the show
anymore.
??????
What, like you had a chance with him BEFORE? Whatever.
IMHO if an actor *chooses* to reveal parts of his private life to the public,
that's his/her prerogative. But they do not "owe" it to their fans to make
their private lives fodder for public consumption. The post of "If anyone
could find out, that would be nice. There is very little information about
his private life out there." is what kicked off my negativity towards this
thread. I'm at least glad to see that there are several other posters who
feel the same way.
Tirya
--
TDC Inca Jeeper
A dirty Jeep is a happy Jeep.
AE Jabbour
> Ah, Rose, I love you. I agree that most people are NOT seeing my point. It
> astounds me. I am not sure if they just don't get it (like people did not
> understand that I posted two of my students' exra-credit papers because I
> thought they were adorable and hilarious in their professions of love for
> Buffy --my kids have real comedic talent and I am proud of them! People
> thought I was encouraging others to laugh at the errors in the papers. I
> would kill anyone who hurt my kids. Man, that misunderstanding STILL
> offends and bothers me), or if they just want to bash me. I think I have
> made it pretty clear that I don't rifle through anyone's garbage (ewww), and
> that my information hunting extends to google.com, or Us, and no further. I
> can't imagine how that would really offend people, but I guess it does,
> because people are acting as if I am the next Big Bad because I like to read
> People on the check-out line at the supermarket.
It is you who are not understanding the points of others, not the other
way around.
What many have said is that your claim that because a person wants to
act automatically entitles anyone with a passing interest in her to
information about her life is simply wrong.
No one will argue with you that people are interested. Heck,
sometimes, I am interested. But, as Ken pointed out, that
doesn't make me entitled.
Also, my original complaint with your point was that this
newsgroup was not the best forum for this kind of gossip. I
know that most will probably disagree with me, and that it
is unmoderated, but I still think that it is somewhat
tasteless.
Finally, you say that you won't go through someone's garbage.
You won't pry into the lives of these celebrities. Well,
where do you think much of the info comes from? It comes from
garbage, and prying cameras, etc. When celebrities do come
out to talk about their lives, it is often simply to avoid
being mischaracterized by others.
--
A.E. Jabbour
"Oh! I know this one: Slaying entails certain
sacrifices ... blah blah bitty blah, I'm so
stuffy, give me a scone."
Buffy, "Inca Mummy Girl"
Shuggie
>
>I was talking to my friend Bianca about this and she told me she has no
>desire to become famous. If there was a way to become a successful
>actress without fame (an impossibility to be sure), she'd take it in a
>heartbeat. She loves to act and she likes the money but she has no
>desire for fame.
Tell her to try the stage. It's less of a celebrity machine than TV or
movies and there's less 'process' between the actor's performance and
the audience.
Money's not great unless you're in a real hit though.
--
Shug
I'm very into Britney Spear's early work before she sold out - so
mostly her finger-painting and macaroni art. Very under-rated
nimue
Oy f*cking vey. I didn't mean to ask if anyone could go throught their
motherf*cking garbage! What is wrong with you people? I meant -- hey -- if
anyone sees the info online, or hears JM talk about it at a convention (and
I have never been to a BTVS one yet), post the info here. What the f*ck is
wrong with that? This is so frustrating. People take innocent stuff, twist
it, and assume the worst. I guess you are assuming the worst because that
is the way YOU think -- but those things never even occurred to me! I just
figured someone had heard JM talking to the audience at the convention about
it, or something like that.
>
> Tirya
bbbluster
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Interested? Sure. Entitled? No.
Has nothing to do with whether or not fans are entitled to knowing
about a celebrity's private life. Fact is that once one attains a
certain level of fame people will be prying to into their private
life. It's the price of fame. Get over it. :-)
nimue
> nimue <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, Rose, I love you. I agree that most people are NOT seeing my
>> point. It astounds me. I am not sure if they just don't get it
>> (like people did not understand that I posted two of my students'
>> exra-credit papers because I thought they were adorable and
>> hilarious in their professions of love for Buffy --my kids have real
>> comedic talent and I am proud of them! People thought I was
>> encouraging others to laugh at the errors in the papers. I would
>> kill anyone who hurt my kids. Man, that misunderstanding STILL
>> offends and bothers me), or if they just want to bash me. I think I
>> have made it pretty clear that I don't rifle through anyone's
>> garbage (ewww), and that my information hunting extends to
>> google.com, or Us, and no further. I can't imagine how that would
>> really offend people, but I guess it does, because people are acting
>> as if I am the next Big Bad because I like to read People on the
>> check-out line at the supermarket.
>
> It is you who are not understanding the points of others, not the
> other way around.
>
> What many have said is that your claim that because a person wants to
> act automatically entitles anyone with a passing interest in her to
> information about her life is simply wrong.
I NEVER said that fans were *entitled*. I said celebs should expect it,
however. It's part of the job.
>
> No one will argue with you that people are interested. Heck,
> sometimes, I am interested. But, as Ken pointed out, that
> doesn't make me entitled.
