This is fantastic. Appropos of nothing, CNN inadvertently aired the explosive diarrhea scene from Dumb & Dumber. I’d like to think that whoever was responsible for it is somehow connected to the people who sabotaged Gawker over the weekend.
So, Carrie Fisher, who off-handedly outed John Travolta last year, reiterated the same again this year in The Advocate. I don’t know if Travolta is actually gay or not, and I’m not that interested. However, I do take issue with this, from Movieline:
Frankly, just about everyone knows John Travolta is gay. I know it. You probably know it. My grandmother knows it and she barely speaks English. It’s time, John. It’s not 1976, it’s almost 2011. Every day that you put off admitting what the world already knows will just make it that much more absurd when you finally do come out.
… wait, really? Everyone knows this? I honestly had no clue, had never heard rumors, and up until an hour ago, this is the first I’ve ever heard about John Travolta’s sexuality. This is not Ricky Martin we’re talking about. Or is it? Am I so oblivious that I’ve missed the obvious? Vincent Vega will never be the same.* (Movieline)
There were a lot of awards handed out to movies over the weekend. In my neck of the country, the Boston Film Society awarded everything to The Social Network, including Best Picture, Best Director (Fincher), Best Actor (Eisenberg), and Best Screenplay (Sorkin). No complaints, here. Portman received best actress for The Black Swan, Bale received best supporting actor for The Fighter, and Juliette Lewis received best supporting actress for Conviction, which was probably a homer win because Conviction was filmed in the area (also, Lewis was superb).
Likewise, the Los Angeles Critics Association chose The Social Network as best picture, although it was Colin Firth who hauled down Best Actor for his role in The King’s Speech.
Meanwhile, AFI also selected its best ten films of the year. They’re pretty much the same ten you see in every list, minus The King’s Speech and plus The Town. They also named their best ten television shows of the year, which are these:
The Big C
Boardwalk Empire
Breaking Bad
Glee
Mad Men
Modern Family
The Pacific
Temple Grandin
30 Rock
The Walking Dead
I would respectfully disagree on “The Big C” and “Glee.” “Pacific,” while brilliant, was kind of a tough slog, too.
Eurocorp is developing a 12-part television series based on The Transporter, and also has plans to develop a television series based on Liam Neeson’s Taken, but only after the sequel has wrapped. (Deadline)
* He will still be the same.
Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance
Once you're knocking space-boots with alien dinosaurs, the quaint notion of gender just doesn't matter.
Um, I've heard.
Xenu / Ming '12
Let's elect us some real alien overlords!
Posted by: BierceAmbrose at December 13, 2010 1:07 PM
I, for one, would welcome them.
Posted by: Mrs. Julien at December 13, 2010 1:08 PM
Vote KANG!
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 13, 2010 1:21 PM
Vote KODOS!
Posted by: logan at December 13, 2010 1:29 PM
I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Posted by: Jim Doggie at December 13, 2010 1:32 PM
BORG or Bust!
Posted by: Rykker at December 13, 2010 1:38 PM
I don't understand why people get angry when an allegedly gay person is not out. I’m more likely to find it sad, because they are limiting themselves, but that’s about it. Isn’t that exactly the so-called lifestyle choice everyone talks about? Isn’t it the individual’s to make? As long as they live their life without hypocrisy, I really don’t see what the issue is.
Posted by: Mrs. Julien at December 13, 2010 1:39 PM
I really don’t see what the issue is.
There isn't one, really, Mrs. J; only in the minds of the angry people.
Silly angry people.
Posted by: Rykker at December 13, 2010 1:46 PM
As long as they live their lives without hypocrisy
Aye, but there's the rub. Travolta is an outspoken adherent of Scientology, and Scientology believes homosexuality is a disease or moral failing I forget which) that must be corrected. Hence the hypocrisy.
Now, if he is gay, and chooses to keep that to himself, then it is indeed his personal right to do so as long as he either leaves Scientology, or remains within it but speaks freely about his disagreement with that tenet of Scientology. Otherwise, I'm sorry, he would be hypocritical, and inadvertently allow the perpetuation of persecution.
Posted by: Quiet Wyatt at December 13, 2010 1:53 PM
As long as they live their life without hypocrisy, I really don’t see what the issue is.
