Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Blind Item #2

This A+ list all movie actor has been freaked out for a year that a one time fling will land him in jail. When his girlfriend found out about it, she dumped him. It seems our actor did his usual hit on everyone that comes in front of him on a recent movie and ended up having sex with a co-star in the movie. It was not until a day or two later when he saw her getting tutored on set that he realized that she had a few years to go before she turned 18. Meanwhile, the actress, who is a C lister told the actor she was perfectly willing to continue where they left off.

85 comments:

Dana @ What the Frock? said...

George Clooney and Shailene Woodley

Bella Inamorata said...

no clue but where are these kid's parents?! my parents would not have left me alone long enough without a chaperone to be taken advantage of by some scuzzbucket. ick!

mynerva said...

Is Chloe Moretz a C?

stephani said...

ooh good guess, mynerva! Would Jude Law be considered A+? They both starred in Hugo.

Frufra said...

No way on the Hugo deal - she in no form or fashion looked "of age" in that movie. And Jude wasn't dumped by his girlfriend a year ago, nor is he A.

Not to be crabby, but I just can't see that at all.

Cathy said...

It sounds like the movie might still be in theaters, or was very recently - given that he's been freaked out for a year and he first became freaked out while they were still filming. I know Enty sometimes fudges on timelines though...

Cathy said...

Also, Shailene Woodley is 21 now.

ingrid said...

The little girl in Hugo was very obviously a little girl, hired to play a little girl. Law is a horndog, but he's not blind. It has to be a late teen/young adult role played by a 16 year old or such.

FSP said...

I like mynervas guess for the actress and depp for the actor.

Frufra said...

FSP, you mean on the Dark Shadows set? Because she'd have been maybe 14 when that fimed - ewwww!!

Depp was recently dumped, though. And is A+. Hmmm.

Basil said...

It's a stupid mistake, but if the horndog didn't truly know her age I wouldn't be putting him on the sex offender list.

Frufra said...

Depp is a known boozer - maybe he's half in the bag all the time and has no judgment? But still, his own daughter isn't much younger than Chloe!!

Frufra said...

Basil, I agree. At least said horndog WAS scandalized, and the girlfriend was, too.

MadLyb said...

The Depp guess is great - he was dumped and would be one of the few A+ listers to freak out about having slept with an underaged girl. Also, waifish looking females seem to be his type, so he probably didn't even think about this one being underaged.

FSP said...

That's all I've got Frufra... but then again I suck at these.

phoenix said...

Agree Basil and Frufra. Where is this girls damn mother?!?

MadLyb said...

"This one" being Chloe Moretz.

Frufra said...

The google tells me Depp's daughter is two years younger than Moretz.

And who knows where her mom, or the person paid to be responsible for her on-set, was. Hell, I did what I wanted (to no good end, but still) when I was her age, too. Some parents think they're done parenting when the kid "thinks" she's old enough to make her own decisions. Even though I now know that most teenagers are barely able to think at all, God bless 'em!

Cathy said...

But with the exception of Amber Heard, has Depp really been known for hitting on everyone in front of him in recent years?

Frufra said...

I had nada, so you're ahead of me, FSP. I just hang around and criticize everyone else's brilliant ideas :-)!

Cathy said...

Has Gerard Butler been dumped lately? He's in Movie 43 with Moretz...

Lola said...

@Frufra...lol, that's my system. I hardly ever have guesses but like to tell everyone else why their guesses suck.

JSierra said...

Chloe looked her age in Hugo but everywhere else I feel like she tries to sex herself up and adulitfy (not a word, I know) herself.

IIRC she was the popular guess for a blind over the summer where she parties pretty hard and had to be carried out of a premier or a party because she was so wasted and her parents just don't care.

Jeezus that took me 10min to write. I am coming down with the flu so I can't open my eyes and it is just one of those days where you hit every wrong key, and never the right one. UUUGGGG

Staple611 said...

Um, no. Statutory rape (i.e., RAPE) is a strict liability crime for a reason. If we let ignorance be an excuse for this crime, every Joe would be screaming he didn't know. It's their responsibilities to figure it out.

ABlake said...

No Cathy, Depp isn't known to be a slut with everyone.
Butler is a great guess but it breaks my heart to think he's even close to being A+

Topper Madison said...

Did Hugh Grant film anything last year?

Cheryl said...