>
> Also, my original complaint with your point was that this
> newsgroup was not the best forum for this kind of gossip. I
> know that most will probably disagree with me, and that it
> is unmoderated, but I still think that it is somewhat
> tasteless.
As I said earlier, what I really love about this ng is the discussion of the
show. It's like literary criticism -- fun! I NEVER expected this thread to
turn into the motherf*cking demon it has.
>
> Finally, you say that you won't go through someone's garbage.
> You won't pry into the lives of these celebrities. Well,
> where do you think much of the info comes from? It comes from
> garbage, and prying cameras, etc. When celebrities do come
> out to talk about their lives, it is often simply to avoid
> being mischaracterized by others.
Well, I know how THAT feels.
nimue
I love you! Huge exhalation of relief at your sanity.... Thanks for being
real, and not jumping on the nimue-is-the-First bandwagon.
Shuggie
wrote:
>sorry if this was mentioned further down the thread. i would have checked all the posts but most of
>them seemed to be pointless bickering about celebrity private lives.
I'm sorry you must have been misinformed. This is usenet, all there is
is pointless bickering ;)
--
Shug
I knew it! I knew it! Well, not 'knew it' in the sense of having the slightest idea, but I knew there was something I didn't know.
- Willow, Innocence
Jane Davitt
>
>
> Oy f*cking vey. I didn't mean to ask if anyone could go throught their
> motherf*cking garbage! What is wrong with you people? I meant -- hey -- if
> anyone sees the info online, or hears JM talk about it at a convention (and
> I have never been to a BTVS one yet), post the info here. What the f*ck is
> wrong with that? This is so frustrating. People take innocent stuff, twist
> it, and assume the worst. I guess you are assuming the worst because that
> is the way YOU think -- but those things never even occurred to me! I just
> figured someone had heard JM talking to the audience at the convention about
> it, or something like that.
>
>
Nimue, an early post by you said this;
'Oh, don't be so snotty. The man is a celebrity. People are going to
becurious. It's natural. If you want to be an actor, you have to be
prepared to deal with the interest in your life your fame will create.
This doesn't mean celebs should be stalked or harrassed -- but hey, they
have to know that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts about
their lives with the public. They get paid an obscene amount of money,
and the public expects a little something in return.'
It's fine...apart from this bit,
'they have to know that the price of fame includes sharing certain facts
about their lives with the public. They get paid an obscene amount of
money, and the public expects a little something in return.'
My immediate, honest if crude, reaction to that is 'bollocks'.We're not
paying their wages, the studio is. They're not civil servants or
politicians. The public might have a yen for the intimate details of
their idols (I shared it...at twelve maybe)but it doesn't mean they have
to get it.
That was what bugged me about your post; that you seemed to be saying he
let himself in for it, what did he expect, public has a right...I
disagree with that so strongly that I wanted to throw in my two pennies.
Jane
--
Read my Buffy the Vampire Slayer fiction at
http://members.rogers.com/jdavitt01/index.html
http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=231516
AE Jabbour
You honestly are amoral, aren't you?
I say that because you apparently don't realize that what Ken was
saying is that there is a difference between an ugly reality of
life and what should be.
Your logic could be used to say that anything is fine.
What you call "The price of fame" is a price precisely
because of peoples' often ugly and distasteful prying. Just
because it is a fact, doesn't make it less ugly. Murder
is a fact of life; so?
Rose
>people are acting as if I am the next Big Bad because I like to read
>People on the check-out line at the supermarket.
Well, you ARE the big bad. If you weren't, you buy the dang mag instead of
reading it on th checkout line. ;p
Rose
Rose
>For example?
>
>-- Ken from Chicago
For example, that middle aged brown-haired guy who has been in a bunch of films
with lots of famous people.
Rose
Rose
>Date: 6/29/2003 6:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <4YBLa.341$kW5.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>
>
>Rose wrote:
>> Nimue wrote:
>>
>>> - that would have been ok. Also, I don't see anything wrong with
>>> trying to figure out how old JM really is
>>
>> Well, that particular thing could conceivably hurt his career.
>
>Really? Honestly -- it just made me love him more. He is older than I am.
>Thank god!
I don't know if it did or will, but it could. Many actors and musicians say
they are younger than they really are because show biz is so youth-oriented.
Rose
AE Jabbour
> I NEVER said that fans were *entitled*. I said celebs should expect it,
> however. It's part of the job.
You are saying it in that very sentence. You are saying that part
of the job, an element of an actor's employment, is to be
bothered about her private life. What else does "part of the
job" mean?
You earlier said that celebrities owed it to fans because of
the obscene amounts of money they make. That's simply
ridiculous, not to mention a monster generalization.
I wrote:
>> garbage, and prying cameras, etc. When celebrities do come
>> out to talk about their lives, it is often simply to avoid
>> being mischaracterized by others.
> Well, I know how THAT feels.
> --
> nimue
Look, I'm sorry if I am wrong about what you are saying. But
if I am, then you aren't saying it well, because I am not the
only person who is reading your comments this way.
I think maybe that you meant to say something else, and it
came out wrong. In that case, I apologize for jumping on your
case.
