Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman are dating

June 1st, 2006 // 387 Comments

  1. asenath7766

    Like her, love him, perfectly cute couple! Such an improvement on Kirsten Dunst, absolutely.

  2. endometriorama

    yay! they’re both so cute. but damn his teeth are yellow.

  3. ptprez

    even though i asked someone to fuck themselves with a horses dick and wished aids on them, to quote a famous blackman…

    “can’t we all just get along?…”

    maybe feed_me ran the superficial and this is punishment…

  4. was it too difficult to find a pretty boy???

  5. diamondprynzez

    @ 179

    I think you’re alone when you say that some languages can be fused together and can be counted as 1. It actually makes you sound a little ignorant. Sorry for sounding like I wanna school ya, but for example, High German and Southern German are the same language. Hindi and Farsi may have both derived from one language (as with English with regard to German) but they are completely separate. Someone who speaks Hindi will NOT understand someone speaking Farsi. It’s like 1 or 2 words out of every 200 will sound similiar and have a similar meaning. And besides, Farsi is written in Arabic and Hindi is, well, written in Hindi.

  6. @ 179

    German is learned as a third language … We don’t speak German automatically as you seem to think.
    Germans call themselves “Deutcher”, we call them “Tysk”…
    Not really close :) No hard feelings !!

  7. hurley

    you sound ignorant when you can’t recognize a joke.
    TOPAZ21 got it. butt out.

  8. Elizabeth

    they look like they are having fun

  9. herbiefrog

    #346 hi babe :)

    and in other news
    does nat look cross?
    so that was just a come on?
    meet at abm

  10. herbiefrog

    …by the way…

    this copy is unregist…. :)

  11. herbiefrog

    its a woolly jumper :)
    and you cant blame him

  12. herbiefrog

    well spotted
    lived there for a few years
    could be so nice
    ta :)

  13. herbiefrog


    …it goes…

    mmmm mmmm good :)

    like the cambells
    soup advert :))

  14. herbiefrog

    truth baby :)

    that’s all it takes :))

  15. herbiefrog


    …and we for them )

  16. herbiefrog

    you mean black jacks
    [or one eye jack?]
    in tokyo
    the girl
    didn’t make it :(

  17. herbiefrog

    you wouldnt believe
    how drunk we could
    and then after
    [he cant type any more]
    [but he loved it :)) ]

  18. herbiefrog

    thats it
    thats the feeling
    to hit
    to undo

  19. herbiefrog

    only the deluded
    need to actually

    lol guys :)

    getting there

  20. herbiefrog

    someone needs to stand up
    and tell it like it is
    how do you like

    where just some keep
    everything for themselves?

  21. herbiefrog

    moonboy :)

    how you doin’ ? :))

  22. herbiefrog

    …and in other news

    it’s pouring rain here in manhattan, aka-singapore

    yes it’s pretty sad
    but true
    and it will continue
    unless we can stop it

    we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore [it]

    thank you sir

  23. chelsea_423

    I bet she knows a thing or two about French history.
    She went to fricken Harvard afterall.

  24. herbiefrog

    …you know what :) ?
    …i am constantly amazed
    …by the illectual capabilities
    …of people who become
    message board
    judge and jury

    lol guys
    did you think we wouldn’t notice :)

    …and as an example
    …of the depth of intellect…

    the grand canyon is a product of the great flood

    so nat, time for a mass purge :)_

    lol bitch

  25. indescribable.romance

    Since when is Natalie Portman a step up from Kirsten Dunst?

    I personally think that Kirsten is much prettier. Now commence with your lame flaming at me. I can take it.

  26. herbiefrog

    so you weren’t about
    for the big bang then?

