The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Homophobic, Overblown Or Kinda A Hot Triangle?

james1200

james1200

Professional Hoodrat
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Posts
5,617
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Cambridge, MA.
So TV's number one show is in upheavel as Isaiah Washington choked Dr. McDreamy and stormed off in a huff, accusing Dr. McDreamy of protecting "his little faggot"...is this something you guys think he should lose his job over? And more importantly, are you tittilated by the fact that McDreamy is possibly getting it on with this male co-star?
_____________________________________________

http://www.usmagazine.com/node/2783
http://www.queerty.com/queer/gossip/washington-is-not-dempseys-little-faggot-20061018.php

trkinghtsmall.jpg

this is presumably the "little faggot"
greys.jpg

Isaiah Washinton and Patrick (McDreamy) Dempsey

Hot-head Isaiah Washington hurled a vicious gay slur at one of his co-stars during an on-set brawl – and the ugly explosion of hate is ripping apart TV's number one show.

Last week, The Enquirer broke the blockbuster news that Isaiah, 43, choked Patrick Dempsey, 40, in an Oct. 9 fight on the set of Grey's Anatomy. And now we can reveal the secret behind the outrage.

"The melee has set off World War III on the show and may cost Isaiah his job," an insider told The Enquirer.

"The cast is divided over the shameful event."

As The Enquirer exclusively revealed last week, Patrick and Isaiah clashed over cast members being late to the set, right before shooting a scene at Prospect Studios in Los Angeles.

A heated discussion quickly escalated to violence when Isaiah snapped, revealed an eyewitness.

At one point, Isaiah yelled, "I'm not your little faggot like (name deleted)," according to the source. Those who heard him were stunned.

Because of the extreme nature of the slur, The Enquirer is withholding the name of the co-star targeted by Washington.
knight.jpg
During the brawl, an enraged Isaiah grabbed Patrick by the throat and shoved him a few feet.
 
Indeed, I would certainly have to hear it from a more reputable source before I gave it any credence.
 
I don´t even watched the end of the second season, that show had started to bore me already.
 
holy shit belamy...you're alive! i thought someone did away with you at one of your caligula-like orgies with beefy american boys!!

and as for the enquirer being an unworthy news source, they've broken a lotta big stories in the last few years that have turned out to be very accurate...at this point they're more reputable than let's say fox news.
 
Holy shit james, you and I were little twins in the late 70´s! :mrgreen:
 
james1200 said:
LOL...i was a 1 yr old in 1980 so i dunno about that.
Click to expand...
I had first written "early 80´s", but given your looks and my own chronological division (70´s from 1977 to 1986) I decided to change :mrgreen:
Anyway who fucking cares about that show... in the past few years shows are popping with too brilliant a script to make it last decently for a couple or more seasons. GA should end this season and that catfight is a good excuse: all the doctors become transgender, and Dr. Burke turns into the serial killer Hollywood version.
 
agree to disagree...but about nancy grace, the bitch needs to be jailed for being an ignorant slut.

and effortless...why are u here on JUB when u should be fighting the Cylons?









LONG LIVE NEW CAPRICA!
 
Effortless_Pro said:
I dunno. I'm skeptic. I know once the Enquirer puts stuff out the other news channels like to speculate and predtend they know what they're talking about. Like the Duke Rape case, John karr.... you know stuff liek that.
Click to expand...
So they should know better than you and me just for being journalists? :rolleyes:
(What an ignoble version of my dear rolleyes) :##:
 
Effortless_Pro said:
No no, you see someone who'd actually find out more about the "Duke Rape Case" before saying they're guilty and we should burn them at the stake.
Click to expand...
But since when are journalists more than some sort of lay preachers that claim to follow and believe in Da Truth while just being partisans making a living on demagogy and cheap rhetoric? Why were they called "the fourth power"..?
 
http://www.slate.com/id/2102303/
I Believe the National EnquirerWhy don't you?
By Jack Shafer
Posted Friday, June 11, 2004, at 7:04 PM ET

Almost three decades ago, the National Enquirer abandoned the traditional supermarket tabloid formula of UFOs, bizarre sex, séances, gross-outs, Loch Ness-ish monsters, cooked-up stories, and celebrity gossip for a new formula mostly devoted to celebrities. Striving for the kind of journalistic accuracy that repels libel suits, the tabloid paid many of its sources and scrupulously reported and fact-checked its pieces about Cher, Liz and Dick, Jackie O., Liza, Henry Kissinger, Burt and Loni, and the original Charlie's Angels.

By the time of the 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson-Ron Goldman murders, the Enquirer truth machine had become so good that reporter David Margolick was toasting it in the New York Times for scooping the competition—and applauding it for spiking many of the false stories that appeared in mainstream media.

One would think that the Enquirer's discovery of accurate journalism would have elevated its reputation. Instead, the tabloid is regarded slightly worse today than it was in 1985, according to a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Respondents were asked to rate news organizations on a 1-to-4 scale, with 1 representing "I believe all or most" of what the news organization says and 4 representing "I believe almost nothing." Only 4 percent of the polled group believed all or most of what the Enquirer says, and a whopping 61 percent believed nothing. Back in June 1985, a similar Pew survey found that 4 percent believed all or most of what the Enquirer said, and 54 percent believed almost nothing.
Click Here!