While I do very much appreciate you, Ms. Julien, and I do appreciate your overall comment because I believe, in general, it's all true and we could all stand to be a little less judgemental and a little more understanding:
John Travolta does not exactly live his life without hypocrisy. If he is gay, which there are very good odds of, he's married to a woman, and would almost certainly vehemently deny the very suggestion that he might possibly, ever, have been less than 100% heterosexual. (As opposed to simply saying, "None of your business, go away.")
That said, I hate him a lot more for being a Scientologist than for being a closeted gay.
Posted by: MM at December 13, 2010 1:56 PM
Jinx, Quiet Wyatt.
Posted by: MM at December 13, 2010 1:58 PM
I get the Travolta issue and understand that hypocrisy was the rub (which he apparently would not want to receive from someone with woman parts), but I wanted to address the choice not to be out instead of a specific individual's insanity. I have no respect for anyone who hides behind a religion or an institution, or denigrates someone's identity based on their personal discomfort with the way other people have sex; however, if you make the choice to not act on your sexuality and abide by it honourably I don't think it's anyone else's business.
Posted by: Mrs. Julien at December 13, 2010 2:01 PM
And Scientology is madcrazylocofou.
Posted by: Mrs. Julien at December 13, 2010 2:03 PM
Dustin, you haven't heard the gay rumors about John Travolta? Really? I don't give a shit whether he is or isn't and I've heard this rumor approximately 2,418 times since the late '90s.
Any of this ring a bell?:
- Invites male "friends" for flights on his private plane.
- Invites male "friends" up to hotel room when traveling.
- Both he and his wife are gay but wanted to have children within , respect each other, and have an open relationship.
- He is gay.
- He likes men.
- He prefers putting his penis into men's anii instead of women's vaginas.
Nothing? It's all bells and whistles over there? Eh. Just google it. There are enough accounts of his homosexuality to choke a coked up antelope.
Posted by: Kballs at December 13, 2010 2:11 PM
I actually agree with you Mrs. J about people's right to privacy regarding their sexuality in general; I just had to call out Travolta because I do believe he is hypocritical and I don't believe he is acting honorably. That's why his closetedness (or non-closetedness) is a news item and a discussion issue, whereas if he didn't embody this conflict, it would be a non-issue and nobody's business.
And I agree with you, too, that I'm really much more inclined to feel sad for someone who fears their sexuality than I am to angrily point fingers. But as a gay person, I can't honorably let hypocrisy slide.
Posted by: Quiet Wyatt at December 13, 2010 2:11 PM
Both he and his wife are gay but wanted to have children within a "normal" marriage, respect each other, and have an open relationship.
Fixed.
Posted by: Kballs at December 13, 2010 2:13 PM
How is it possible that you haven't heard 1 gay rumor about John Travolta? A picture popped up in the last couple years of him kissing a male "friend" next to his private plane. The rumor is that Kelly Preston is aware that John is gay and Kelly herself has outside relationships (w/ men) that John is also aware of and accepting.
Posted by: L at December 13, 2010 2:27 PM
Carrie Fisher got all hot under the collar because Travolta's legal team was looking to see if they could take action against her for an off-hand comment about his sexuality. It was nothing disparaging (it was a two second quip in an interview) and the Travolta-camp response was Tom Cruise refusing to admit he was literally packing fudge in a fudge packing factory and suing Stan's family on South Park levels of ridiculousness.
That being said, if the only thing stopping John from coming out is Scientology, he's not going to come out. The man believes in his faith, and if his faith teaches him that e-meters and balanced thetans will "fix" him, then he's going to stay with it. I fail to see how trying to out a man who has a different belief system is going to benefit anyone in the world other than to say "one of us, goobble gobble, we accept you."
No, it is not his personal private business in 2011. Gay teens are killing themselves. You only have a right to stay in the closet today if you live in rural Mississippi or somewhere like that. An icon like John Travolta in fucking Hollywood has a duty to the community to be public and unashamed of his sexuality on behalf of confused and persecuted kids everywhere who need that hope to cling to until they can get the fuck out of Mississippi. And it's just ridiculous. George Takei was in the closet for so long, because he thought it would hurt his career. He's been all over TV since he came out. He's worked more than ever. In 2011, some people just don't have the right to stay in the closet. It hurts everyone.
Posted by: John G. at December 13, 2010 2:50 PM
Come on Dustin!
Did you not hear about the John Roecker Scientology T-shirt incident?
Personally, I see no particular obligation for a person to reveal whether they are gay or not, or whether they like golden showers or not, or whatever.
My only objection, as others have said, would be someone who actually engages in some sexual activity but attacks other people for doing the same.