That's why some of these young actresses make me uncomfortable. For some reason, whenever I see Dakota Fanning, I think of male costars slobbering and I want to take her home and supervise her homework. The mom in me sees bad things out there for these girls.

Frufra said...

@Staple - true that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and all that.

jaamillion said...

But Depp isn't all movies.....he started on TV

Darkmyst said...

I want to say Ed Norton and someone from Moonrise Kingdom (Kara Hayward maybe?) since it would have been filming a year ago and since we really heard basically nothing about Norton and his Shauna Robinson in the last year.

But that's awfully thin....


And for the whole "Soandso looked her age in the movie" argument - remember this is Hollywood where it is common for older women to play underage roles (Jennifer Grey was 27 when she played 16 y.o. Baby in Dirty Dancing)

Sherry said...

But Depp is all movies now and that's what counts. I can totally see this being Chloe because she is a wild chld like JSierra mentioned (hope you feel better girl!) and I can see Johnny having a least a modicom of guilt about his actions when he may have been possibly drunk.

Count Jerkula said...

@ Staple611: Yep, even if a girl shows you ID that she is of age and she turns out not to be, it is statutory rape.

This guy should just ask Steven Seagal what countries to film in so he can be safe screwing anything on set.

Pink_Palace said...

Has Taylor Momsen done ANY movies (or tv work) since Gossip Girl? She had just the right attitude to be this girl, but I am too lazy to look.

FrenchGirl said...

in this blind, the guy tought she was legally an adult and the girl was consenting so the guy can be a slut but he didn't rape her

NYer said...

got to agree with staple611 and am confused by the comments to the contrary. kids are kids and society should protect them, that is the whole point.

Mark B said...

Dunno why but Hailey Steinfeld (or however the heck you spell her name) came to mind for the girl.

Agent**It said...

FrenchGirl, see Count Jerkula's response. Under the law, it would be a legal issue.

ABlake said...

It would be a legal issue if you were in a bar and ordered a beer and the bartender served you. This is why most states (speaking US) require servers to take classes so that they know what to look for.

An idiot actor and a girl with a fake ID (even if he thought to card her)? That's a different story.

Doesn't make it less wrong, but it certainly isn't a Law and Order SVU

ash said...

huh? it is definitely still a legal issue in the sense that it is still a crime - "oh sorry i thought she was 18" is not a defense to statutory rape in the vast majority of jurisdictions, if she was in fact underage.

IMakeNoSense said...

Your parents knew what you did 24/7?

Swaysway1 said...

Only a few entries ago many were commenting about how the 15 year old girl was consenting to Hopper's son and saying she knew what she was getting in to.
Here, the underage girl was willing to start where they left off. Now it's all about protecting the children?
Only because the actor felt guilt is the difference? someone please fill me in.

IMakeNoSense said...

The girl was consenting i don't get the big deal.

I'm not trying to take rape lightly if I come off this way, I apologize.

She was willing and according to this blind still is.

Disgusting? Yes

Distubing? Yes

Against the law? Yes but hell I'm breaking the law right now

Silly Girl said...

Not sure I'd call Moritz a C list actress. For the tween thing, she's probably more like A list name recognition at least. And I don't think Depp hits on everyone on set. He's not a known douche like that. Until the Amber Heard thing. IIRC, Depp is more of a monogamous guy, mostly because of his upbringing, I think.

Cathy said...

Also, why is it that everyone thinks the actor here is feeling guilty? This says nothing about guilt, just that he's scared of being sent to jail.

FitwithLizzie said...

Ethically, there is a big difference between a guy who goes after underage girls and a guy who thought the girl was 18.

Legally, there is no difference.

Consent is no defense to statutory rape. Minors are not deemed to have the capacity to consent to sex (or contracts, for that matter, but that's another area of the law).

Swaysway1 said...

well, mostly confused about the girl minor part.

Poor Justin said...

No way is this Chloe. C lister? Know many C listers who headline back-to-back hit films? For the under 18 crowd, she's the top of the heap.

Ingrid Superstar said...

It seems like Chloe Moretz is CONSTANTLY surrounded by some combination of her brothers/mother. I doubt it is her.

minerpoteet said...

Guilt my ass. Any idiot with access to internet can check imdb for her age. He's worried it will get out.

L.Barghouti said...

Don't think it would be Shailene Woodley and George Clooney since shooting of the descendants began in March 2010 which means she was already 18. She is 21 now turning 22 this year.