Compare the Enquirer's survey numbers to those of USA Today's: Fifteen percent believe all or most of what USA Today says, and only 8 percent believe nothing it says (55 percent chose believability values 2 or 3; 21 percent ventured no judgment of the paper). USA Today's overall score is similar to the ones recorded for other mainstream media, such as NBC News, the New York Times, and CNN, to name a few.

The Enquirer's relatively bad rep presents a paradox that is not easily resolved. The Enquirer may overplay stories, as it does in the most recent issue (June 14, 2004) by describing Jessica "Washingtonienne" Cutler in a headline as the center of a "Bush Sex Scandal" when all she's confessed to is having slept with an unnamed Bush appointee for money. But the particulars of the Enquirer story appear to be true. The Enquirer may focus excessively on the exploits of show-biz figures such as Billy Bob Thornton, Lindsay Lohan's father, and Larry Hagman, but if past issues are a guide, the tabloid isn't making this stuff up. And say whatever ugly things you will about the modern National Enquirer, it hasn't staged the filming of an exploding pickup truck like NBC News; it hasn't been taken by a serial liar, as was the New York Times; and it's avoided running preposterous stories about the U.S. government using nerve gas in Vietnam, as CNN did. Had Jack Kelley attempted to place his fictions in the Enquirer instead of USA Today, I'm sure the editors would have found him out.

Yes, the Enquirer tackles mostly tacky and sordid subjects and treats them breathlessly, but if you correct for stylistic overkill, you find a publication that is every bit as accurate as mainstream media. I would, however, advise Enquirer readers to take all anonymous quotes they find in the tabloid's pages with a large shaker of salt. Maybe with a bag of salt. (Of course, I have the same bias against anonymous quotes in the mainstream press.)

Only somebody who 1) never reads the Enquirer or 2) wanted the poll-taker to think he's superior to the tabloid would rank it as low as the poll respondents did. Indeed, as the Pew people told me, respondents didn't have to be readers or viewers of the media outlets to pass judgment for the poll. They only had to be willing to offer an opinion or decline to offer an opinion. (In the Enquirer's case, 18 percent of respondents wouldn't rate the tabloid, a number that is very close to the "no opinion offered" number recorded for other print publications in the Pew poll.)

The insupportably low numbers earned by the Enquirer make sense when you compare them with those garnered by People magazine, Time-Warner's colossus of triviality and inconsequence. Only 6 percent of respondents believe all or most of what People says, and 25 percent believe nothing from it. (Rounding out the numbers, 47 percent chose values 2 or 3; 21 percent gave no opinion.)

People might not be your cup of java, but a human army of fact-checkers and editors labor over it every week, making it as accurate as the phone book. I can understand why the dodgy legacy of the Enquirer might predispose non-readers against it, but what could any reader or non-reader have against People?

The respondents who judged People (and the National Enquirer) so poorly are dead wrong, and the pollsters at Pew (for whom I have much respect) should be taken to the woodshed for having designed a rickety survey. When you gather opinions from people on subjects of which they know little or nothing, you're only collecting interesting garbage.

The Pew poll does, however, cast some unintentional illumination. It shows that no matter how accurate the National Enquirer or any tabloid might become, readers and non-readers (especially) will never forgive it its dubious past, especially if it sticks with the distinctive "trade dress" of a supermarket tabloid—sensational headlines printed in yellow; a red, white, and black logo; glossy newsprint stock. And it proves that folks would rather judge a publication (People) for where it lives—on a supermarket checkout wire rack alongside such deliberately unbelievable publications as the Weekly World News and the Sun—than for what's printed inside.
 
I guess now that his job was on the line he had to publicly apologize. Asshole. I still don't care for him after the whole ordeal.

CNN.com said:
NEW YORK (AP) -- "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington has publicly apologized for his behavior during an on-set scuffle with co-star Patrick Dempsey.

"I sincerely regret my actions and the unfortunate use of words during the recent incident on (the) set," the 43-year-old actor said in a statement to People magazine. "Both are beneath my own personal standards. ... I have nothing but respect for my co-workers ... and have apologized personally to everyone involved."


The magazine, citing a source on the set, reported Wednesday on its Web site that when T.R. Knight was late to film a scene, a debate ensued between Dempsey and Washington, with Dempsey insisting on waiting for Knight. The argument quickly intensified, and an alleged homophobic slur was used, but Knight wasn't present.


"Differences are inevitable," Washington's publicist, Cynthia Snyder, said in a recent statement. "They were aired, resolved and everyone has moved on." The clash occurred October 9. Knight, 33, revealed October 19 that he is gay.
"I guess there have been a few questions about my sexuality, and I'd like to quiet any unnecessary rumors that may be out there," Knight said in a statement. "I hope the fact that I'm gay isn't the most interesting part of me."
Shonda Rhimes, creator of the ABC drama, is downplaying the incident. It "was 4 1/2 seconds of one day in three years," she told People. "I feel like we've already moved on."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top