Posted by: Pat C. at December 13, 2010 2:55 PM
I think Mrs. Julien's point is that even if John is gay, he may be choosing not to act on his sexuality due to his religious beliefs. Thus, no need to come out.
Posted by: Mac at December 13, 2010 3:06 PM
Mac - That is so totally not my point. Are you being facetious? Is the fact that your name is a reference to my alma mater a kind of "safe word" to indicate you are kidding?
Go Marauders!
Posted by: Mrs. Julien at December 13, 2010 3:22 PM
Actually, I wasn't kidding. That's how I read it.
however, if you make the choice to not act on your sexuality and abide by it honourably I don't think it's anyone else's business.
But I do apologize for misconstruing your point.
Posted by: Mac at December 13, 2010 3:40 PM
Go ahead Jim Doggie... THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY.
I believe we missed that final part earlier.
Posted by: e at December 13, 2010 3:43 PM
I don't think celebrities have an obligation to discuss their sexuality publicly. In fact, I'd be delighted if everyone stopped speculating about what other people do in the bedroom. Asking outright, having discussions about sexuality, allowing for differences, etc. is all fine. But guessing at what flavor sex someone has is a titillation game, nothing more.
If Travolta is gay or bi (something I notice is never mentioned, as if bisexuals simply do not exist) and chooses to keep his sex life private, why on earth would anyone think it more incumbent upon him to come out to the world than someone with a different job? Sure, he's famous. That doesn't change the fact that he deserves to live his life the way he chooses. Maybe he's protecting a partner by not coming out. Or, perhaps, he's not actually gay. Either way, it's none of our goddamned business.
Conversely, the minute some famous person starts passing judgment publicly on how other people live their lives and who they fuck, well that person has opened up their own lives to scrutiny. Maybe that's why Travolta (and others) keep mum about what they do with whom.
Posted by: Reba at December 13, 2010 4:01 PM
"If Travolta is gay or bi (something I notice is never mentioned, as if bisexuals simply do not exist)"
Reba- THANK YOU. Jesus, people, there's a third team. *pokes self* Yep, and we very much exist. (And the third team even has people who are married, monogamous, with kids and everything. Shocking, I know...)
That said, the state of Travolta's marriage isn't really anyone's business as long as he's not railing against other forms of marriage. Would it be nice/interesting if he said, "Hi, I'm a committed scientologist, but I disagree with this tenent?" Yes, sure. That would be basic human decency, but people do strange things when they are both afraid and in denial.
That said (again), I'm sure he loves his wife, whether they actually sleep together or not. You can love someone and not want to sleep with them, just like you can sleep with someone and not love them.
Can't drag somebody out of the closet. Can't shame them out of it either. Plus, the dude is married to a lady who he probably likes a lot.
Is John Travolta a homosexual? In that he has a habit of making sex w/ dudes? In all likelihood. But he isn't "Gay", because being "Gay" is an identity.
Sexuality is a fluid thing (no pun intended.) As Kinsey discovered, we're very few of us exclusively hetero or homosexual. We make choices based on what we think will be best for us. For some, avoiding shame and living in a sham marriage is the best possible option.
Carrie is right. This is 2011. There pressure to stay in the closet today is a pittance of what it was even 10, let alone 20, 30 or 40 years ago. He can come out of the closet if he wants to. And if he wants to live a contrived, lie of a marriage to a woman while having dude-sex on the side, that is his f'ing choice. The idea that there is a pressing moral responsability for all homosexuals to come exploding out of their closets bears more than a passing relation to the idea that gays should be locked in that aforementioned closet forever.
Don't place expectations on other people's sexuality. It's none of your damned business.
Posted by: Martin at December 13, 2010 4:39 PM
I kinda think it's OK to live your life with hypocricy if that's what you want to do. Find me someone who lives his life free of hypocricy. Hardly anybody! Self included.
If he wants to not come out and admit something that's his biz. If he wants to adhere to a religion that says gay people are second-rate citizens, that's his biz. It's unfortunate and I consider it sad, but that's MY biz, right?
For the most part I don't care what any of these Hollywood actors or actresses do in their private lives, any more than I care what my plumber is up to in his off hours. They entertain me. As long as they are doing their job to my satisfaction, I don't judge. As long as my plumber can make my drains clear again, he can dress up like an elephant and carry a pink parasl and I could give a rat's ass. Just don't wear that elephant suit when you roto rooter my drains.
There's a metaphor here somewhere. I can just feel it...