Magniana said...

James Franco and someone from Spring Breakers?

Sav said...

" I can totally see this being Chloe because she is a wild chld like JSierra mentioned -" Sherry

This is categorically and demonstrably false. I know the 1st Amendment allows people to spout off anything they like regardless of factual content, but I would like to hope people would be more responsible. Unfortunately, comment sections on gossip sites have dashed me of that hope.

And for the rest of you folks in such a hurry to get her in bed with Depp, shame on you as well. Christ, how long are you going to defame this kid?

Count Jerkula said...

@Sav: Agent, PR Person, or some other variety of lackey?

Sav said...

Just someone who thinks the mindless and endless defaming of this kid is sickening. That ad hominem response is par for the course though. Next time maybe go with a pertinent or intelligent question.

Count Jerkula said...

Ok, Sparky. Why are you so affected by the alleged defaming of this one broad, and not the other 1000 people potentially being defamed on this site?

Family member, Employee or Hypocrite?

Full disclosure: I don't like or hate Chloe. I actually couldn't pick the broad out of a line up.

Sav said...

You don't know what I think about the assertions made about other celebrities here, and since I don't partake in defaming any of them, any notion of "hypocrisy" on my part is misguided and wrong. As is the continued attempt to link me to Moretz personally.

Perhaps I should've focused on the inanity of the assertion. Maybe you could answer these questions for them:

Are we supposed to believe that 49-year-old Depp is having sex with a 14-year-old? That Depp doesn't know who Moretz is or that she was, you know, fourteen? Maybe the fact that her character is 15 would've been hint, no? He didn't pick any of this up from her mother and brother who are always on set with her? This is even assuming the incident occurred at all which it likely did not.



Anna Namiss said...

Moretz is young enough and according to blinds experienced enough and the parents couldn't care less that she's out all night doing drugs and having sex. Johnny does seem like the type to not be comfortable with that. Penn on the other hand would have taken video and posted it on the internet.

Sav said...

@Anna Namiss-

And by 'according to blinds' you mean what people at their computer throw out as guesses to the fabricated stories Enty posts like you just did. Come on folks, at least defame someone who deserves it.

Count Jerkula said...

How do you know she doesn't deserve it? Being a teen is no absolution, plenty of teens do horrible things.

Why do you assume she is some sort of angel that is above reproach?

What is your agenda?

Sav said...

That's quite funny. The only people with an agenda are those who are determined to label her some sort of disaster/horrible human being. Anyone who claims to not even know what she looks like obviously isn't up on the character assassination against her that has originated mainly from this site the past year and a half. Would you like a list of the things she's been accused of?


And why are you justifying this nonsense by pointing out that teens are capable of bad behavior?

Silly Girl said...

OMG, Sav has provided us with the voice of reason! Amen! (sarcasm)
This site addresses everyone equally as being like Lohan. We're not picking out Moritz singularly, EVERY one is suspect!
Only the revealed kindness blinds allow them an out. If you don't want to play, go home, Sav. Sheesh.

Count Jerkula said...

Sure I'll take a list of what she has been accused of, as soon as you disclose why you are so concerned about how she is portrayed on this site. Otherwise, save your spin for elsewhere.

All you have done is be dismissive of my inquiries about your relationship with the broad and not offered up how or where you come by unique knowledge of her being pure of mind and spirit.

I am not justifying what has been said about her, I am questioning your motives and why you seem to to defend her so vehemently. But you go on and attempt to swerve the argument, displaying your piss poor skills and lending credence to my hypothesis that you are not here as a random commenter, but someone that actually DOES have an agenda.

Sav said...

~~This site addresses everyone equally as being like Lohan. We're not picking out Moritz singularly, EVERY one is suspect!~~

Sorry Silly Girl, but this is simply not true. While others have had their names thrown out occasionally, Moretz--not Moritz--is the prime target without question. This is the reason it has gotten to the point that people now include with their guess the notion that it is an unequivocal fact that Moretz does all these things so it must be her. I'll link you a slew of the blinds and non-blind posts if you'd like.





Sav said...

~~as soon as you disclose why you are so concerned about how she is portrayed on this site.~~

Disclose? This isn't cloak and dagger stuff, pal. I'm simply a fan and supporter of hers. You sound like a political demagogue who has to find a nefarious reason why someone would hold a particular stance or opinion.

