Quote:
Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Wrongerito on those Fritos. He may be an imbetweener when it comes to the biggest losers on that show and the guys on Bachelorette, but he is extremely average. He is not good looking. He's as dumb as bricks. And he is so juvenile that he thinks it's funny to pick on the smallest guy in the group by cracking an egg on his head. When the other dork confronted him about being an ass and actually (almost) got in his face, he didn't say shit. He's a pussy who thinks he's the man because he's surrounded by dorks who are smarter than him. He most certainly belongs in the class of guys they chose. In fact, he's below many of those guys. If he was on Bachelorette, he would be silent, in the corner and would leave the first episode.
Are you restricting your judgment to pure looks? (And I still think you lose if you are.)
TM
|
This debate may force me to start watching that show. I read the recap on the nbc site yesterday and it sounds pretty entertaining...
In other news, CZJ may be on a litigation tear after her recent victory regarding the bad photos -
NOVEMBER 10--Fresh from a $24,000 victory over the British tab that published her wedding photos, Catherine Zeta-Jones is fixing for her next legal fight--this time, if you can believe it, over published reports that the Academy Award winner shed pounds via the Atkins diet. In a warning letter sent last week to media outlets (see below), lawyers for Zeta-Jones assert that "her likeness and persona have been improperly linked" to the popular diet in press accounts, adding that the weight loss program "has been derided by nutritionists and other health care officials for decades." (from The Smoking Gun, and you can see the letter as the doc of the day on tsg website today)
Is she using Tom Cruise's law firm? What could her damages possibly be? [note in responding to these questions that I am not a litigator, and all memories of stupid law school litigation courses have been conveniently repressed through the ongoing use of alcohol for the past 5 years - this is to say that I will not debate you, sebby, as to possible causes of action or burdens of proof or whatever]
