On Mon, 12 May 2008 14:16:08 -0400, "Mason Barge"
<masonbarge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"The Starmaker" <starmaker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:h5rg249b6dkvadv8plqnies8fg7a7nqkt7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:20:35 -0400, "Mason Barge"
>> <masonbarge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"The Starmaker" <starmaker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:q79f24df072nj5cifa6ecnh33hlonke8e8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>I notice that a lot of celebrities are having babies, why is that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because they are 20-40 years old?
>>>
>>>> I do notice that the majority of "todays stars" are children of
stars.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think you're full of it. Prove it. I'd want to see facts to sup****t
>>>this
>>>sloppy statement.
>>
>> Sloppy statement? I never heard that term used before. What does
>> "sloppy statement" mean? Do I have to start listing all the stars?
>> Count how many are stars, then add up all the ones that have parents
>> that are stars to show the ratio between the children of stars and
>> stars without star parents, just to show you that the majority are
>> children of stars? That's a lot of work. First I would have to define
>> Stars. So, I mean Stars that have Star Power. That's a smaller list
>> than stars that exist.
>>>
>>>I can think of a handful of young stars who have celebrity parents. A
>>>statistical difference, probably. A "majority" -- horse puckey.
>>
>> "horsey puckey"? What country are you from, Olkahoma? I said star
>> parents, not celebrity parents. I'm talking about major stars, not
>> tiny stars.
>>
>> How about Angelina Jolie? She's a major star. She has star power. You
>> know who her father is.
>>
>>
>
>In other words, you can blow smoke in every direction, but your claim is
so
>lame that you can't even attempt to back it up.
No, I'm going to go one by one. Just in case there is any dispute what
is a star. Angelina Jolie father is star Jon Voight.
|