BTW, nobody said she was "pure of mind and spirit." However, anyone who has followed her closely generally knows what kind of kid she is. That's a hell of a lot more to go on than the pure assumptions and assertions thrown out around here.

Silly Girl said...

Get over yourself, Sav.

Count Jerkula said...

So you are a simple fan that comes here to monitor how she is being portrayed on this site?

What ever the fuck that is you called me, you seem to say I'm a loon for saying you have an agenda, when you started this saying the site has an agenda about the bim.

How does anyone know what a celeb is like following his/her career closely? A riveting interview on Leno or Oprah? Puff piece from USWeekly? Bullet point on Page 6? Some people don't even know those that live in the same house as them, much less a person they see on TV and the internet.

Maybe you aren't on the payroll. If you are a PR person, then you should be arrested for stealing from the girl. You gotta be her mom to be throwing contradicting nonsense as emphatically as you are.

I'll give yo some help mom, it will make things easier: Never Google your famous kid, because the positive will be ignored and the negative stick in your craw. Like the comic that dwells on the lone prick in the second row that aint laughing. Also, get her on birth control, so your meal ticket don't get ruined on her next set.

Sav said...

Can't handle the facts, Silly Girl?

Sav said...

Let's get some things straight here, Jerkula. You started this conversation be responding to me, not the other way around. You also questioned my motives and are revealing yourself to be not the classiest person in the world. Nothing contradictory in anything I have said either.

Resorting to personal attacks and trying to goad me with those comments about her only show you have no substance to debate on which leads me to wonder why you decided to bitch and moan in the first place. I have every bit as much right to correct the BS spread here as those doing the spreading. You don't like it, tough.

Silly Girl said...

You're right, Sav, I can't handle the facts. Wow are you good at figuring people out! No WONDER you've nailed Moretz (since you're the spelling police, too) and whether or not this is really her! You're too good for us here, Sav.

Sav said...

