[img][340:500]http://img65.echo.cx/img65/2153/nicolerichielindsaylohan108ap.jpg[/img]

where did she go?

RIP, 1986-2005

Picking her for deathpool already?

edited for side-by-side comparisons

remember when everyone picked Nick Cave in an NME poll in the late eighties to be the next rockstar to die, followed by Keith Richards? Yeah well they BOTH showed them!

But damn, that bitch ugly!

Did she have her hip bones surgically filed down? Jeezus. From slight hourglass to thermometer.

and did she get her hair like fully surgically dyed blonde? Jeezus. From poo brown to peroxide! I mean, i know, when in Rome, but seriously! And where'd she get those clothes from, the toilet store?

Nah she's just on the anorexia brigade that 90% of all hollywood females is on.

Didn't you know that men prefer women that looked like that? Especially the ones known as hollywood producers.

Yeah, it's cool to look like a clothes hanger.

I never dug that look.

if you walk past the girls' toilets at my school towards the end of lunchtime, all you'll hear is the distant sound of someone regurgitating their recently eaten meal. One of my female friends says that about 1/4 of girls spew up consistantly on a day-to-day basis.

Sad, because voluptous girls are in far more men's fantasies than clothes-hanger girls, I bet.

It's got nothing to do with what men like and everything to do with what looks better on film. Almost all actors are lollipops - tiny people with enormous heads. The camera likes 'em that way.

christ that's disgusting

It's not about preference? Really? I've seen plenty of women who are "larger" in size look absolutely fabulous on camera. And I bet many others here would agree. I personally don't think the "skinnier" actors in hollywood look better on film I think they look sick.

Your comments reinforce the idea that people are supposed to think that skinnier people look better on camera.

If Karen Carpenter was alive today, would she be considered hot?

You moron, you know what I meant.

It's amazing how you can be so wrong on so many different levels. You even contradict yourself in that post.


My comments reinforced no such thing. Think a little harder.

Without wanting to sound like one of those old doddery High Court judges but who is this 'Lohan' person and why should I care?

I don't mind micro-celebrities (assuming that's what she is) who do nothing of note but at least look good and have a modicum of style and elan; but those that look like they should be engaging Jason and the Argonauts in a sword fight, well, it just doesn't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

I like the pics on the right...

No one's commented on Nicole Ritchie's horrid heroin look or the fact that Lindsay USED to have boobs and now she doesn't.

Darrin, Lindsay is a child actress (I guess she's of age now) who has appeared on several cable shows and is now about to come out in the new Herbie film.

Lohan's a bit more than a micro-celebrity. She's had several extremely successful movies and a platinum album.

Moron? Me? I'm jus' sayin' I'd sop that up with a biscuit.

Meth focks up da best and da rest