  27. herbiefrog

    you know what ?

    seems a perfect place to discuss

    btw, thank paris, keep going
    nat is having reality issues

    molecular biology and manipulating genes…um experiments is the name of the game here. chemistry has little ‘math’ but people use logic to deduce from experiments the structure of molecules which can later verified by directly imaging them using some scanning probe microscopy. also people test their assumptions about evolution by setting up computer simulations of large populations of organisms. also, there will soon be technologies that can image molecules directly, in-situ, in 3D, and in real time. that’s when knowledge in biology and chemistry will explode, because people don’t have to do a long series of experiments to deduce the mechanism of some reaction; they just look at it.

    one current trend in research is to make or grow small machines, manipulate atoms one by one, etc. such machines already exist: the molecules in lifeforms. how do cells divide during mitosis? they use protein molecules that act as motors powered by atp. when humans have the capability to make machines just as small, they can suddenly interact with life in a very potent fashion. because of this ‘nanotechnology’ trend, people predict that while the last century was the age of physics, the current century will be the age of biology. one by-product will be that the distinction between the living and the non-living will be extremely blurred, as life is nothing but intricately arranged atoms. the religious debate will be even more heated when people see in a visceral way what kind of control they have over their own bodies. trust me, there are people working day and night making this shit happen, and i’m pretty certain they will succeed. what is troubling is that the vast majority of people (non scientists) are unaware of this breakneck progress. and yet technology is what largely defines a civilization. technology can also create weapons. ultimately i think our extinction will come as result of our failure to comprehend our own powers. in that case i hope evolution continues and some other intelligent lifeform will evolve, dig up our fossils, and hopefully learn from our mistakes.

  28. herbiefrog

    hello babe:)
    it’s confusing
    isn’t it :)

    who can tell where it will end?

    do i know this guy?

  29. herbiefrog

    you know what ?

    i don’t think she realises that we are re-posting here :)

    hey babe, way to have a closed
    message board.

    heavy thoughts huh ?

    Subject : Re: one more thing
    posted by mansala on 2006-05-06 15:18
    i was saying that while science still needs to resolve its internal inconsistencies and formulate a unified theory of everything, much of our technology adheres pretty damn close to its equations anyway. for example, maxwell’s equations represent the simple principles of a subset of possible observations that has yielded much fruit, fruit that can be seen pretty much in every technology you can think of. i gave the example of photonic bandgap materials (in which light can be confined in arbitrary shapes and bends) in an attempt to illustrate that an old simple theory such as classical electromagnetics continues to contribute state-of-the-art technology today. all of this was an attempt to argue for optimism in spite of your statement that the crusade to find simple principles have time and time again proven fruitless. as i’ve illustrated, i believe you must have pretty high standards of what constitutes fruit, if you think all the technological fruit born from classical emag is still paltry. what i do agree with is the fact that time and time again every theory have turned out to be incomplete or wrong in some way. but the existence of so much technology that depends so precisely on those incomplete equations suggests, to me anyway, that something about them must be right.

    put in another way: you are right: there are a billions and billions of variables out there. how can a simple set of equations possibly get anywhere near the truth? but the fact of the matter is that it appears it can, since the technology we’ve made, which is part of reality sitting within those billions, seems to work according to those simple numerical formulas. it is what many in the absence of some mitigating thought would call a miracle.

    about the theory of evolution. i claimed (not very knowledgeably i admit) that using that theory people have created amazing and useful technology. it just so happens that the theory of evolution also addresses the origins of the lifeforms present today, humans being one type. if you accept that the presence of technology born from a theory is evidence for the theory, and if technology is a ‘concrete matter’, and the origin of human life is ‘non-concrete’, then the theory of evolution illustrates that concrete matters are intertwined with non-concrete matters.

    i wouldn’t trust that man either, at first. however, my trust would increase if there was an increasing body of corroborating evidence. for example, einstein used some bold assumptions, claims that taken by themselves, seem quite preposterous. e.g. the speed of light is constant whether you are moving relative to it or not. where is the evidence for such a claim? finding evidence, formulating logical consistent theories, in other words science is just spending years and years and years trying to be as convincing about a claim as possible. this is certainly not my idea of blind trust. i certainly don’t enjoy doing something over and over and over again and from all the different angles i can think of, in an attempt to prove i’m right about something. when i think of blind trust, i think of something more…relaxing.

