Anonymous wrote:i've always thought she was a bit masculine. whatever, i'm just relieved robert patterson (or whatever his name is) is free. too bad i'm married, 40, not famous, don't know him, and only semi-hot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a quote of Stewart's to the effect of "I want something bad to happen to me, everything has come so easy, I want someone to f--k me over", blah blah blah.
Such a ridiculous, immature thing to say and feel - shows remarkable cluelessness about other people's lives and struggles. That quote made me dislike her, but what she did does not - we all do stupid things in our early 20's. She obviously wasn't ready for a serious relationship and she screwed up - and will pay the consequences. I can't imagine Pattison will stay with her and she will be heartbroken, at least for a little while.

Well, she got it.

Nope. That is not something bad happening to her. That is her doing something bad. Big difference.

The bad stuff is happening to her, too. Yes, it's a consequence of her own actions but it's bad nevertheless.

Seriously? You think this is the same as "someone[f--ing her] over?" Not at all. You really think there is no substantive difference between these?

When did I say "there is not substantive difference"? All I ever said was "bad stuff is happening to her". And it is.

But, according to you, I must preface every single post with moralistic posturing or elsewhere your head will explode from non-existent equivocation. Boy, I really feel sorry for your husbands.

Where did I say that you must preface every post with moralistic posturing? I merely said that one should know the difference between things happening to you (passive), versus you doing something bad (active). That isn't about morals. It's about grammar, stupid. And don't feel sorry for my husband. His grasp of written English is just fine.

I feel sorry for your husband because he is living with such a boring, moralizing pedant. If someone was desperate enough to marry you, that is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a quote of Stewart's to the effect of "I want something bad to happen to me, everything has come so easy, I want someone to f--k me over", blah blah blah.
Such a ridiculous, immature thing to say and feel - shows remarkable cluelessness about other people's lives and struggles. That quote made me dislike her, but what she did does not - we all do stupid things in our early 20's. She obviously wasn't ready for a serious relationship and she screwed up - and will pay the consequences. I can't imagine Pattison will stay with her and she will be heartbroken, at least for a little while.

Well, she got it.

Nope. That is not something bad happening to her. That is her doing something bad. Big difference.

The bad stuff is happening to her, too. Yes, it's a consequence of her own actions but it's bad nevertheless.

Seriously? You think this is the same as "someone[f--ing her] over?" Not at all. You really think there is no substantive difference between these?

When did I say "there is not substantive difference"? All I ever said was "bad stuff is happening to her". And it is.

But, according to you, I must preface every single post with moralistic posturing or elsewhere your head will explode from non-existent equivocation. Boy, I really feel sorry for your husbands.

Where did I say that you must preface every post with moralistic posturing? I merely said that one should know the difference between things happening to you (passive), versus you doing something bad (active). That isn't about morals. It's about grammar, stupid. And don't feel sorry for my husband. His grasp of written English is just fine.

Anonymous wrote:I would be surprised if the sequel happens, but if it does I'm sure the director would find some excuse not to return.

Re the Twilight press tours, I bet it'll be more entertaining than the actual movies. Pass the popcorn 8)

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering how she and the estranged boyfriend are going to handle doing publicity for their last Twilight movie, and how she and the cheater director are going to work together on the SW sequel. Awkward much?

Anonymous wrote:But she's such a good actress! Look how much better she is than Emma Watson:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a quote of Stewart's to the effect of "I want something bad to happen to me, everything has come so easy, I want someone to f--k me over", blah blah blah.
Such a ridiculous, immature thing to say and feel - shows remarkable cluelessness about other people's lives and struggles. That quote made me dislike her, but what she did does not - we all do stupid things in our early 20's. She obviously wasn't ready for a serious relationship and she screwed up - and will pay the consequences. I can't imagine Pattison will stay with her and she will be heartbroken, at least for a little while.

Well, she got it.

Nope. That is not something bad happening to her. That is her doing something bad. Big difference.

The bad stuff is happening to her, too. Yes, it's a consequence of her own actions but it's bad nevertheless.

Seriously? You think this is the same as "someone[f--ing her] over?" Not at all. You really think there is no substantive difference between these?

When did I say "there is not substantive difference"? All I ever said was "bad stuff is happening to her". And it is.

But, according to you, I must preface every single post with moralistic posturing or elsewhere your head will explode from non-existent equivocation. Boy, I really feel sorry for your husbands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is she supposed to be pretty? Sexy? I dont see it

I think she's very attractive.