|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Dec 18, 2010 16:23:24 GMT -5
The problem with saying "I wish Thore would..." regarding his physical appearance is that he has minimal control over it. His hair, its cut and color, even his weight to some extent is at the hands of the wardrobe department. you know when the barbers hold up that little mirror to the back of your head at the end of a hair cut and ask what you think? this: is why you should always pay attention at that precise moment. an otherwise gorgeous bloke rendered completely pointless from the back because of that skunk that chose to expire on top of his head. i wish thore would just go back to his plain old original hair circa 07/08. he's so beautiful he doesn't need all the fancy trimmings. other than that. thanks for the caps. romina continues to be the most promising female actress on the whole cast. wish nico was on the turn for her. they're the only two i like now lydia has become a whiny little cow. and oh.my.god the dimples. rominas/miriams dimples kill me almost as much as thores/christians. silly stupid rebecca don't deserve the little hottie miriam's transformed into.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Oct 10, 2010 11:37:24 GMT -5
Does anyone know who will attend this year I for one would like to see all the guys back from last year,plus Danny Miller and Marc from Emmerdale, Fer and David from Fisica O Quimica,also Ferry from Goede Tijden Slechte Tijden and Van and Jake from ATWT, Brett Claywell from OLTL THERE ARE SO MANY NOW but those are just a few We're in the process of inviting people. We have some confirmed but we won't announce until we know who's coming for sure. We think we have a pretty awesome invite list.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Oct 4, 2010 7:56:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Oct 4, 2010 7:51:30 GMT -5
GOOL 2011 dates and locations have been announced. If you haven't heard! GOOL location and dates announced! gaysofourlives.org/And no. This is not a joke.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Aug 23, 2010 16:11:22 GMT -5
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! I'd like to post a link to the official Press Release that we've put together to sum up what happened on Twitter Friday and over the weekend. Here's the link! docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Ag5MBJ9SDI6fO-sk72Mj0O8aYNrk7f9ob8e6Hmu7kSQ Great work guys! You're all seriously amazing. We will be sending out letters following up with "the media" later this week. Naturally, we'll let you know if we hear anything.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Aug 20, 2010 8:12:13 GMT -5
#Chrolli Twtter Storm!!! Less than Three Hours. Are we ready! (And thanks to everyone who's playing their part today!!)
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Aug 19, 2010 13:20:56 GMT -5
i will be FASCINATED to see how they overcome what i assume is the actor's (thore's) natural discomfort around small children if they want to convince the audience chrolli are such 'natural' fathers. jo will manage it no problem i reckon. but thore, he can't even hold a toddler without looking like he has no idea how he ended up there. reminds me of vin diesel in that awful film about babysitting. on top of that the character was hardly keen, only a couple of years ago and doesn't seem to have made any drastic amendment to his outlook. can't wait to see how this pans out. just wanna get the wedding over and done with now. I've actually seen Thore and Jo both with a baby. A very special baby. (*waves at Special Baby*) Believe me. They're both just fine with babies. (Any other GOOL peeps wanna jump in.)
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Aug 19, 2010 9:01:01 GMT -5
You non twitterers might find you really like it. Start following other Chrolli fans! It's fun times. #Addicted.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Aug 18, 2010 22:58:47 GMT -5
^ I hope everyone will be participating. I know I will! Every voice counts. Thanks Nitty! It's really not a lot of work! And you can do it from your phone! YAY!
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Aug 18, 2010 22:18:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Aug 12, 2010 14:19:44 GMT -5
********* #ChrolliSecretProject **********
Official Details will be released early next week. As you probably know, we're going to try to take over Twitter. Well, there's more to it than that. But that's part of it!
SO! PLEASE MARK DOWN AUGUST 20TH 12pm NYC Time/6pm Germany Time!! It is that very moment tweeting begins.
Stay tuned for informational links early next week.
Sign up for Twitter and follow @chrollifans if you haven't.
And spread the news.
This is going to be a big deal!!!
And it won't happen without you lovelies!
Peace, Love and Chrolli!
Vitamin Out!
