"Me Myself and I" <guardclan-newsgroups@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g6bqsl$7pl$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It just doesn't seem her style. Considering before they adopted she
said
> she never wanted to have biological children because there were more
needy
> children in the world. It's because of Brad that she had ****lo, but I
> just can't believe that they had IVF, it just doesn't ring right with
me.
>
> BTW I read women's mags all the time and they never seem to retract
> anything they say even when they are wrong wrong wrong. Look how many
> times they claim a women is pregnant because she has a little pooch.
Hell
> if I were famous they would say I was due next month LOL.
See, I wouldn't call those "women's mags" although I'm sure they are all
mostly read by women. We're talking about Star, US, OK, National
Enquirer,
etc., right? I consider those "trash" magazines, because like you said,
they publish whatever they want, true or not, and even random speculation,
because it sells. To me, "women's mags" are Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Vogue,
etc. Even People, to me, goes in the latter category rather than the
former, because I feel like they have a mode*** of integrity, and work to
check facts and not publish until things are verified.
I do think it's funny that they can publish that Jennifer Anniston is
pregnant for months and months and months and months, when she clearly
isn't, and then one day, she actually may be, and they will have still
been
saying that she is the whole time, so they'll finally get to say, "See?
We
told you so! We had it here, first!"
--
Jamie Clark
www.ClarkDigitalArts.com
|