BTR1701
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:20:19 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I was talking to my friend Bianca about this and she told me she has no
> >desire to become famous. If there was a way to become a successful
> >actress without fame (an impossibility to be sure), she'd take it in a
> >heartbeat. She loves to act and she likes the money but she has no
> >desire for fame.
>
> Tell her to try the stage. It's less of a celebrity machine than TV or
> movies and there's less 'process' between the actor's performance and
> the audience.
>
> Money's not great unless you're in a real hit though.
That's the thing. She's enjoyed some financial success in the acting
arena already and she admits to liking the money so it's kind of a
catch-22.
She has a show coming on UPN in the fall called "Rock Me Baby" so she
migt start getting her first taste of the fame end of things.
NickKnight
>Since when is being married(or not) part of one's "private life".
Being married isn't really your "private" life, your
marriage license is part of the public record
avaiable for public consumption.
--------------------------------------------
To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
my e-mail address.
-----= 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! =-----
NickKnight
>When said person chooses not to reveal it. And by what right does anyone
>have to know their marital status?
Because it is part of the public records that are available
to the public by visiting city hall.
NickKnight
>Look -- if someone want to be a celebrity (different from being an actor),
>that person had better expect that lots of people are going to be interested
>in his life. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with being
>interested.
If an person wants privacy then go into a profession other
than acting. If you want privacy become a file clerk or
something less in the public eye.
BTW, I discovered many years ago after I got married that
your marriage license among other things becomes part
of the public record available to all along with your
drivers license, the deed for you house, etc. Take a look
sometime at how much privacy you don't have.
You go into xxx store, guess what? You are on TV.
Privacy in this world is almost extinct.
NickKnight
>So? Does that make it any less tasteless? No.
>
>I think that the all the "See! I told you Glenn Quinn ODed!" posts,
>with people who were happy with themselves for apparently scooping
>the story way back when, are a perfect example of how utterly
>disgusting human beings can sometimes be.
But when someone dies that ceases to be a private matter
and becomes a public matter because they have
to determine it wasn't foul play, the death certificate
becomes part of the public record, etc. .
Also the cuase of death effects other things like insurance
payments, etc.
AE Jabbour
> On AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>So? Does that make it any less tasteless? No.
>>
>>I think that the all the "See! I told you Glenn Quinn ODed!" posts,
>>with people who were happy with themselves for apparently scooping
>>the story way back when, are a perfect example of how utterly
>>disgusting human beings can sometimes be.
> But when someone dies that ceases to be a private matter
> and becomes a public matter because they have
> to determine it wasn't foul play, the death certificate
> becomes part of the public record, etc. .
>
> Also the cuase of death effects other things like insurance
> payments, etc.
What is your point, and how does it have anything to
do with what I said?
nimue
We all know what being a successful celebrity entails. When a person goes
into acting, he KNOWS that. If he can't handle it, he should find a
different career. This does NOT mean an actor should be harrassed, etc.
However, an actor should expect a certain amount of interest in his life. I
don't watch Inside the Actor's Studio to see actors I don't care about. The
fans are a big part of the actors' careers. I don't need to know they just
saw their proctologist, but I do like to know a little about their lives.
>
>
>
> Jane
NickKnight
>Nimue wrote:
>
>>- that would have been ok. Also, I don't see anything wrong with
>>trying to figure out how old JM really is
>
>Well, that particular thing could conceivably hurt his career.
But then his age is part of the public record. His birth
certificate, drivers license, etc. are public documents.
Around here the registrar of motor vehicles requested
people use a state issued license number rather than
their social security number. The reason, the registrar is
compelled by law to make available all the information
on your drivers license.
Take a look sometime at how much privacy you don't
have today.
nimue
> nimue <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I NEVER said that fans were *entitled*. I said celebs should expect
>> it, however. It's part of the job.
>
> You are saying it in that very sentence. You are saying that part
> of the job, an element of an actor's employment, is to be
> bothered about her private life. What else does "part of the
> job" mean?
>
> You earlier said that celebrities owed it to fans because of
> the obscene amounts of money they make. That's simply
> ridiculous, not to mention a monster generalization.
>
>
> I wrote:
>
>>> garbage, and prying cameras, etc. When celebrities do come
>>> out to talk about their lives, it is often simply to avoid
>>> being mischaracterized by others.
>
>
>> Well, I know how THAT feels.
>> --
>> nimue
>
> Look, I'm sorry if I am wrong about what you are saying. But
> if I am, then you aren't saying it well, because I am not the
> only person who is reading your comments this way.
>
> I think maybe that you meant to say something else, and it
> came out wrong. In that case, I apologize for jumping on your
> case.
Well -- that *IS* gracious. Thanks.
nimue
Well, I will be sure to watch it, to support her. God -- I hope it's good.
Ken
"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20030629113056...@mb-m05.aol.com...
No. By not buying it Nimue refuses to financially support the snoopparrazzi.
To quote Martha Stewart, "and that's a good thing." Nimue shows that deep
down waaaaaaay deep down she knows it's wrong. She can be redeemed. We have
the technology.
-- Ken from Chicago