    you have made a good point about absolute truth. my perspective is that: people are more likely to be mistaken than to be absolutely correct forever. if we assume that whatever belief we formulate is pretty accurate, but not quite, then we could have a chance of moving closer to the absolute truth by being open to changing our minds. however, if we assume that we have already found the absolute truth, then it would be to our advantage to be stubborn and closed-minded, since all other beliefs would be wrong. however, if we always think we could be mistaken, and somehow we stumbled onto the absolute truth, then we would probably pass it over, never being stubborn enough to stick to it. the best case scenario is maybe hovering around the absolute truth, always changing course in the right direction but always over shooting it (or something). i suppose i would rather do this than to take the huge gamble of claiming i am in actual possession of it. in my mind, the risk of being way off the mark outweighs the possibility of hitting the bulls-eye exactly. i’d settle for living in a certain probability density cloud centered around that bulls-eye, instead of a delta function hoping that it’s positioned exactly. i don’t trust people who claim to be in possession of absolute truth simply because i feel the probability that any given person has absolute truth is devastingly low (however, i am much more open to somebody who claims to have something that touches the truth). i admit i sometimes feel frustration when other people, such as those who claim to be in possession of absolute truth, don’t hold this view about view-holding.

    aside: i don’t understand the lead-in-toothpaste example, as i was expecting some scientific principle held at stake but i couldn’t see one. lead in toothpaste seems to me to be more faulty engineering than science.

  30. herbiefrog

    hey babe :)
    it’s a puzzle isn’t it
    you spend all that time learning
    and then find out
    that you know know nothing at all :)


    are we nearly there yet ?

    …please :)

  31. herbiefrog

    ping – natalie portman

    yes you

    can you even hear me?

    are we nearly there yet?

    only in your head b*tch :)

  32. herbiefrog

    nat is obViously
    a hard
    understanding :)

    over on npmb.org :))

    lol bitch :)

    [oh and i did always
    [pay for your
    [dry-cleaning :) ]

    Subject : Re: one more thing
    posted by mansala on 2006-06-06 03:48

    ok, so your maxwell equations. you make a good argument but you approach the subject from an arbitrary angle. you reason that because we have made accurate predictions based upon (at least somewhat) inaccurate information, in this case, the equations, that there is something correct about them. perhaps. but that also tells me as a general rule is that we’ve been able to find partial explanations for an underlying “something” infinitely more complex. we see the ripples but not the ocean. it’s like giving an amazonian tribal villager a TV. he sees it work, he can make predictions based upon his observations (if he turns it on he will get an image, etc) but does he understand the why or the how? really?

    the finding of a partial explanation is a cause to be optimistic about finding a fuller explanation. in other words, we could have found no explanation whatsoever, in which case reality would suggest there is no possible way to understand. people think the existence of a partial explanation is an encouraging sign.

    i agree, our simple equations in the midst of so many variables are amazing. they really are. but i reckon for every equation we’ve found to describe any system in our own reality, there are a billion more for things we can see but can’t understand yet, and ten billion more for those things we can’t see yet. the universe, time, reality are anything but simple and to me attempts to simplify them down into some clinical paradigm we can use to ultimately understand, describe and predict every cause and every effect cheapens and diminishes the insane accomplishment that it is, regardless of its origin, God or chance. but that’s just me.

    it is your feeling that there is no end in sight, that no matter how far we improve our partial explanations, there is still a long way to go. but there are others who do feel that there is an end in sight. who is right? right now it remains unresolved. personally i feel that to really appreciate an accomplishment, you should try to understand it. we wouldn’t appreciate the ‘miracle’ of maxwell’s equations if we didn’t bother to search for them. my point was that there is another reason to improve our partial explanations to the best of our abilities: to create technology.

    and yes, the concrete and non-concrete issues are intertwined which is why i’m unwilling to let science give me all my answers. because as far as i’m concerned, there are some things that the cold, pure science of man will never, ever understand. not ever. i suppose that is where you and i fundamentally differ.

    you seem quite vague in that paragraph so there’s not much i can respond to. also i don’t understand the logic in the first sentence. how would the fact that the concrete and the non-concrete are intertwined lead to a steadfast refusal to accept some of science’s assertions?

