100% ALLEGED Showbiz, Blind Items and Gossip Thread (Part 4)

1182183185187188400

Comments

  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,195
    Forum Member
    From Crazy Days & Nights

    This network that has a really short name is deathly afraid of saying anything negative about this B list mostly television actor who once had a cable show and is making a movie about it. They refuse to say anything bad about him. One person says they are afraid of being sued and the other says it is because he knows a lot of secrets about someone very famous that works for the network.
  • cris182cris182 Posts: 9,595
    Forum Member
    Can we name the network or do we need to give clues? Or is it just people we can't name?
  • The PrumeisterThe Prumeister Posts: 22,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cris182 wrote: »
    Can we name the network or do we need to give clues? Or is it just people we can't name?



    3 letters?
  • cris182cris182 Posts: 9,595
    Forum Member
    3 letters?

    There are a few of those. My post was more sarcasm than anything to be honest, Like would we need to say small dog like creature or first 3 letters of alphabet. Or is it ok to name a network on here? lol
  • The PrumeisterThe Prumeister Posts: 22,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cris182 wrote: »
    There are a few of those. My post was more sarcasm than anything to be honest, Like would we need to say small dog like creature or first 3 letters of alphabet. Or is it ok to name a network on here? lol




    I'd say in this instance it would be blatantly dodgy to blatantly name the network.
  • Johnny_CashJohnny_Cash Posts: 2,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    abc, cbs, nbc, fox, the wb, tbs, tlc, cnn could be anyone, its really vague this one.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,676
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    abc, cbs, nbc, fox, the wb, tbs, tlc, cnn could be anyone, its really vague this one.

    The shortest one I can think of has just one letter (and an exclamation mark).
  • 21stCenturyBoy21stCenturyBoy Posts: 44,493
    Forum Member
    dodrade wrote: »
    The shortest one I can think of has just one letter (and an exclamation mark).

    I see what you did there!
  • misslibertinemisslibertine Posts: 14,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Perhaps some of the blinds we guessed about the GOOP couple were actually true, then.
  • twingletwingle Posts: 19,322
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Perhaps some of the blinds we guessed about the GOOP couple were actually true, then.

    Yes I was just coming in to see if there was any reveals :o
  • WhedoniteWhedonite Posts: 29,082
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't get these blind items. All they do is take already discussed gossip and some facts and add their own twist. How do they explain the ones that are obviously not true? Also, how do they get away with dragging names through the mud? The sites I've been on say the name of the celebrity they're talking about and sometimes the blind item claims they're doing something illegal. I'm surprised they have not been sued.
  • AdelaideGirlAdelaideGirl Posts: 3,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Whedonite wrote: »
    I don't get these blind items. All they do is take already discussed gossip and some facts and add their own twist. How do they explain the ones that are obviously not true? Also, how do they get away with dragging names through the mud? The sites I've been on say the name of the celebrity they're talking about and sometimes the blind item claims they're doing something illegal. I'm surprised they have not been sued.

    Most sites have disclaimers saying that the information might not be true, which I helps legally. The US also has pretty broad Free Speech laws & protection for Journalists ( which gossip columnists can loosely claim to be).
  • WhedoniteWhedonite Posts: 29,082
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Most sites have disclaimers saying that the information might not be true, which I helps legally. The US also has pretty broad Free Speech laws & protection for Journalists ( which gossip columnists can loosely claim to be).

    I'd still try to sue. They claim that they get information from reliable sources and the blind items are clearly intended to be true. Some celebrities are accused of doing the worst things and idiots who comment on them clearly believe what they read.
  • AdelaideGirlAdelaideGirl Posts: 3,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Whedonite wrote: »
    I'd still try to sue. They claim that they get information from reliable sources and the blind items are clearly intended to be true. Some celebrities are accused of doing the worst things and idiots who comment on them clearly believe what they read.

    I would want to too. But I think their publicists & lawyers mades a call about a website seen by a few thousand and believed by only some of them over suing and making the whole world aware of a case they might not win for technical reasons.
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,195
    Forum Member
    dodrade wrote: »
    The shortest one I can think of has just one letter (and an exclamation mark).

    :o Ooh! i didn't think of that one. This one i think is pretty easy. There's only one former cable show making a movie at the moment, that i can think of and the show was all about Hollywood so i can see why the network might be involved in even a small way...
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,195
    Forum Member
    Whedonite wrote: »
    I don't get these blind items. All they do is take already discussed gossip and some facts and add their own twist. How do they explain the ones that are obviously not true? Also, how do they get away with dragging names through the mud? The sites I've been on say the name of the celebrity they're talking about and sometimes the blind item claims they're doing something illegal. I'm surprised they have not been sued.

