By Sky News SkyNews - Wednesday, May 28 09:20 amActress Sharon Stone has come under fire in China after suggesting the earthquake that devastated the country was "bad karma" for its treatment of Tibetans.

Some Chinese cinemas have banned her films in protest at her remarks at the Cannes Film Festival last week.

She told reporters: "I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else.

"I've been concerned about how we should deal with the Olympics, because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine.

"And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma - when you're not nice, that the bad things happen to you?"

Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain, reportedly vowed to ban any film showing the 50-year-old in all of his cinemas in Hong Kong and the mainland.

Stone's most recent movie is The Year of Getting to Know Us, and four other films starring her are due to be released over the next two years.

The Beijing Times also reported that Christian Dior adverts, featuring Stone, had been removed from boutiques in department stores.

Stone's comments were posted on YouTube, and sparked condemnation from Chinese bloggers.

One said: "I want her to say sorry. It's not for me. It's for the dead people."

The official death toll from the 7.9 magnitude quake that struck Sichuan province has reached more than 68,000.

<quote>But she's only a luvvie.  </quote>

Reading that article she's a bit dim as well!

I know lots of religions believe in karma.  All I can say is that if some of the bad things that have happened to me in my lifetime have been karma then I must have been a despot in the last incarnation.

She may claim that the Dalai Lama 'is a very good friend of mine' (that should probably get an award for Most Crass and Boastful Comment), but she doesn't appear to have gleaned much knowledge or understanding of the concept of Karma from him. Wasted opportunity, Sharon.

<quote>Under the Rule of Three, not necessarily. (Whatever energy one puts into the world is returned three times as strongly). </quote>

Whose Rule is that then? 

http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/3fl-1.shtml There are pages and pages here, but the first paragraph is all that's necessary.

What's a luvvie?

luvvie n a rather overexuberant (and almost invariably gay) thespian. Referring to actors as "luvvies" or "luvvie darlings" is rather scornful and demeaning - it's true, though, that a few of the older, camper actors do indeed refer to each other as "luvvie".

From the website

http://english2american.com/dictionary/l.html

You should hear what older camper gays refer to one another (and themselves) as.  The difference is using it of yourself  and others and others and others using it to demean you.

I honestly thought it was in the same category as calling electricans sparky, carpenters chippy or dancers hoofers.  I will bear this exchange in mind in future.

The Bishop of Carlisle is off his head.  He is one reason why I am only too glad to have a safe space in which I can be open about my sexuality and my faith.  I realise that I should not take that as licence to let the subjects dominate my contributions.

Not to mention his best mate the The Bishop of Rochester of course who will not be attending the Lambeth Conference because of the presence of Gene Robinson.  And to think the Bish of R. nearly became the Archbishop of Canterbury!

I think we all use blanket terms for others which we don't realise could be offensive.  My neighbour was telling me about his soon to be daughter-in-law and how lovely she was but "a bit of a Bible basher."  I'm sure he didn't realise that appellation came across as offensive.