I was bored so I clicked on one of those things you see at the bottom of articles. This one was pictures on how actor age. The article was telling me how poorly the actors aged. There were 31 pictures of actors and the author took studio shots of actors vs actors 30 to 40 years later not a studio picture. One lady had used plastic surgery and it turned out poorly. Of the 31 pictures I would say only 4 had actors really going to pieces once they age. In the comment section of the article 2 of the the aged pictures used was the actor was made up for a part so he did not look like that normally. They had a picture of Chuck Norris when he was a young man vs a picture of him while he is in his 70’s.

The one that really gets me is the picture of Golden Hawn which does not reflect what she actually looks like today. The picture presented is more in line of the kind of pictures that were created for the scandal sheets which always tried to make the person mentioned look bad.


I have learned the MSN will place idiot articles that remind me of the mindless drivel put out by National Enquirer and the myriad of publications emulating them. They put enticing pictures or lurid headlines to draw you into pure bullspit. I use MSN as my browser only because I use their outlook mail, other than that, it is a total waste of time, but sadly all news browsers seem to be a waste of time also.


Every once in awhile I look at these articles at the bottom of a page and it looks like they took some teenager to put together a collage of pictures which a headline that is misleading or the article is nothing more than an ad.


Just some friendly, unsolicited, advice: When you get that bored, it is time to turn the machine off.


They’re made to get as many clicks as possible. The quality is not what’s important. The just want as many people as possible to click the things.


[ATTACH]2747[/ATTACH] This man is in his 70’s he looks like he aged well to me


really?amazing, that makeup department, eh?