« absolutely ulterior motiveless | Main | what's next? »

March 27, 2007

revisiting star magazine's normal or not feature

I posted about this awhile back to little (or no, if we're being technical) response. One would think I might have learned a lesson from that, and in fact, I did...it's just not the lesson you likely hoped for. You see, I learned that the reason other people were not as passionate about the logic behind a leading gossip magazine's weekly judgement of celebrities as I had hoped they would be was because they weren't involved. They weren't interacting with the issue at hand. I didn't provide them with the visual aids and games necessary to engage them in this (soon-to-be-recognized-as) thrilling topic.

Also, their commitment to journalistic integrity was much weaker than my own.

As a result, I present to you a quiz based on Star's "Are they NORMAL or NOT?" column. Click on the names listed to see Star's exemplary picture of said celebrity (apologies for the sad scanning job, you may have to use the zoom). Decide whether that person appears normal or not based on your definitions of those words and understanding of the rules of relativity that likely govern Star's feature. After you have come to your conclusions, move on to the next page for answers. Lastly, report what your score was in the comments section.

It is your democratic duty. And, it should kill about ten minutes of work.

NORMAL? or NOT?

1. Uma Thurman

2. Jude Law

3. Charlize Theron

4. David Boreanaz

5. Mischa Barton

Feel confident in your choices? Prepare yourself for...

STAR'S ANSWERS (REACHED USING A HERETOFORE UNDEFINED LOGIC)

1. Uma Thurman

2 .Jude Law

3.  Charlize Theron

4.  David Boreanaz

5.  Mischa Barton

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24507/17265680

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference revisiting star magazine's normal or not feature:

Comments

What? I... What the fuck?

Click, decide, score, comment. I'm afraid you went straight to the last step.

I got 2 wrong. I think playing with your kids is totally normal and I think that Jude Law is not normal anyway.

1/5. PLaying with your kids while showing off your pecs to the photogs isn't normal? Bullshit. And the only way Mischa avoids a "Not!" is by showing the accompanying pic of her purging ten minutes later.

If David Boreanaz showing off his pecs isn't normal, than neither am I. And I'm with you Donut- besides the Jude Law factor, what's normal about being "bundled" up in some bathrobey thing?

It's the weirdest thing, the normal or not, I swear.

I will have nightmares of Boreanaz's creepy looking child for the rest of this week.

I might have squashed him a bit in the resizing...

charlize face is beautiful

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

..

  • Site Meter
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 04/2004