Posted by: klingonfree at December 13, 2010 4:40 PM
John G.
Last time I checked bigotry and intollerance were American traits with not just Mississippians being guilty. Why would you take such a stand against judgementalism and then paint an entire state with the same brush.
Posted by: Phat girl at December 13, 2010 4:41 PM
The reason's for John Travolta's denial of his homosexuality is that Hubbard wrote that homosexuality is a treacherous and malignant state of mind that is hostile to sane people. He had this state of mind marked on his "Tone Scale" - a numeric value that basically tells you how good/bad or sane/insane you are.
Elsewhere he states that those who register on the tone scale at the position he said homosexuals occupy, that these individuals should be executed without any pity or remorse. He said that those so low on the scale had nothing to offer society and were beyond any possibility of help, even through Dianetics.
So, if he admits to being gay, he is admitting that he should be put to death.
Similar reasons prevented him from admitting his late sone, Jett, was autistic. As Scientology clearly states that autism doesn't exist and those who exhibit those sorts of symptoms can be cure easily through Scientology auditing.
Posted by: Xenuphobe at December 13, 2010 5:04 PM
There was a similar discussion on Chez's blog back in October, and I'm just gonna re-post snippets of my comment from then, as I think it still applies:
Gay adults (not kids, not teens, not those still financially dependant upon their potentially homophobic folks), unless residing in a culture in which it is life-threatening, illegal or otherwise impossible to safely come out of the closet, should really just come out, already. It's socially irresponsible not to. It is so important, especially in the wake of these gay suicides, that younger generations can see that it is possible to be yourself and be happy, and that they have no reason to be ashamed of who they are. And often, if people (even if they're super conservative) discover that some celebrity they admire is gay, or that they have a gay in their own family, it can totally make them more accepting and supportive of gays and gay rights in general, which is the most effective way of promoting change, at a societal level.
It is selfish to reap the benefits of heterosexual privilege (because, as many gay people can tell you, myself included, most people assume everyone is straight unless otherwise informed, and that's just what many of these celebrities want) while gay kids in this country still need hope. It is selfish and it is cowardly. It is a political action, coming out of the closet. You have to weigh the dollars you may potentially lose as an actor by perhaps not getting certain roles, against living honestly and with integrity, and perhaps helping to open the many closed minds in America.
People have the right to stay closeted, and it should be their decision, but I certainly have the right to call them out on their selfishness if they place their personal wealth and comfort above demonstrating to the youth of today that they don't have to live a lie. No, everyone does not need to issue a press statement about how gay they are to the media, but the lengths that some celebrities go to avoid this question or hide their identity is pathetic, and yes, selfish.
But, hey! I guess I'm just one of those crazy pinko commies who believe that no man is an island and that what we do and how we live affects others, even those we don't know directly.
Posted by: Hazel at December 13, 2010 6:28 PM
No, it is not his personal private business in 2011. Gay teens are killing themselves...An icon like John Travolta in fucking Hollywood has a duty to the community to be public and unashamed of his sexuality on behalf of confused and persecuted kids everywhere who need that hope to cling to...In 2011, some people just don't have the right to stay in the closet. It hurts everyone.
Gay? Not gay? It's none of our business, and it makes me profoundly uncomfortable to hear people discuss what he should and shouldn't do with his life. Your values are not universal values, no matter what they are; and discussing them like you know what's best for John Travolta, our culture in general, and the entire gay community (as if every gay person subscribes to a mass e-mail list that dictates homosexual identifiers) -- it's an exercise in futility.
The man says he's not gay. That should be good enough. That should be MORE than good enough.
Posted by: superasente at December 13, 2010 6:36 PM
Well Phat Girl,
I chose Mississippi because the famous case of Constance McMillen was from Mississippi. That's a new level of open anti-gay bigotry to cancel an entire school prom rather than let a girl wear a tux and bring her girlfriend. I mean, you always know in your heart that the teachers and faculty are aligned with the bullies, but to come right out and cancel prom is pretty amazing. Also, the OKCupid sex data that they released about the sexual makeup of the US showed that Mississippi was the most anti-gay state in the United States.
Posted by: John G. at December 13, 2010 8:03 PM
Hazel, some people have very good reasons for not discussing their sexual orientation in public. The fact that you dismiss their real concerns and personal journeys as selfish is stunning, especially since you think they should do so based on your sense of moral outrage, when you quite obviously don't give a fuck about them as human beings with complex lives. Sexuality does not define everyone, and asking that people set aside their own beliefs and choices, possibly to their personal detriment, on the off chance that someone else might feel better about their own lives is asking a bit much.
