Pages

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

What?!

Bradley Cooper, star of the movie The Hangover (?), was selected by PEOPLE Magazine as their 2011 Sexiest Man Alive. Though devilishly handsome, extremely intelligent, wildly talented and down right charming, the author of What the...?! missed the cut.

Said nicholas: "I don't get it. Two years ago it was that waif Johnny Depp. Last year Reynolds walked away with the brass ring. I'm thinking, 'Sandra Bullock's guy pal?!' I mean, c'mon, what gives? It's a travesty. Well, we must all learn to live with life's small injustices. I wish all the best for Bradley."

The 36-year-old Cooper was selected to join the list of elite men, including last year's winner Ryan Reynolds and two-time winners Ilion and Darrell.

Though "The Hangover" star was spotted with Jennifer Lopez a few weeks ago, the blue-eyed babe told PEOPLE he was still very single. He doesn't quite see himself as the serial-dating sex symbol that most people do. "If you're a single man and you happen to be in this business, you're deemed a player. But I don't see myself as a ladies' man."

Give it a rest, Coop.

36 comments:

  1. I don't know, James. It apparently contradicts the opening line of my autobiography:"As it turned out, I was born with the only form of birth control I'd ever need--my face."

    And it is my favorite. I'll have to cede my "titles" to you, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see I have managed to accuse them both of being sexist, rather than sexiest. Not much of a complement, I'm afraid. And with Astrid near by, I shall need to watch my p's and q's.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nah, Astrid. The internet was created to make sure it's mutually assured destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Astrid has a very pleasant blog of her own, and her very first post is about the tendency of Americans to drop the "g" in words that end in "ing". It should be "feeling" rather than "feelin'","talking" rather than "tawken", as you Midwesterners are want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm wondering why Astrid's Soapbox isn't on your "Fun Reads" list.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It apparently contradicts the opening line of my autobiography:"As it turned out, I was born with the only form of birth control I'd ever need--my face."

    Nooo, I'm sure your face is fine; it's the cigarette: no one wants to kiss an ashtray.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have no idea who this "Sexiest Man Alive" is, but in the photo his face looks like a hatchet. And the guy in the cameo (is that last year's "Sexiest Man Alive"?) looks to have beady eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did I miss Clint Eastwood's funeral?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This chap looks like he's trying to look friendly, but the smile comes out sinister, like Jack Nicholson. That Matthew McConnaughey chap is the same. (I couldn't be bothered to look up his surname but its something like that, with lots of Ns and Gs.) They try to be ingratiating, but there's just something a bit nocturnal about them.
    Thank God I'm not a woman is all I can say.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And yes I am just bitter 'cause I didn't rate a mention.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You'll never have piles, Ilion. Of that I'm pretty sure. . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. I like your question mark following "star of the movie 'The Hangover'".
    Indeed.
    I remember a review of some comedy film or other a few years back that said that one character was played by "an unrecognizable James Marsden", as if there was any other kind of James Marsden.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here Bedes--this might help you to get to know Marsden better.

    http://www.stardoll.com/en/dolls/739/James_Marsden.html

    I'm sure it's just like spending that time conversing with him; getting to know his personality.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Speaking of women, Matthew, Kiera was wondering what happened to your review of Possession and what your wife thought about it. It was all she would talk about after having seen your other two comments. "He has time for that?" was how she put it. Specifically.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Heaven help me, I followed that link. Darrell, you frighten me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You gentlemen crack me up! Following your comments is funnier than your posts...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have no idea what that meant, Darrell, and I an afraid to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I must confess, I was confused too, but I didn't want to seem naive.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What's the source of confusion?
    Two-dimensional Marsden?
    Or Ilion's personal message?

    The former is representative of all his work. The latter refers to being a perfect a**hole-- one devoid of piles (hemorrhoids).

    Glad to widen your circle of knowledge, my friends.

    ReplyDelete
  20. We can be a testy bunch, that's for certain, but we have our moments. Ilion taught me how to link, bolden italicize and so forth. And of course as for Darrell, one of my favorites was the combo takedown of one David Cay Johnston, author and Pulitzer prize winner, who had attempted to disparage Republican Representative Paul Ryan. The guy actually showed up to argue! Darrell was excellent, as usual. Ilion was in on that too. Now that was good fun!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The guy actually showed up to argue! Darrell was excellent, as usual. Ilion was in on that too."

    Doesn't matter though, does it? Darrell is pissed because Ilíon has forced him to realize the certain of his beliefs need examination and modification.

    Perhaps, if Darrell is ever ready to get over his oh-so-put-upon pose, he can signal this to us all by publicly admitting to being himself the perfect pile.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You know you crossed the line, Ilion, when you waited a week to restart an argument that James clearly ended with his admonition to get back on topic. And you were also told that no one was going to discuss religious doctrine here--as a kindness to preserve your little feelings and respect your beliefs. Whatever they are: You don't even have the courage to identify what sect that is by name. My beliefs and religion were on the record when I identified myself as a Roman Catholic when I asked people's opinion of the new Missal being used at the Mass. Instead of staying in the background because that has no relevance to you, you took that as an opportunity to attack the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. Your proclamations aren't proof of anything but your arrogance. Well, maybe your ignorance as well. I am comfortable with my beliefs. When I cite that Mary was born without Original Sin--according to Catholic Doctrine and my personal belief--do you actually think you make a point by saying that she was born in sin? Really? And that's why the discussion has to end. We aren't going to re-fight the Reformation here--or anywhere. I think the other readers appreciate that.