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 26, 2010 22:23:16 GMT -5
Question! Does ANYONE know how to get in touch with the This Week in Chrolli News People/Person? FB? Email? Anything. I've tried the youtube. #needsanarmy She had mentioned that the reason she was stopping the vids was because she was going to be traveling before she started back up with school. So, I'm thinking that if you left her a pm on her channel she may not respond right away. I hope this bit of info helped and you get in touch with her soon. Thanks! She got back with me. Exciting things to come!!!! @chrollifans (Twitter) ChrolliFans@gmail.com It's time for a secret project my friends.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 26, 2010 19:34:52 GMT -5
Question! Does ANYONE know how to get in touch with the This Week in Chrolli News People/Person? FB? Email? Anything. I've tried the youtube. #needsanarmy
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 26, 2010 11:20:57 GMT -5
RiboflavinB12: I saw an episode of Ellen last year and I am quite sure she mentioned both Chrolli, Starla and Dero. I know she said that Carla was a refreshing change from Lesbians portrayed in US media and how Chrolli and Dero had taken the world by storm. I don't know about anything recently but she did mention them sometimes last spring or summer...a while ago at least. But this was on her show not a tweet. Can you hop on the FB? Is there ANYWAY you can figure out which episode this was? I need to have verifiable proof what a plan that Shirley and Myself are hatching... along with the Street Team's help. FOR EVERYONE: If you're on Twitter please, please double rainbow please, email ChrolliFans@Gmail.com with the subject line Twitter Storm and put your twitter info in the body. Also. If you've heard of anything Ellen related. We need that also.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 26, 2010 4:56:45 GMT -5
I consider Thore a friend and I am NOT publicly speculating on his love life...but I'm playing devil's advocate here... mostly because this line of commenting annoys me.
You guys ever consider the boy might, oh I don't know..., actually be in love.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 25, 2010 17:28:51 GMT -5
Hey guys! I need your help. Can anyone else corroborate or did you hear/see The Ellen show tweet about Chrolli? I need to verify this ASAP. Send me PM if you can! Ooh, what was this about (a PM would be great if you can't say on board)? I've just checked out the show's official twitter page and there's nothing on Chrolli there. On Nanna's channel there's comments about Ellen Tweeting out the link to Nanna's channel. I've gone back 3 months. Can't find it. Then I emailed the poster and got this back: "It said "TheEllenShow have found this great german soap on youtube. Click here to see it" However when I went to ellens page to try and find the tweet, I could not find it. ... After googling "EllenTvShow finds great german soap" alot of results are returned, and it seems the chrolli/ollian universe are in an uproar about it lol." I googled and didn't find anything. I'm trying to get a lock on this because there are things happening that I'd have to comment on privately. So. If anyone knows anything or knows of other Chrolli-fans who saw this... holler back asap.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 25, 2010 16:59:03 GMT -5
Hey guys! I need your help. Can anyone else corroborate or did you hear/see The Ellen show tweet about Chrolli? I need to verify this ASAP. Send me PM if you can!
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 23, 2010 8:25:26 GMT -5
..... It's off topic but i've always wondered how exactly the VL actors get roped into doing publicity stuff. Jo, Thore, Lutz, Romina and Jana seem to do the Lion's share. How much is mandated by the studio, and how much by the actors themselves... I can't speak for VL, but I can speak to how the industry as a whole works. They're all contractually obligated to make appearances. However, it's the appearances that dictate who they want to show up. So say you're a hot new club opening you're probably not going to call and ask if the guy that plays Arno can make an appearance. You might ask for him if you're opening up an upscale restaurant or something like that. It's a two way street. The VL publicist will look for opportunities for their actors but the opportunities will also seek out the actors. Then if everyone agrees... they'll go. For example, Thore or Jo or Jana might decline an appearance because they have a family reunion or they're in their cousin's wedding or they've already taken off the vacation time. etc. For really aggressive celebs, He/She and their personal publicist will ALSO seek out opportunities. It's a sure-fire way to increase the relevancy of a rising star. But bottom line, how do you think we got all those amazing people at GOOL? We asked.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 21, 2010 10:19:53 GMT -5
While I do share the same concerns of "What happens next" I have not heard anything about Jo or Thore leaving the show and there's those of us who usually hear these types of major things before most. (Waves at her #Gool girls)!
