Could it have been the water?

On 13-Sep-2004, "Perple Gyrl" wrote:

"Carmen" wrote in message
...
On 13-Sep-2004, "Perple Gyrl" wrote:

They are normal looking people. Average looking, members of
the
middle part of the bell curve. Just like Ig. Just like me.
No
talking room
there.

How is your opinion not subjective?

Um, in this portion of the post you were replying to (that you
snipped
so I'm adding it back in so you can read it this time) I said my
opinion *was* subjective:

Jennifer:
I don't really care what your opinion of his looks are as it is
just
as subjective as jmk's and pg's. It doesn't make you any more
correct than anyone else regardless of how you try to spin it.

Carmen:
Exactly. We all have the right to our own opinions. Theirs is no
more correct than mine just because they dislike Ig."

To my husband (and other men
I've dated), I am very beautiful. I just don't go posting a
high,
subjective, opinion of my looks to this ng.

Pardon? You just said you are thought of as being "very
beautiful".
That is a "high, subjective opinion" of your looks. On this NG no
less.

You just saw pictures of me at my highest
weight and after just working out at my lowest. I doubt that is
enough to base anyone's opinion on.

You disagree with my opinion of you and Ig and JMK and myself all
falling within the "average" portion of the bellcurve as far as
looks
go? That means the middle ~68% of looks. Do you think you fall
in
the top ~15% or the bottom ~15%?

Carmen

This thread is getting ridiculous.... Personally, I am done with
it.

As you like. The point has been made.

Carmen

On 13-Sep-2004, "Perple Gyrl" wrote:

"Carmen" wrote in message
...
On 13-Sep-2004, "Perple Gyrl" wrote:

They are normal looking people. Average looking, members of
the
middle part of the bell curve. Just like Ig. Just like me.
No
talking room
there.

How is your opinion not subjective?

Um, in this portion of the post you were replying to (that you
snipped
so I'm adding it back in so you can read it this time) I said my
opinion *was* subjective:

Jennifer:
I don't really care what your opinion of his looks are as it is
just
as subjective as jmk's and pg's. It doesn't make you any more
correct than anyone else regardless of how you try to spin it.

Carmen:
Exactly. We all have the right to our own opinions. Theirs is no
more correct than mine just because they dislike Ig."

To my husband (and other men
I've dated), I am very beautiful. I just don't go posting a
high,
subjective, opinion of my looks to this ng.

Pardon? You just said you are thought of as being "very
beautiful".
That is a "high, subjective opinion" of your looks. On this NG no
less.

You just saw pictures of me at my highest
weight and after just working out at my lowest. I doubt that is
enough to base anyone's opinion on.

You disagree with my opinion of you and Ig and JMK and myself all
falling within the "average" portion of the bellcurve as far as
looks
go? That means the middle ~68% of looks. Do you think you fall
in
the top ~15% or the bottom ~15%?

Carmen

This thread is getting ridiculous.... Personally, I am done with
it.

As you like. The point has been made.

Carmen

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:

"Carmen" wrote in message
...

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:


Oh, and you don't hide yourself from google and then challenge
people to find things you said months
ago...

My philosophy concerning Google is that I don't write things I'm
unwilling to take ownership of. Makes things simpler.

Carmen

Amen to that. See, we can agree on *some* things.

That happens when two essentially reasonable people discuss things.
:-)

BTW, I'm not against people who don't want to archive, just the ones
like Ig who challenge people to show where he said something when he
knows
it's not archived. Oh, and of course the fact that some of his
buddies pull
up old, archived stuff to use against people he doesn't like. It's
happened.

The stuff is out there. It's merely a question of finding it. Even
Ig's stuff is out there. :-)

Take care,
Carmen

"Carmen" wrote in message
...

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:

I read an article somewhere about what constitutes an "attractive"
face and figure. It all boiled down to having certain proportions
and
also symmetry. More symmetrical faces were rated more attractive.
Big
noses were not so rated, etc. I do not recall them saying anything
about skin quality.

Classic Greek sculpture emphasizes symmetry and a specific
proportion of the
forhead - nose - chin/mouth area. It is a definition of "beauty"
which you
may or may not see as identical to attractiveness. This beauty was
and is
rare.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the ratio - it's well known but I'm
afraid
I'll get it confused with the one in The DaVinci Code and I don't
have time
to look it up.

It's called "The Golden Mean".

Carmen

Thank you. I remembered it incorrectly as the "Golden Ratio" but then again
Art History was many years and two degrees ago.

Jenn

"Carmen" wrote in message
...