There are many people who are taking action to let gay teens know it gets better (or can). Not everyone has to.
P.S. The possibility of bisexuality is, again, completely ignored. Or is absolutely everyone required to identify their sexuality continually and publicly? Do you think we could come up with some easy way to know what everyone is... oh, wait.
Posted by: Reba at December 13, 2010 8:53 PM
Yes, and I mentioned some very good reasons why someone might not want to live openly in my comment. And of course people's sexualities don't necessarily define them as individuals, but it is still a large part of most people's lives, and to defend keeping a whole aspect of oneself a secret only perpetuates the idea that it is therefore something to be ashamed of. I'm not saying every gay person in Hollywood needs to issue a press release, or even "go public". I'm simply saying that remaining closeted not only hurts those in the closet, by preventing them from living their lives fully, honestly and with integrity, but also hurts the gay (and lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning) community as well. I am not even specifically referring to John Travolta, because fuck if I know whether or not he's gay, or bisexual. But it's pretty sad that so many people do feel as though they have to keep it a secret, or lie about it, whether because of their religion or their notoriety or their desire to fulfill other people's expectations. And it's certainly not something to be lauded.
Also, it's great that there are many brave people willing to let gay teens know that it gets better. But the more that do, the louder the message becomes.
Finally, this article better sums up my thoughts, and is wonderfully scathing because it was written by the delightful Dan Savage.
Posted by: Hazel at December 13, 2010 10:49 PM
So little is said about Breaking Bad these days, I think. Sure, it's mentioned here and there in awards ceremonies and best-of lists, but it's kind of "plastic love".
In that case, let me tell you who don't know it: Breaking Bad kicks ass, takes names and hands the list to batshit crazy Mexican druglords.
Posted by: godzilla_foil at December 14, 2010 12:59 AM
I have to agree with the comments here, Dustin: HOW had you not heard that rumour about Travolta? Just googleimages him + 'gay' and you get a picture of him kissing a dude on the face.
It's obviously no business of anyone's what his sexuality is, but it is also obviously not helpful to carry on conveying the message that homosexuality is something to be concealed (or indeed revealed) rather than just accepted.
Posted by: Caspar at December 14, 2010 4:57 AM
John Travolta in Hairspray disturbed me in a very disturbing way.
Posted by: Muteki at December 14, 2010 7:09 AM
But it's pretty sad that so many people do feel as though they have to keep it a secret, or lie about it, whether because of their religion or their notoriety or their desire to fulfill other people's expectations.
I totally agree with this. My concern was over the expectation that public figures ought to discuss their private lives, simply because they are famous. My job (and life) involves creating safe spaces, advocating for people who don't have a voice (for a variety of reasons), and reminding folks who may have privilege they don't see or acknowledge that their way of seeing the world/living their lives is not the only way, nor even the "right" way, to be. So when someone says "X person should do this thing because they are Y", it gets my dander up. No one should have the pressure to represent or represent for an entire group, especially if they're ambivalent about their place in it.
Posted by: Reba at December 14, 2010 10:52 AM
When will we as a people learn to accept people on their own terms? Fisher had no right to out John, it is his business to come out on his own terms. And even if he is gay, he still doesn’t have to come out at all. This subject brings me to tears every time I hear about it, personally it affects me deeply because it took me a while to come out. After college I moved in with my lover, he never forced me to come out to my family, he allowed me to deal with being gay on my own terms. And when I finally came out, his support sustained me through a rough patch. I will always love Benny with all my heart.
That said, I do wonder how many heterosexual celebrities work that hard to keep their straight relationships, marriages, or so forth, a secret to the general public? To my mind, when closeted gay celebrities go to such great lengths to conceal their sexual identities, it reinforces the idea that it's something to be ashamed of. It's one thing to just be a private person. That's fine, and ever increasingly difficult in this day and age. But when the whole world knows everything about your personal life except your orientation, then there's a reason you are keeping that a secret, and if it's because you are benefiting, professionally or financially or socially, from people assuming or being given the impression that you're straight, then you're doing a disservice to all the proud, courageous out folks from previous generations who were willing to risk those benefits, ans in some cases their very lives, in order to make the world a better place for queers.