You're absolutely right Thunderkat, Jo and Thore are Publicity MACHINES and the writers won't write them off unless their contracts are up and they've not renewed them. Neither contract is up, I believe, until what? December? (If I'm doing the math right, Jo's might be up in December. And Thore I *think* next Aprilish.)
I have not heard either express interest in leaving at present.
The writers have an opportunity here to continue to foster the couple's popularity. There's a media push going on with the wedding (including trying to hit major US media), there's a street team being put together for various things... the writers know this. If they're smart they'll use it.
I would suggest, for right now, enjoy the present and don't worry about what the future may or may not bring.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jul 15, 2010 12:50:29 GMT -5
What exactly are you planning? I'd love to find chrolli fans around me... Email ChrolliFans@gmail.com and find out.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jun 15, 2010 16:07:22 GMT -5
actually, that's right . the word 'marriage' was coined by catholicism and when civil partnerships were approved they applied the same term just out of habit. so, theoretically the word was mean for a religious setting. the 'funny' thing comes when, here for example, is not a problem at all if used in heterosexual civil partnerships but should be banned for gays couples the term 'marriage' was in use a lot early than that. it has forms in both norman french and old english (and high german) and its root is latin and basically came to mean - 'to join'. further back than that, there are arabic and chinese equivalents. and although the latin route didn't specify sex interestingly enough - it derives from the latin word to 'marry' which has no definitive route, basically it's unknown - but came to be used as a noun 'a suitor' (male) round about the time you're thinking. how shakespeare implements it 'marry' (young man of a marrying age). suggesting male suitor and female partner. it is most definitely NOT a catholic term - although that particular church sought to possess it, like many other religious organisations after it. and as the right wing conservative church (particularly in america) seeks to own and possess it now, as a definition of a union between man and woman as blessed and sanctioned by god. really though - at it's route, marītāre, it just means 'to join'. I'm not denying them the right to use that term. I'd like for ALL couples from a legal standpoint to sign a civil union married in the church or not. The Catholic Church (I am Catholic) Is not perfect. No religion is. But believing something is a sin or Evil is their right to do so. (I don't, but that's me.) That's not a hate crime. For the record. I know a LOT of priests who are perfectly accepting of Gays. I've never heard ONE Priest in the 28 years I've been a Catholic tell me that Gays are evil. I've heard Christian's from other denominations say that... but not one priest. CAN WE SERIOUSLY GET OFF THIS TOPIC?! THE MODS ARE GOING TO GO APE SH*T. You want to talk more to me about it... I have an inbox.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jun 15, 2010 15:54:53 GMT -5
so why are chrolli getting married in a church and calling it a marriagesurely, not only is that socially and legally inaccurate - but offensive to anyone who holds a faith that instructs these views?! it's wrong any way you look at it. imagine if they were muslim. to hold a gay ceremony at a mosque would be insensitive on so many levels. groundbreaking, maybe. in the most infantile, two fingers up at reality sort of way. but the soap format isn't intelligent enough to engage with those issues, or tackle them, in any real way. You'd have to ask the writers. Like I said, it's not totally implausible that a gay couple could get married in a church. There are SOME that will do it. They are far and few between. If the Catholic church said tomorrow, "Hey everyone! We're going to start marrying gays!" I'm for it. Just as a church has the right NOT to marry someone the should also have the right TO marry someone. But when a Church marries a couple they're doing so under the beliefs of their faith. Faith and doctrine can change. It's less likely in the Catholic church, but it can. (Points to Galileo.) The Catholic church is the only church I know of that has an official doctrine on Evolution that does not conflict with Evolution. Now. It took like 500 years to go from imprisoning people for believing the Earth goes around the Sun to saying "yeah we're okay with Evolution" It might take another 500 years for them to come around and start marrying Gays. In that sense, it is groundbreaking. A little bit F-U yes... but that's okay.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jun 15, 2010 15:42:46 GMT -5