Sorry if you're offended that I corrected you on her name, Silly Girl, but I thought it was odd that someone who doesn't know her well enough to get that right is asserting that she hasn't been singled out here.

~~~ and whether or not this is really her! ~~~

Whether or not it's her? You do realize that most of the stuff on this website is fiction, do you not?

Silly Girl said...

Duh, Sav.

Count Jerkula said...

The only thing I said in my last post that would be a personal attack on you is "if you are a PR person then you are stealing money from her." If you aren't a PR person, then that wouldn't be a personal attack, it would be nonsense spewed but an internet loon.

You should stop bothering with me and get your resume in order. You are up to your hips in quicksand here and the more you struggle, the quicker you sink.

Count Jerkula said...

Also, you mentioned again that she has been singled out on this site, like there is a conspiracy to "get" her. Yet you still deny that you are here to attempt to squash or spin the discussion, and try to make her a "victim" and a pitiable figure.

Do you do this on all sites, or are you only assigned to CDAN?

Sav said...

You don't understand the situation yet you are determined to argue it to death. She has in fact been singled out in nearly all negative teen/tween blinds and several non-blind posts, and it is easily verifiable.

I haven't denied anything other than having a connection to Moretz. I indeed started posting because I had enough of the defamation that has spread well beyond CDAN. That has nothing to do with PR or being her mother as you assert.

Bottom line: There isn't one shred of evidence that she has any involvement with any of these blinds, yet you seem to have no qualms with people who state as fact that she's culpable. OTOH, I'm supposed to give you ID and video footage to prove otherwise. I find that odd.

Count Jerkula said...

I don't understand. If you are not paid or related, then we are left with obsessed fan, that has delusions of "inside knowledge" of the kind of person she is.

I'm not arguing about the girl, don't know her, don't care about how she's treated. I'm arguing about you and your obviously failing efforts to white knight for her. You are either paid, related or full of shit about your knowledge of her.

I didn't ask for proof otherwise. I asked how you obtained your knowledge that she is incapable of the things she is hypothesized to partake in.

Verify for us that she has been singled out for derision here and through out the internets. Please. You say it is easy, go ahead.

You certainly make it clear why the vernacular includes the term PR hack.

Anyone follow the lil broad on Twitter? Is she old enough to have a Twitter? Someone should tell her she needs a better PR team. Sav should be reassigned to dog walking, condom fetching and car washing.

Sav said...

You're right, you don't understand. Which is why you shouldn't have gotten involved.

Why should I prove anything to you again? You're classless, you're ignorant on the kid we are talking about, and you want me to disprove negatives but couldn't care less about unsubstantiated assertions thrown out as fact from others.

Outside of some subpar effort to troll, I have no idea why you bothered responding in the first place.

Count Jerkula said...

You failed Swerving 101 at PR school, huh? I didn't ask you to disprove anything, only asked you how you have gained intimate knowledge of the lil broad.

Subpar trolling? Possibly, but I've had you dancing for quite sometime now and I don't have to answer to a superior about it. I also don't want you to be able to pad your billable hours by throwing stuff up around the net and get you runnin around like yer head wuz on fire an yer ass wuz catching. I didn't even chase you over into the to the other blind about the teen girl drinking at the awards show. I believe in arguing, not harassing. Maybe that does make me a subpar troll. I can come to grips with my failure, can you yours?

If I went Full Troll, I'd set up an acct Glowie Murizz and respond to every blind on the site with "Me." That would be misguided though, as she isn't the one that annoys me.

Classless? You got me there. I can't argue with that one bit. Lack of class is part of my internet charm.


G'night.

Sav said...

~~ but I've had you dancing for quite sometime now~~

You don't bother me enough to have me dancing. It was a waste of time though. That I acknowledge. I don't see any desire for debate on your side, just some strange interest in getting under my skin.

BTW, I annoy YOU?

Mala Propism said...

By the time you started commenting on this thread @Sav, 6 different girls names had been mentioned (7 if you count "James Franco & one of the girls from Spring Break"... Of which there were 4.) but your concern has not been to defend the impugning of the reputations of all of these young actresses, solely the one, Ms. Moretz.

You've made a lot of statements asserting things like "this comment is categorically and demonstrably false" (legalese that usually only appears in pleadings) and yet, when asked to demonstrate the falsity? You have not only NOT done so, but fallen back to claim that you shouldn't have to. Something that is categorically & demonstrably false, by definition? Is easy to show convincingly to others.

Your responses linguistically are peppered with legalese and a pedantic tone that one usually associates with 3rd year law school students, but the dodging and misdirection when asked simple questions like "if you are in know way related to this girl, how do you have any 'inside information' that makes your assertions as to her nature any more valid than any other commenter?" read PR all the way. But PR people usually don't go for words and phrases like "ad hominem", "inanity", "nefarious", and "demagogue" -- that's unusually articulate for your average AR a couple of years out of B school who is assigned to slogging through Internet sites trying to amend a client's image.

You're certainly a puzzle @Sav. Much more fun than trying to figure out a blind like this. You clearly have been monitoring CDAN through a 3rd party search result - indicated by the fact that you ostensibly have a 'list' of accusations, a year & a half worth's of defamatory or derogatory statements about the girl, claim that this site is he largest offender in that regard, and your incorrect assertion that "while others have had their names thrown out occasionally (...) Moretz in the prime target without question." A regular CDAN reader would question that somewhat automatically, because Chloe Moretz is not a name that comes up so often that none of us have to Google her. Lohan, Rhianna, KStew, Jennifer Lawrence, Beyonce... Those are names that arise constantly. If you have simply been reading all of these comment threads for the past year and a half, and they have all been so pointedly directed at besmirching this one girl's reputation undeservedly, how is it that you kept your tongue until now? Why would you continue to return, day after day, to read such horridly untrue accusations yet remain silent for so very long?

No. It doesn't make sense. You write like a combination of lawyer, PR flack, indignant insider, and yet with the polysyllabic-vocabulary-indicates-my-superiority-in-this-debate awkwardness of a grad student. You're not good enough to be a practiced troll - but perhaps an aspiring one? Yet you argue with the passion of an invested party. I'll guess 'family member, college age, well-educated, but not very versed in spin tactics, attempting to defend someone he cares about.'. I say "he" rather than "she" because you write in the predominantly masculine voice... But I suppose Jerkula might have you pegged with his Mother guess.

Either way, thank you for making an otherwise non-eventful thread rather entertaining!

Silly Girl said...

I bow to you, @Mala. Very well said, well written. And, I'll end it with Amen. ;)

Count Jerkula said...

As do I. Mala Propism, we speak your name.

I can't wait to re read your post after errands are done.

For now:

???

http://www.showbizspy.com/article/255266/chloe-moretz-foul-mouth.html

Sav said...

Mala Propism,

Perhaps before you go on a long screed questioning the motives and background of someone simply commenting on this site, you should actually read what that person says. Contrary to your assertions of dodging and misdirection re: the irrelevant question of who I am, I quite clearly said in multiple posts that I am simply a fan/supporter of Moretz' and someone who is sick of the defamation. If that answer doesn't work for your conspiracies, so be it.


~~You've made a lot of statements asserting things like "this comment is categorically and demonstrably false" (legalese that usually only appears in pleadings) and yet, when asked to demonstrate the falsity? You have not only NOT done so, but fallen back to claim that you shouldn't have to.~~

Had you properly read what I wrote you'd notice I said I have no interest in backing that assertion for Jerkula. He/she was not engaging in a serious discussion; he/she was doing the trolling, not me as you suggest. If a serious person legitimately wants links, I will post some of them. I am not taking the time to do so for someone who wouldn't read them in the first place. There are plenty of long-time readers of this site who know exactly what I am talking about in regards to Moretz being the unquestionable top target for nasty teen/tween blinds.