I'm not suggesting every gay celebrity needs to be the next Harvey Milk, I'm just saying I wish more gay celebrities who are already privileged in that they are wealthy and comfortable and need not fear poverty or threats on their lives by coming out, would choose to, not necessarily shout that they are gay from the rooftops or start wearing rainbow colored everything, but simply not hide or lie about their sexual identity. That is basically all I'm saying. In a nutshell. A very large nutshell. Heh.
Posted by: Hazel at December 14, 2010 11:33 AM
Sorry, to clarify, that "I agree" was in response to Reba's comment.
Posted by: Hazel at December 14, 2010 11:34 AM
John G.
I get it. Statistics show that we are an anti gay state so feel free to lump us all into one great big hate filled ball and roll us right off the map. I'm so sorry I was offended.
Posted by: Phat grl at December 14, 2010 11:43 AM
I hate statistics and poles because they are inherently wrong with respect to people sometimes not telling the truth. In my opinion the reason some of my gay friends stay in the closet is because they don’t have the support. I’m fortunate in that I had a strong and magnificent man standing behind me when I came out.
Posted by: Pookie at December 14, 2010 12:09 PM
I think if the hetero relationships are outside what is perceived to be the norm (i.e., polyamory, open marriage [not the same as prev.], huge age differential, etc.), then even famous people may be inclined to keep quiet about it. God knows we speculate about their sex lives enough already. And, as I said before, it may be that the famous person is protecting the not so famous partner so s/he doesn't lose a job or kids, etc. I've known quite a few gay couples who were out to friends and/or family, but not otherwise public about their relationship because of the detrimental effect that would have. Ditto for poly families. The authorities will take your kids away in a heartbeat if you tell them you have two husbands and a wife, and all you have to do is put up pictures in your cubicle that make some coworker start asking questions about your "lifestyle." This society has some serious issues with people's sexuality, and while I applaud and support those who work tirelessly for change (seeing as how they sit at desks nearby), I don't fault anyone else for not wanting to jump into this particular pool.
Posted by: Reba at December 14, 2010 12:28 PM
But these non-traditional relationships, whether hetero or homo, will never be considered anything but abnormal or other-than (or more often, rather, less-than), and will never become more acceptable or even just tolerated unless people, brave people, are willing to live them openly and honestly. At what price? That's for each individual to decide. But that decision, every time it is made, affects society's perceptions of what is acceptable and what should be kept a dirty secret. Now, if someone were at risk of losing their kids, or their job, or their partner's job, celebrity or not, I wouldn't expect or encourage them to come out. That's not the same thing as an already-wealthy celebrity potentially risking losing a few movie roles, though. Whether that is the case for Travolta, I cannot say.
But because there are people who can't come out, as they may lose their kids or their jobs or whatever, it is all the more important for those fortunate folks not in such a predicament to do so. That's all I've been saying from the start: those who can (without fear of serious repercussion), should, in my opinion. Just my opinion.
Posted by: Hazel at December 14, 2010 12:51 PM
I am going to agree vehemently with John G. who made the very same point I have made in several other online venues recently.
If you have the power to do something, you should.
Posted by: DominaNefret at December 14, 2010 2:18 PM
Hazel, if Travolta was to come out he would most certainly lose his family due to Scientology's disconnection policy. He would instantly be labeled a "Suppressive Person" and all of his friends and family would not be permitted to see or speak to him without being labeled a "Potential Trouble Source." The people around him are the ones he has to hide it from out of fear of losing them.
Posted by: Uda at December 15, 2010 9:01 AM
Wow! This can be 1 of the very best blogs We have ever appear across on this subject. Merely Magnificent
Uda, well that just sucks. No wonder he's closeted, if in fact he's gay. I knew Scientology didn't approve of the gay, but wow, that's all sorts of bad.
Posted by: Hazel at December 15, 2010 2:23 PM
Wow! what an idea! What a concept! Hi. I read a few of your other posts and wanted to know if you would be interested in giving me some advices about the useing of mts file converter? Thanks very much.
Posted by: Burton Haynes at December 15, 2010 10:26 PM
thanks !! very helpful post! Please, can you PM me and tell me few more thinks about this, I am really fan of your blog...recently days,I aways thinking about how to convert m2ts...gets solved properly asap.
Nice post. I was checking continuesly this blog and I am impressed! Very useful information specially the last part :) I care for such info a lot. thank you and good luck. http://www.ihavewedding.com
Once you're knocking space-boots with alien dinosaurs, the quaint notion of gender just doesn't matter.
Um, I've heard.
Xenu / Ming '12
Let's elect us some real alien overlords!