    Why do you have to be a killjoy? If you don't like blind items why are you even here :confused:
  • TbellTbell Posts: 76
    Forum Member
    dee123 wrote: »
    Why do you have to be a killjoy? If you don't like blind items why are you even here :confused:

    The poster was simply asking a question.
    I agree with what Adelaidegirl says.
    The other thing I've noticed is that even with BI's such as the ones which are now said to have been referring to GOOP - they could've fitted several celeb couples; it's just easy to say the Blinds fitted them after the event.
    Most people are aware and take the gossip with a pinch of salt, it's just unfortunate that others take it as gospel.
  • misslibertinemisslibertine Posts: 14,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Whedonite wrote: »
    I'd still try to sue. They claim that they get information from reliable sources and the blind items are clearly intended to be true. Some celebrities are accused of doing the worst things and idiots who comment on them clearly believe what they read.

    It's not that much different to newspaper articles who report things "from a source close to the star" and so on. You just have to take them both with a pinch of salt.
  • whatever54whatever54 Posts: 6,456
    Forum Member
    Perhaps some of the blinds we guessed about the GOOP couple were actually true, then.

    Sounds like it, they're marking this Lainey one as partially solved -Goop the homewrecker:o (I wonder what's happened to the wife:confused:).

    The FIRST WIFE is still trying to figure out if she wants to be one.
    She and her husband have been through a lot the last few years, on both sides. It was before the trouble though when she had an affair with a colleague — still above the line, but with a smaller spotlight, both compared to First Wife and his own wife who’s just as famous too, and should be just as acclaimed.

    The affair was intense, so intense that First Wife wanted to end her marriage and he was going to end his marriage but then her husband needed her in crisis. So she helped him recover, and as soon as he healed, she fell apart. By the time she got it together, her moment with her lover had passed. He happily reconnected with his own wife (though she has no idea) while First Wife is struggling with what would have been.

    As for the Second Wife – everyone’s been speculating about her infidelity recently but they might be focusing on the wrong target.

    The right target isn’t a billionaire but he’s a pretty successful player too, albeit on a smaller screen. Their involvement led to an award for her, and a divorce for him.

    She was attracted to him because “he’s the hot geeky type like her husband”. Both insist that they never moved past suggestive texting and heavy flirting and never ended up consummating their attraction. Bullsh-t. There was at least one night and that’s why she’s so freaked out about the takedown that’s been coming to her. She’d be happy if they stayed on the current scene they’re on so long as she doesn’t get busted for this one.

    PS. Everyone mentioned here is a major celebrity.
  • WhedoniteWhedonite Posts: 29,082
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dee123 wrote: »
    Why do you have to be a killjoy? If you don't like blind items why are you even here :confused:

    I'm a killjoy for asking how blind items work?

    Do you know what else is a bit of a killjoy? Seeing an actor you like being accused of being a paedophile because these gossip sights heard something from a "source". I suppose it's just a bit of fun and I need to lighten up though. It's not like anyone is being accused of a serious crime or anything.
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,195
    Forum Member
    Tbell wrote: »
    The poster was simply asking a question.
    I agree with what Adelaidegirl says.
    The other thing I've noticed is that even with BI's such as the ones which are now said to have been referring to GOOP - they could've fitted several celeb couples; it's just easy to say the Blinds fitted them after the event.
    Most people are aware and take the gossip with a pinch of salt, it's just unfortunate that others take it as gospel.

    This is very true. And why so few many blinds give any real concrete clues anymore.
  • 21stCenturyBoy21stCenturyBoy Posts: 44,493
    Forum Member
    From Popbitch

    "Which celebrity hardman enlivened a recent interview by bringing out a huge bowl of cocaine with the instruction "I've had my dinner, lads, tuck in!""
  • Johnny_CashJohnny_Cash Posts: 2,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thinking gazzas ball squeezer
  • 21stCenturyBoy21stCenturyBoy Posts: 44,493
    Forum Member
    thinking gazzas ball squeezer

    That's who I was thinking. Either him or his former co-star and an ex Mr Kelly Brook (not that that really narrows it down)
  • Gloria FandangoGloria Fandango Posts: 3,834
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's who I was thinking. Either him or his former co-star and an ex Mr Kelly Brook (not that that really narrows it down)

    What about the Eastender?
This discussion has been closed.