~~~claim that this site is he largest offender in that regard~~~

Once again, not accurate. I said this site was the main originator in this defamation, not the largest offender. There are sites--some liked to from here--whose commenters are far worse than CDAN's in this regard. Four or five BI's from CDAN, subsequently re-linked elsewhere, got the ball rolling.



~~~and your incorrect assertion that "while others have had their names thrown out occasionally (...) Moretz in the prime target without question." A regular CDAN reader would question that somewhat automatically, because Chloe Moretz is not a name that comes up so often that none of us have to Google her. Lohan, Rhianna, KStew, Jennifer Lawrence, Beyonce... ~~~


My assertion was not incorrect, just not explained properly. As I said in another post yesterday, I am referring to the teen/tween BI's, not ones where the suspect is an adult. Moretz' name would never be thrown out if the supposed answer was an adult.


~~~If you have simply been reading all of these comment threads for the past year and a half, and they have all been so pointedly directed at besmirching this one girl's reputation undeservedly, how is it that you kept your tongue until now?~~~


Uh, I haven't. I've been responding to comments about her for nearly a year.


If you decide to respond, please refrain from pretending you're teaching a Psych-101 course.



Sav said...

Yo Jerk, that link you left is a word-by-word copy of a National Enquirer allegation from December. The Enquirer removed the story from their website within hours. Others in the link's comment section noted this though I know you didn't take the time to read them.

The link to the Enquirer page that was removed.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/mike-walker/wave-buh-bye-kick-ass-chloe

It's nice that you took the time to look for more defamatory nonsense on her, but you failed.

Count Jerkula said...

Yeah, Nat Enquirer took it down, because they can be bargained with. Random website copying story don't give a hoot what a celeb camp has to offer or threatens.

The reason I posted the link is because the first commenter seems a lil like you, sav. Quick to exonerate the girl, allegedly based on nothing yet having enough knowledge that her mommy and/or brother escort her everywhere.

If there is that much damage control that needs to be done, that "people" have to rush to her defense on many sites, and she only 14-15, you got a powder keg on yer hands.

Also, trolling don't mean lacking in truth. I stand by everything I wrote to you. From the mom tips to the stealing money if you are a PR person. If you were just a random fan, you would have said, "You are a lunatic" and dropped the argument long ago, but you have to convince us you aren't a lackey in order to keep doing yer job.

Another tell tale sign the you are full of it, no one has read this and come to your defense. I wrote a horribly tasteless joke the other day and had people defending me. NO ONE here buys your bullshit. And more than just me have posted to call you out on it.

Mom tip #3: Keep her away from Wilmer.

Sav said...

Do you do anything but spread false information and accusations? More assertions of what is true, claims that the Enquirer was bargained with, assumptions that Moretz' "camp" knows anything about the story in the first place. Certainly the Enquirer didn't take it down because it's BS. You, the almighty Count Jerkula who couldn't pick Moretz out of a lineup two days ago now knows the story is true, by God. Sure she wasn't in Toronto but, hey, the Enquirer has long track record of accuracy so who are we to doubt. Most importantly, if Jerkula says it is so, then we know it's true.

I don't think you're a lunatic, just a clown looking for an argument and reaction. You don't have the first clue about what it is you're talking about. You know nothing about Moretz, your guesses about me are hilarious, and you top it off by speaking for the entire population of this website. Besides waste time, the only thing you have done is make my original point.