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:

"Carmen" wrote in message
...

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:


Oh, and you don't hide yourself from google and then challenge
people to find things you said months
ago...

My philosophy concerning Google is that I don't write things I'm
unwilling to take ownership of. Makes things simpler.

Carmen

I forgot to mention that this comment reminded me of what I always tell my
students about the 'Net - never say anything you aren't willing to read in
the evening paper. Then I go into the archives and show them some of my old
stuff

Jenn
"you were on the internet in 1993? you must be old!"

"Carmen" wrote in message
...

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:

"Carmen" wrote in message
...

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:


Oh, and you don't hide yourself from google and then challenge
people to find things you said months
ago...

My philosophy concerning Google is that I don't write things I'm
unwilling to take ownership of. Makes things simpler.

Carmen

I forgot to mention that this comment reminded me of what I always tell my
students about the 'Net - never say anything you aren't willing to read in
the evening paper. Then I go into the archives and show them some of my old
stuff

Jenn
"you were on the internet in 1993? you must be old!"

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:

I read an article somewhere about what constitutes an
"attractive"
face and figure. It all boiled down to having certain
proportions
and
also symmetry. More symmetrical faces were rated more
attractive.
Big
noses were not so rated, etc. I do not recall them saying
anything
about skin quality.

Classic Greek sculpture emphasizes symmetry and a specific
proportion of the
forhead - nose - chin/mouth area. It is a definition of "beauty"
which you
may or may not see as identical to attractiveness. This beauty
was
and is
rare.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the ratio - it's well known but
I'm
afraid
I'll get it confused with the one in The DaVinci Code and I don't
have time
to look it up.

It's called "The Golden Mean".

Carmen

Thank you. I remembered it incorrectly as the "Golden Ratio" but
then again
Art History was many years and two degrees ago.

You weren't wrong. It's called that too. Perhaps the place one hears
it first skews what one remembers it as. I heard it first in
Philosophy. By the time I got to art classes it was firmly entrenched
as the Golden Mean.

Take care,
Carmen

"Carmen" wrote in message
...

On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:

I read an article somewhere about what constitutes an
"attractive"
face and figure. It all boiled down to having certain
proportions
and
also symmetry. More symmetrical faces were rated more
attractive.
Big
noses were not so rated, etc. I do not recall them saying
anything
about skin quality.

Classic Greek sculpture emphasizes symmetry and a specific
proportion of the
forhead - nose - chin/mouth area. It is a definition of "beauty"
which you
may or may not see as identical to attractiveness. This beauty
was
and is
rare.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the ratio - it's well known but
I'm
afraid
I'll get it confused with the one in The DaVinci Code and I don't
have time
to look it up.

It's called "The Golden Mean".

Carmen

Thank you. I remembered it incorrectly as the "Golden Ratio" but
then again
Art History was many years and two degrees ago.

You weren't wrong. It's called that too. Perhaps the place one hears
it first skews what one remembers it as. I heard it first in
Philosophy. By the time I got to art classes it was firmly entrenched
as the Golden Mean.

Take care,
Carmen

Philosophy: *shudder*

Jenn
gimme organic chemistry any day!

Ok, I understand... you are attracted to arrogant, all-knowing men.
That is
ok, if you want to live your life that way. Personally, anyone that
posts
in a NG that they are attractive is begging to be beyotch
slapped.....

Ig and I have had a few run-ins. That doesn't have anything to do
with what he *looks* like.
In the culture he came from his style of discourse is the norm.
Americans and Canadians are raised differently by and large, so it
gets interpreted as arrogant.

Carmen

That is just about the most arrogant thing (and stupid) I've seen in here
(outside of ignorant's nonsense) for a long time. Are you a Euro snob or
Euro trash? No wonder why you like him so much.

Martha

"JMA" wrote in message
...

Carmen wrote:

But, should he be hurling shots at people he claims to have kf'd?
That's pretty cowardly to be able to dish it out and not take it. It's
fine if he wants to fight back but he should completely ignore comments
by those he claims to have kf'd unless he decides to take them out of
his kf and have the balls to confront them directly.

Attractive is in the eye of the beholder. There are no rules. It's
quite possible that physically a person can possess the typical
"attractive" qualities but their personality is such a turn off that
even if they looked like Mel Gibson they would be unattractive to those
who know enough about them. Then again that would require a bit more
than superficial thought.

Jenn

(shrugs) I guess Carmen likes chicken**** *men*. Frankly, I like
intelligent, strong, classy, well-thought out men who don't lie, and are
ruggedly good looking. Oh well, different strokes and all.

Martha