Post edited 12:38 pm – April 5, 2009 by Kate
mook said:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm000…..#134824337
from user “highpriestess32″:
“I think they did have some sort of “commitment” ceremony but I do not believe they formally married. I think Angelina underwent this ceremony partly to compromise with her mother, Marchelline who allegedly were keen for the couple to wed because of the children but I may be wrong. I just vaguely recall reading about it some years ago.”
there you have it.
Mooki, let me begin by saying I hope you will not feel I am tryi ng to be difficult. I don.t view this as squabbleing but as us just having friendly debate and working the kinks out so to speak.I realize you are new over here and it is very nice to have new people and all the new contributions as well, but it is also a bit misleading to state something not only as fact but then back it up as you can not reveal a confidential source as though are some one important that would somehow compromise your position.
Did you see how many of us chatted on this, tried to understand why they would be married, and why they would not tell us, and when deciding it was for Pax(which supported you not wanting to reveal your source) made it an illegal act, then it spread to other boards on the net.
So that brings us to asking you to clarify and you come back with this? What is this, another posters opinion? This information was in all the tabloids and all over the internet when they had the committment ceremony, that was not a secret. That is a very far cry from saying that “they eloped in 2005/2006 in New Orleans and the marriage certificate is under lock and key”. Do you see what I am saying here?
This does not connect for me and I know it will not for many others, they may not say anything, but tney will just write you off as anoher pretend insider. If you do not really know, then why not just say, “I heard that they got married” not “you wish, I have to protect my sources”.
If Ian pulled this out there on his board no one would come back. The reason he has been successful and different is because he will tell us straight up,” I think, I know, I am not sure, I am not buying this, but here it is,or well Peace Out but I stand by my sources 100 percent and will put my bank account behind it.” Now some around the net that have not spent time here and gotten to know him may have written him off as a flake, but they in the end come back when the stories come togeher, or when they get to know him better and realize is is that straight up.
So in the end, welcome to the board, but I am a bit disappointed in this because as Keane said it did cause some people to question Ian's credibility when in fact it has nothing to do with him since we are all just posters. We have to accept your explanation, but I am not sure if you are just trying to deflect because things got too close or if you do present things as you did often as though you have “CREDIBLE sources in the business” which is what you said, that you could not REVEAL and that is not the case. Lainey started out by just taking info from tabloids and posting it as though she had all these sources, that was how she got her start, she explains that in her bio. So the question in my mind at this point is, do you have any real sources, or not, or were you just playing, (which is okay, I know people have done that for entertainment, but this is not the board to do it), but this is probably the time to be straight up about it.
I hope you are not offended, but I think it is easy to see why this is a big deal, we accused them of breaking a international law, that is a very serious thing to do. It could have been stopped easily with, “I don't really know , just heard maybe”..
Cheers, Kate