There are some things that you just don’t do in polite company or even in private (yuck) and going for the gold up one’s nasal passages has to rank right up there. I mean seriously would you wipe your ass in public? No? then please keep what is up your nose .. well .. up your nose – if not at least use a damn kleenex.

Too bad these celebs couldn’t keep their fingers out of where they don’t belong.

Pamela Anderson – dig baby dig.

Ed Westwick - and so dapper to.

Nicky Hilton – I wonder if she is share via phone.

Tom Cruise – proving no mission is impossible.

Michael Keaton – some sort of new dressing for his meal maybe.

Steve Coogan – at least he’s looking cool with the shades.

thanks (I think) to the crew at Pop Crunch for unleashing this fab info

6 celebs on the hunt for nasal gold is a post from: The Inquisitr

Typically sperm banks have used the selling power of brains over beauty. High IQ’s through smart people looking to spread their genome for so much a pop. That is what typically brings people in need, or desire, to the high priced sperm banks that promise discretion and excellent SAT scores.

But our world is changing and celebrities of all kinds are the new models of what people want for their children, and the more famous the better. Hence the arrival of celebrity look-a-like sperm banks like the one that has seen a Los Angeles based sperm bank, California Cryobank, spin-off a celebrity-inspired Donor Look-A-Like service.

The service has proven to be so popular, with 300 percent more traffic to their main site than usual, that the company is opening a branch in New York. Of course the donors aren’t the celebrities themselves but rather men who look like some celebrity which means there is a lot of subjective decision making going on.

The company’s process of attributing a celebrity to a donor could never be termed scientific. Male and female employees of varying ages make up the assigning committee. They meet, put each donor’s picture up on a projector, and then argue about whom he looks like. Scott Brown, California Cryobank’s communications manager, says it’s more complex than it seems. “There’s a lot that goes into it. It’s not just sitting in a room deciding who looks like Ben Affleck,” he says. “What sounded really easy got complicated when we realized that people see people in completely different ways. So we’re very concerned about misleading clients. One rule we made was that a donor never gets just one celeb. And one of our representatives can always get on the phone and explain.”

Source: Daily Intel – Dreaming of Celebrity Genes: Donor Look-A-Like Sperm Bank Comes to NYC

The really sad thing about this is that I an see it being a booming business.

Want a celebrity baby? There’s sperm for that. is a post from: The Inquisitr

Everyone is carrying on about the meteoric rise of Twitter following the recent race between Aston Kutcher and CNN for that magical one million follower number. Celebs and other well known people climbing on the Twitter bandwagon as if it is the greatest thing in their lives.

But, for as quickly as its numbers are rising one has to wonder if those numbers in anyway reflect the number of people sticking with the service.

Well according to the Nielsen Wire blog Twitter is suffering from some of the lowest retention numbers of social media services. Where services like Facebook and MySpace experience a 70 percent retention rate of new members Twitter is lucky if it can manage 30 percent. Only since the Oprah, Kutcher and CNN explosion has Twitter’s retention rate managed to reach 40 percent but there is nothing to suggest so far that we’ll see that number stick.

As Dave Martin, Nielsen Online Vice President, said in the post

By plotting the minimum retention rates for different Internet audience sizes, it is clear that a retention rate of 40 percent will limit a site’s growth to about a 10 percent reach figure. To be clear, a high retention rate doesn’t guarantee a massive audience, but it is a prerequisite. There simply aren’t enough new users to make up for defecting ones after a certain point.

I’ve always maintained, and still do, that sign up numbers actually mean very little. In most cases we are dealing with first blush popularity puffing up the numbers but in the cold light of day they have no lasting value. In this case Twitter might appear to be exploding across the landscape but beyond the initial flood of celebs and other glitterati just how many of them will still be around in a month, in six months or a year. Will the numbers still show the same type of growth at that point or will they settle down to the more realistic count of actual users.

[top graphic courtesy of CFO Strategist – graph courtesy of Nielsen Online]

The numbers Twitter doesn’t want you to know about is a post from: The Inquisitr