^ I'm curious about riboflavinb2's statement that I quoted, hence asking her through what assumption(s) is the word "marriage" only to be used in a religious setting? actually, that's right . the word 'marriage' was coined by catholicism and when civil partnerships were approved they applied the same term just out of habit. so, theoretically the word was mean for a religious setting. the 'funny' thing comes when, here for example, is not a problem at all if used in heterosexual civil partnerships but should be banned for gays couples Yup. This too.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jun 15, 2010 15:40:08 GMT -5
Why? Through what assumption? Actually it is a very usual controversy. Here in Spain gay marriage is completely legal and has the exact same characteristics than heterosexual unions (legally speaking) but only in civil ceremonies and never in a church/catholics rituals. Anyway the word 'marriage' is legally used in both cases: 'marriage' as a higher commitment than 'civil partnership' which, if I'm not wrong, is kind of what they have in Germany. And that's fine for Spain to do. But notice, again, the Church is separate. As it should be. My point for this was if you use "civil unions" or another term for ALL couples from a legal stand point then you can award ALL people the same rights with less gripe. I think the term Marriage should be reserved for the church because it would make things easier for places that aren't able to let go of semantics as Spain has. I know that the word marriage has come to mean all these things. A "greater commitment" But doesn't that "greater commitment" mean "before God?" At what point do we have to semantisize (is that even a word?) out the level of commitment people have? Rights are being lost in the US over a WORD. A powerful word, but a word nonetheless. My parents (ridiculously conservative) would have voted to pass civil unions in our state but not marriage. Because to them it means that it would force the church to marry gay people. That is how a lot of people in the states think. So while one word might work for Spain... two words will get it done in the States. It's very hard for people here to separate out their beliefs. To compartmentalize these. I'm good at doing that. But wouldn't it be better to have two words for two very different institutions (government/church) and get everyone the same thing? In the states? Then if at some point in the future they say, "you know, we only need one word" GREAT. Yay! But to get what people need now... it's going to be a much longer fight. I say this all in the sense that if I had been Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson, I would have wrote the law this way to start with. If you're going to have church and state separate I think two words for two institutions makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by riboflavinb2 on Jun 15, 2010 15:28:18 GMT -5
and in terms of the semantics of the word: i believe, morally, it's wrong to happily exist in a society that invests so much in 'marriage' in terms of constitution and advantages, be they financial, emotional or spiritual, and social standing, a word that has for centuries defined familial relationships which really are the basis of all humanity - when you know that fellow human beings are excluded from that process. to dismiss everything our societies place in marriage and it's definition as semantics is cruel to the people who are being denied that basic right. It is true that this word has defined familial relationships. Sort of. A lot of that had to do with the fact that in the beginnings church and state were not separate and the only way to have any type of family union was to go through the church. That is not the case today. It's not fair that things are separated out from a legal stand point. But from a religious standpoint, it's not only fair it is right. And here's why, from a religious stand point, (and by that I mean doctrine of the church) it is not fair for an outside organization be that you/me/government etc. to tell an organization of faith what or how to believe. If a church doesn't want to marry you for being gay and the girl next door to you for being atheist, it shouldn't have to. Likewise, if a church doesn't care and opens it doors to marry you and the hypothetical girl next door, it should be allowed to do so. For a long, long, long time Faith and Marriage have been linked because for a long long time that was the only way to build a family. Yes, it can be argued that most churches are archaic, but it's their right to be so. If I sound cruel, I'm sorry. It's simply that I see this from two sides. Yes, legally, all couples should have the same rights awarded to them. I firmly believe that. The government should not tell you whom to love or restrict your love in any way. However, Religion has that right. I'm not saying I agree with religion on this point. I'm saying that it is fair and just for them to have the right to make that call. When you get married in a Church you're asking the beliefs of that church to bless you. Where that's Jesus/Jehovah/Allah. (I know, technically, they're all the same depending on which book you subscribe to.) But if the teachings of that church teach homosexuality as a sin, however archaic that is, it's their right to do so. That's why it's called faith. Ribo- out.
|
|