Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

220 | 221 | 222

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Alyk

Alyk

Boston, MA
February 2005

MAR 17, 2006 11:23 AM

NewYorkMatt said:
I saw Alyk on the train yesterday in Boston.

She looks about 27 years old and has a dirty whorish mouth. SHe had a fugazi patch on her trapper keeper.
SHe had a Bukowski book under her arm as well. I heard her talking about project runway on the phone. She popped some anit-anxiety medication and walked home from the train station.
She put on comfy smurf pants and took a nap.

That's when I snuk into her home and shaved off her left eyebrow. Her eyebrow which I am keeping and selling on ebay.


That is so close to reality, it's frightening.

Stop reading my public profile, perv.

mamet

mamet

Charleston, SC
March 2005

MAR 17, 2006 12:24 PM

alyk said:

There's a reason she gets paid $10 million per movie, and it's not because of her prodigious talent



I knew Kate had a giant penis!

love

mamet

mamet

Charleston, SC
March 2005

MAR 17, 2006 12:47 PM

Coi said:

mamet said:

alyk said:

There's a reason she gets paid $10 million per movie, and it's not because of her prodigious talent



I knew Kate had a giant penis!

love




So the super plus tampons are for her anus?



Or her husband's. Can you imagine what a giant penis would do to that poor, little man's rectum?

oldmoonmeetnew

oldmoonmeetnew

Braintree, MA
February 2005

MAR 17, 2006 01:12 PM

no shit? So a site with STALKER in the name promotes stalking? the one entry I was interested in was maggie gyllenthaal. It was someone helping her move into the house, and they put the full address. GREAT so now people know exactly where she lives?

lilyk

lilyk

I'm lost
December 2004

MAR 17, 2006 01:36 PM

alyk said:
There's a reason she gets paid $10 million per movie, and it's not because of her prodigious talent--it's so she can pay someone else to buy her fucking tampons. That's an obscene amount of money and certain disadvantages come with it.


Agreed, to every single word of this. Frankly, the ones you should feel badly for are those who are celebrities who are poor, like say, Mike Tyson, who is forced to be his own security. surreal

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

MAR 17, 2006 01:59 PM

oldmoonmeetnew said:
no shit? So a site with STALKER in the name promotes stalking? the one entry I was interested in was maggie gyllenthaal. It was someone helping her move into the house, and they put the full address. GREAT so now people know exactly where she lives?


Yeah, there is no way to find that out any other way!!

Alyk

Alyk

Boston, MA
February 2005

MAR 17, 2006 02:04 PM

lilyk said:

alyk said:
There's a reason she gets paid $10 million per movie, and it's not because of her prodigious talent--it's so she can pay someone else to buy her fucking tampons. That's an obscene amount of money and certain disadvantages come with it.


Agreed, to every single word of this. Frankly, the ones you should feel badly for are those who are celebrities who are poor, like say, Mike Tyson, who is forced to be his own security. surreal


I stalk you sometimes. Like, a lot. Sometimes I write your name all over my body in sharpie marker and then I make care packages to send to your cats. Seriously, I'm very deprived.

Idjit

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

MAR 17, 2006 02:28 PM

alyk said:

FreakPirate said:

alyk said:

I absolutely believe that "in the public eye" means "in the public eye." And yes, I believe that celebrities paychecks are cushioned so they can hire personal assistants and security.

It's ridiculous to blame accuse Gawker of promoting threatening behavior--people like John Wilkes Booth and Mark David Chapman were around long before that webiste.



So none of them are entitled to any privacy? That's interesting...

I hope I never get famous. I can't imagine how much of a pain it must be to have assholes staring over your shoulder all the time.

ARRR!!!


I take public transportation everyday, which means I have some asshole staring over my shoulder everyday.

Caring about what you're favorite celebrities are up to is human nature. Do you read you're favorite Suicide Girls' journal and check out the candid photos she's posted?



The issue isn't seeing people, the issue is reporting GPS coordinates of people's whereabouts on the internet to easily facilitate other people seeing them as well. You can be sure as shit if I posted the GPS coordinates of a single SG's house on this forum, I'd get about 10,000 people jumping down my throat. Why should a movie star be different, because they have the money to hire a bodyguard to break my knees? whatever

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

MAR 17, 2006 02:48 PM

Idjiit said:

alyk said:

FreakPirate said:

alyk said:

I absolutely believe that "in the public eye" means "in the public eye." And yes, I believe that celebrities paychecks are cushioned so they can hire personal assistants and security.

It's ridiculous to blame accuse Gawker of promoting threatening behavior--people like John Wilkes Booth and Mark David Chapman were around long before that webiste.



So none of them are entitled to any privacy? That's interesting...

I hope I never get famous. I can't imagine how much of a pain it must be to have assholes staring over your shoulder all the time.

ARRR!!!


I take public transportation everyday, which means I have some asshole staring over my shoulder everyday.

Caring about what you're favorite celebrities are up to is human nature. Do you read you're favorite Suicide Girls' journal and check out the candid photos she's posted?



The issue isn't seeing people, the issue is reporting GPS coordinates of people's whereabouts on the internet to easily facilitate other people seeing them as well. You can be sure as shit if I posted the GPS coordinates of a single SG's house on this forum, I'd get about 10,000 people jumping down my throat. Why should a movie star be different, because they have the money to hire a bodyguard to break my knees? whatever



yeah exactly. just because they dont deserve the movie salaries doesnt mean they deserve this. two wrongs and all that. also, im wondering how many of the people here who say 'no big deal' are in the celebrity worship sg group.