    as far as trust in science… repetition and positive outcomes are not always a convincing reason to trust science, blindly or otherwise. that’s crazy, you’re saying, of course they are. not to me. look past your limited existence, look past the increasingly sophisticated science of the last couple hundred years. the human experience is fleeting and fragmented. your idea of solid repetition and corroborating evidence are an absurd pittance compared to the “cosmic” whole. we flatter ourselves entirely too much as a species. we’re so caught up in our own cleverness we sometimes forget that we, according to science, are quite far from the most successful creatures to roam this planet. i trust science, i do, but only to a point.

    we may have a misunderstanding here. repetition and positive outcomes are not always convincing, because being convincing is a matter of opinion. however, when you are trying to convince somebody of something, repetition and positive outcomes are the most effective means anyone can currently think of. the point is that science is simply about doing the best you can to be convincing. again, whether or not it is, is simply a matter of opinion. i agree that repetition and evidence is a small pittance, but i see this as a sign of humility in the face doing one’s best. we are not clever, that’s why people spend years and years doing repetitive things trying to be sure of themselves. you say you trust science to a point. technically speaking, i don’t trust science at all. i only trust that it is trying to do the best it can through endless toil.

    when it comes to truth, there’s something you have to understand. first of all, not all religious people are stubborn or close-minded. people like me, regardless of the image given religion and religious people by the media, literature and college professors. but there’s a difference between being open-minded and being wishy-washy, indecisive. i have certain guns and i stick to them, but there are other things i am more receptive to. it differs from issue to issue. the point is that while you make a case for “hovering,” i am not a fence-sitter. some people, like myself, understand intrinsically that there are certain things that the doctrine of man (ie science) will never touch. can never touch, i mean.

    some people may be content to go through life guided from place to place, to and from ideas like right and wrong and morality and good and bad by constantly changing winds of doctrine and philosophy but i am not one of those people and i’m hardly unique in that. there’s a lot of peace and strength that comes from knowing just exactly where you stand and just exactly who you are that i find sorely lacking in a lot of people, particularly those that fancy themselves as open-minded and intellectual. there’s absolutely nothing wrong with either of those qualities but when that’s all you have…?

    you say that you know exactly where you stand and you prefer it that way, and it is a good thing, better than being wishy washy. however i am unclear about your reasons. one reason i seem to detect is the fact that many people agree with you. another reason is that you say there is peace and strength from knowing where you stand. while i don’t understand what you mean by ‘strength’, would it still be strength if where you stand, what you have, is simply wrong? we both agree that so far every scientific theory has not withstood the test of time, that they are either incomplete or just wrong in some way. to detect these errors, people needed to be wishy washy at least in the long term. i apply the same intuition to all other beliefs, that probably any given belief is probably wrong or incomplete in some way. i am a fence sitter only because every known side of that fence seems to be flawed. i would rather continue to try to detect errors and search for the correct side. am i content or happy about doing this? of course not. but that doesn’t mean i should settle on something i feel is probably wrong in some way.

    the lead thing.. a scientific mistake. a big one, actually. one of millions.

    i still do not understand.

  33. herbiefrog

    i bet she wishes
    she never gave
    that photo
    opp :)

    or maybe it
    inevitable :)

    lol b*TCH

    so let’s do it here :)

  34. herbiefrog

    …someone said…
    i got my moms old car so i can drive all crazy and everyone just thinks im old. well i am old. humbert humbert. but all you guys are old now. pips 30. jesus chist. wtf happened to all of us?

    time goes by, etc
    and here we are
    yes old
    v old
    v tired
    v sad from all the things
    he suffered

    gonna help make it betta?

  35. otownkid

    Re: post 54 Natalie has a cute , cute vagina , yep, i’m sure its tight and juicy. Oh wait, that was acute acute angina, read it wrong .

  36. IvyLeagueB*tch

    She really isn’t that smart. I scored higher than her on the SAT. If she weren’t a celeb, she would not have gotten into Harvard.

    The end.

  37. Brad Pitt and Natalie Portman will pair up on the big screen in a romantic comedy that the actors also will co-produce, Variety reported Wednesday. The film will be an adaptation of the book “Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry,” Variety reported.”

Leave A Comment