    Hope you had a happy Feast of The Immaculate Conception. I did. I am comfortable with a woman receiving that great honor above all other humans that ever lived--excepting her Son, of course. I am sad that you couldn't join in that celebration. I am sad for all the small minds that can't.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the other readers appreciate that.

    And our host, especially. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, James.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Now I understand! (The piles joke, I mean.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. If and when Darrell ever wishes me to again take him seriously, he knows how to let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What? You aren't going to wait a week to sneak your rejoinder(s) in on the dormant thread? How unlike you!

    Is that another "fact," that I can't be taken seriously? Well it must be true because you said it. Only a stupid person would not consider every comment on its own merit, but go ahead and do what you've got to do. I agree with most of yours, even when I read the "Ilion." But then I'm not you. So be it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And speaking of Jack Nicholson, what a mental image: he was considered to play (Darren McGavin's part of) the father in A Christmas Story! Can you imagine what he would have looked like, coming up from the cellar after battling the furnace? Truly scary.

    Ohhh... admiring the lamp... Way worse.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't know whether Gomer Pyle is misrepresenting things becasue somehow he really has convinced himself that that's how they were, or because he realizes that most people believe the last version of a set of events they read, even when those events are themselves right there in black and white and fully accessible. And I don't much care: the result works out to be the same; there is no point in trying to reason with a man who worked himself into a state of righteous indignation based on nothing more than his own error.

    If and when Gomer Pyle is ever ready to have me take him seriously, he will find a way to let me know.

    That most people tend to believe the last version of events they read, and then act on the basis of that (potentially) incorrect belief, even when those events are themselves right there in black and white and fully accessible, also doesn't much worry me: I have long known better than to expect much of most people.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gentlemen, gentlemen, I believe we are missing the spirit of the thing, which is to enjoy a bit of conversation. It is not the place of this blog to argue religious doctrines. There are other places to convert the masses or argue back the gates of hades. We are here for a little fun and diversion. We cannot argue religious doctrine for any length of time and remain a happy ship. I appreciate both of you fellows. I would hope we all could learn to be gracious with one another, with my own name at the top of that list.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is not the place of this blog to argue religious doctrines.

    That's why I did not try to seriously argue doctrinal points to begin with and complied with your wishes to drop the whole discussion and get back on topic. The weasel waited a week to throw up more of the same and claimed victory when I did not respond--saying his "brilliant" arguments couldn't be countered by me and my faith couldn't be defended--when I was only complying with your wishes, James. You should have deleted Ilion's second round of comments that violated your directive. You might have cautioned him when he took a swipe at the Roman Catholic Church in his first comment. Was that an appropriate comment for the new off-topic question of "what do other Catholics here think about the new Missal used in today's Mass?" That might have prevented all the rest, but it's water under the bridge at this point.

    Ilion, you beclowned yourself for all time with your Hitler comment. If you want to find out what Roman Catholic doctrine really is there has never been a time when that has been easier given that you have internet access. It's a chickenshit move to pretend that any of my comments up to that point had comprehensively covered the Church's position or mine. It was a pathetic "gotcha" that blew up in your face. Own it. Or do you expect us to believe that you honestly took that as the position of the Roman Catholic Church? If you do, you are even nuttier than I could have guessed. If you don't, then why did you say it?

    This is the last I have to say on the subject. Please feel free to delete any of my future comments on this subject if I should break that pledge. When Ilion snipes, as I suspect he will, all readers should just assume I can't muster up an argument to match his *intellectual* brilliance.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "It is not the place of this blog to argue religious doctrines."

    Correction: this is not the place to reason correctly and cooperatively eliminate one's faulty reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I repeat the offer to pick things up, if you wish, at a place where antagonism is more appropriate to the surroundings - perhaps here:

    http://venerablebeads.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-we-prove-that-guy-wrong-or-what.html

    Otherwise, I must say that as the comparitive newcomer to this sanctuary, I can only echo James's point that I see this site as a refuge from insanity where those of a like mind come together and enjoy their points of confluence. There is no need to deny differences of opnion, but within in these doors they must be respected.
    Nobody connected with this site has ever attacked me for being an atheist - Ilion has come closest, of course - because I hope I have demonstrated that the things we agree on point to a shared worldview that is too precious to be rent by internal division, as our 1970s trades unionists would put it. (Let alone division inspired by something as trivial as doctrinal incompatibility: you're both Christians, in the centre of dominant popular culture that wants to se Christianity destroyed. Ask me to argue our differences robustly and of course I will, but Darrell wasn't asking for that, merely for clarification on a point of technicality. Strongly adversarial challenge on peripheral matters should never be introduced without invitation.)

    Good-natured criticism is and has always been fine, of course. Ilion - I am fully as certain of my beliefs as you, and find much of your sureness on such esoterica baffling to say the least. In my own venue I express my certainties with condemnatory sureness, as you can, and do, at your own.
    But manners must be observed elsewhere.

    Now let's get back to doing what we do best.

    ReplyDelete