Posted: Mar 01, 2016 4:36 pm
Scot Dutchy wrote:Which people would they been then?
Presumably the millions of people who watch the Oscars. Or are you not aware that this is a high profile event which is viewed the world over?
Scot Dutchy wrote:Oh it is a gossip line with facts which dont fit in with your lovely glossy view of him.
No, it is a gossip site because that is what it is. I got that it was a gossip site from making a quick check about its validity as a reliable newsource.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_Online
Don't get all butthurt with me because you have to root through the trashpiles of the internet to find commentary that confirms your bias. It is not MY fault that radar online IS known as a gossip site.
I dunno - maybe you should check your sources before posting them in future and ask yourself "will anyone who is not a moron take articles from this website seriously?"
Scot Dutchy wrote:I wonder if he was not a star would he even have been involved in AGW.
Why does not being a star preclude you from being involved in AGW? The evidence shows that there are people the world over who are not stars involved in promoting understanding of AGW.
Again, you're making the cynical assumption that he's involved in AGW purely for his own benefit. But, I imagine you'd make a similar cynical claim about any famous person being involved in anything vaguely altruistic, because it suits your cynical worldview.
Scot Dutchy wrote:Are you really that naive when it comes to Hollywood?
Ah, the standard tactic of the cynic. Accusing others of naiveté when their cynical worldview is questioned. I'm actually surprised it took you this long to make such a shoddy retort.