Alyk

Alyk

Boston, MA
February 2005

MAR 17, 2006 03:29 PM

duck_donald said:
yeah exactly. just because they dont deserve the movie salaries doesnt mean they deserve this. two wrongs and all that. also, im wondering how many of the people here who say 'no big deal' are in the celebrity worship sg group.


Well, I'm the owner of that group, but considering that the owner of this site is also a member of the group (as are half the people on your friends list), I guess that means that people who care what Cameron Diaz bought at Trader Joes can't be all that evil and disgusting, right?

nonbillable

nonbillable

Brooklyn, NY
September 2004

MAR 17, 2006 03:41 PM

PointBlank said:
Has anyone who's complaining even looked at the site, because if you think "Saw Robin Williams filming a movie" or "Liam Gallagher was walking down 8th st" is "Posting the details of [ones] life", or that it's anything new in the world, you're crazy.


Agreed. Similarly, it's worth pointing out that Gawker Stalker itself is not new--it's been around for at least a few years, I think, and has always featured people's sightings, including locations and comments. As far as I know there haven't been incidents in the past. It's only the map feature (and snazzier new layout) that's new.

lilyk

lilyk

I'm lost
December 2004

MAR 17, 2006 03:55 PM

alyk said:

duck_donald said:
yeah exactly. just because they dont deserve the movie salaries doesnt mean they deserve this. two wrongs and all that. also, im wondering how many of the people here who say 'no big deal' are in the celebrity worship sg group.


Well, I'm the owner of that group, but considering that the owner of this site is also a member of the group (as are half the people on your friends list), I guess that means that people who care what Cameron Diaz bought at Trader Joes can't be all that evil and disgusting, right?


As co-founder of CW, I have to point out that not one, but two of the owners of the site are members, shown here. We strive to report the best celebrity gossip and the most accurate. wink

Idjit

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

MAR 17, 2006 03:57 PM

Again, it's all fun and games until it's you. Or a friend, an SG.

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

MAR 17, 2006 04:12 PM

lilyk said:

alyk said:

duck_donald said:
yeah exactly. just because they dont deserve the movie salaries doesnt mean they deserve this. two wrongs and all that. also, im wondering how many of the people here who say 'no big deal' are in the celebrity worship sg group.


Well, I'm the owner of that group, but considering that the owner of this site is also a member of the group (as are half the people on your friends list), I guess that means that people who care what Cameron Diaz bought at Trader Joes can't be all that evil and disgusting, right?


As co-founder of CW, I have to point out that not one, but two of the owners of the site are members, shown here. We strive to report the best celebrity gossip and the most accurate. wink


i guess i wasnt clear. thats not my point. i think my point is that people in that group are a little biased towards the nature of celebrity. i am not of the opinion that just because you have attained celebrity status you give up your right to basic privacy.

this is a new invasive plateau of celebrity gawking. and it makes me feel badly that its happening. bad for the celebrities, bad for the people who are doing it.

ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

MAR 17, 2006 11:48 PM

alyk said:
Caring about what you're favorite celebrities are up to is human nature. Do you read you're favorite Suicide Girls' journal and check out the candid photos she's posted?



I generally could give a fuck. Once in a while I've gone as far as to say hello to a celeb (usually the type of "celebrity" I'm into, for example Jim Carroll and Jonathan Richman). These people don't mean all that much to my life. I say hello, sometimes shake their hand. Then I leave them the fuck alone. Michael Jackson I just rolled my eyes at as I walked towards the store exit (they were clearing the store for him).

Penn and Teller were much cooler than I expected. Perhaps because I politely asked permission before snapping a photo or two. And that really wasn't taken because "Let's prove I met two celebrities!", it was more because it was just something else odd that happened when I went to see a 300 lb naked Elvis impersonator perform.

What's always fun to me is when you run into an almost-celebrity who seems to expect you to fawn over them and looks out-of-sorts when you're indifferent towards them. Of course, this tends to happen most with local radio DJs.


[Edited on Mar 17, 2006 11:53PM]

FrankMask

FrankMask

Saint Paul, MN
June 2003

MAR 19, 2006 12:50 AM

I've had a couple of people who were being stalked ask me to tag along with them at school or in public because they felt unsafe. Stalking is just wrong. Having an interest in someone is fine, but there are lines and limits, and reporting on someone's location is compromising their privacy and their safety.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

MAR 19, 2006 06:17 AM

Idjiit said:

The issue isn't seeing people, the issue is reporting GPS coordinates of people's whereabouts on the internet to easily facilitate other people seeing them as well. You can be sure as shit if I posted the GPS coordinates of a single SG's house on this forum, I'd get about 10,000 people jumping down my throat. Why should a movie star be different, because they have the money to hire a bodyguard to break my knees? whatever


Click the link. It's not what you think. The most recent sighting are always a couple of hours old. There's no "GPS coordinates."

[Edited on Mar 19, 2006 by PointBlank]

rawr_ima_monster

rawr_ima_monster

Los Angeles, CA
July 2002

MAR 19, 2006 12:10 PM

alyk said:
Well, I guess there are a lot of creepy members of SG around...




-really? no way!
Dave

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next