I stumbled on your site entry on seeing "all of" Daniel Radcliffe in Equus.
About two months ago, Daniel gave an interview to an Australian early morning news and "chat" program - and he said that his mother is Jewish (father not) - and that he is not religious at all. The interview, by the way, is on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp7IIvZuGdU).
American Jewish newspapers reported this and the London Jewish Chronicle soon caught up with the same news - and noted that Daniel's mother had appeared, as a schoolgirl, in the pages of the Chronicle (for winning a dance award) and the Chronicle reached Daniel's Jewish grandma who said he was "just lovely."
I gather you are saying that Daniel is circumcised - which, I gather, is not the norm for non-Jewish or non-Muslim English men these days - although there are numerous exceptions.
I am correct - he is circumcised?
One would guess that Daniel's circumcision was "influenced" by his mother's Jewish background - it is something that even very assimilated Jews "do."
An American Fan
Dear American Fan
Daniel appeared circumcised to me at the Gielgud theatre.
All best, MA x
That picture again ....
Daniel Radcliffe posterior shot, click here.
24 comments:
A matter of the highest political importance, indeed !
By the way, it would be honest to recall that the picture is an obvious fake (the upper part and the lower part of the body don't match at all, besides).
Indeed! Which is why you're here no doubt!
And I hadn't realised that you were such a photo shop expert - I suppose salivating over "enhanced" youth pics has sharpened your eye over the years.
Interesting…
I invite to my blog: http://utopo.spaces.live.com
http://www.fotolog.com/daniradcliffe
Thanks for the pic...
<< Indeed! Which is why you're here no doubt! >>
Er, Madame, I wasn't joking, for once. Could you please think a little before you rush to your keyboard ?
<< And I hadn't realised that you were such a photo shop expert >>
Actually I'm not. But I'm a bodybuilder. The lower part of this "creature" pumps iron, the upper part doesn't.
<< I suppose salivating over "enhanced" youth pics has sharpened your eye over the years. >>
Of course, I should reply something like : my concrete experience doesn't go further than that... just like yours.
But forget it. I prefer this :
Cheap humour is not allowed. Game over, try again ! ;-)))
I hope I didn't touch a raw nerve duralex - you wouldn't want me to know what that might be, would you?
Duralex is wrong on general body principles. Daniel is only 17 and at that age young men are often better developed in their lower half, especially if they've done sports. The upper body strengthens and thickens later.
That's true to some extent. But here the difference is really 'too much': it's quite obvious to me that the upper man and the lower man don't have the same morphology. Not mentioning the fact that a professional actor would have trained his whole body for such a circumstance, wouldn't he ? :-)
<< I hope I didn't touch a raw nerve duralex >>
Don't worry, my sweet little Madame. I'll never give you the slightest access to any of my nerves, you can trust me.
<< you wouldn't want me to know what that might be, would you? >>
The Net is a place where anybody can write anything about whomever they like, with (relative) impunity. The cyberspace is but a monstrous theater of shadows and illusions. Besides, I'm not sure the "real world" is anything else but that. Or "a canvas to our imaginations", as Thoreau said.
So, Arcati, my luvvie, feel free to start any rumor you like about me, the nastier the better !
But always remember that the only true secrets are those about which the word "secret" is not even uttered.
Hoho, I'm in a highbrow mood today ! ;-)
[But always remember that the only true secrets are those about which the word "secret" is not even uttered.]
So profound that it makes me dizzy! :-)
And nobody's mentioned Dan's wonderful nipples yet. Is there a man, woman or beast who doesn't want him for Easter?
Ah, the nipples now. Phew, the level is getting better, suddenly! :-)
I'd let Daniel shag me all through Easter and then I'd toast him hot cross buns.
Lummy! All of this lewd talk based on the flimsiest of circum-sub-stantial evidence . . .
This Banksy is not to be confused with the world-renowned grafitti artist, just so's you know. This Banksy is the world-renowned former editor of the Mirror.
Ah, but the real world is even more complicated than that. There's another Banksy, you know, a journalist too, but a little less prestigious, albeit respectable. Just have a look here:
http://davidbanks.blogspot.com/2006/04/hello-to-visitors-from-press-gazette.html
So don't flatter yourself so much, madame. I seriously doubt that the "world-renowned Banksy" has any time left for Arcati's obscure gossip sewer. Unless of course he's an idle retiree like her. Idle hands are the devil's tools. :-)
The (well-named) daughter-of-a-bitch.
Ah, but you should do your research, Anon. The ex-Mirror ed is a resident of Northumberland - and his latest message was prompted by my own trip up (or down) there (see In search of ghosts with Rupert Everett).
Do try to contain your jealous bitterness, anon - and my site is not half as obscure as your own passive, incontinent self.
"The ex-Mirror ed is a resident of Northumberland"
That's right. See there, daughter of a bitch:
http://banksysblog.co.uk/about-david-banks/
But so far nothing proves that the Banksy who posts on this blog is not the other one playing a good trick on Arcati! Or even... Um, I'll leave it at that, but I notice that this Banksy is referring to himself at the 3rd person, which is rather unusual and reminds me of someone... ;-)
" - and my site is not half as obscure as your own passive, incontinent self."
If so, given the number of people who seem to know who you are (this Banksy, for one), my bet is that the secret of your real identity won't last very long now. Not to mention the likely probability that the cyberpolice are already after you...
Glad to see you're doing a bit of homework for a change, you lazt tart. The onus is on you to disprove that Banksy is not the ex-Mirror ed - what's your proof, bitch?
For interviews with and articles by newspaper editors, current or ex, go to MediaGuardian, Press Gazette, Media Indy et al et al.
Feel the paper, feel your age. Cunt. Jasper.
"Glad to see you're doing a bit of homework for a change, you lazt tart. The onus is on you to disprove that Banksy is not the ex-Mirror ed"
You got me wrong, honey: I wouldn't dare doubt that man's existence. I just doubt he's actually posting on here, that's quite different.
"- what's your proof, bitch?"
What's yours?
This is the Wild Wild Web, sweetie! :-)
_Jasper_
Is that the newest insult in Arcatiland? Nice! ;-)
Er . . . back to the original question - this is NOT a picture of circumcision. Don't any of you know the difference?
to BB Wolfe - THANK YOU!! the petty rants went on for so long it seemed no one was going to mention the obvious - that's what uncut looks like boys and girls.
Kay... whether or not this IS his pic...
that penis definitely has foreskin.
clear as day.
Haha what?! Firstly that picture is a well-known fake. It's obvious if you look at it closely, and that information has been around the internet for some time. You can even find the original image (which doesn't show nudity.) The only genuine pics/videos of Daniel naked are very grainy, not much was leaked. He looked intact from what you could tell of those.
Even though this picture is fake, it's an intact penis. That really doesn't look circumcised. Very odd you'd fall for a fake and then can't tell what circumcision is.
Radcliffe has a Jewish mother but is non-practising and from the UK so there's no evidence he's circumcised.
Post a Comment