Could it have been the water?

Carmen wrote:
You aren't one for blowing a lot of smoke, so I guess I'll just take
your word for it. I know Ig can be irritating (Google up the
antifreeze thread G)

Not the antifreeze thread!!!! *shudder* That one even beat out the
"anorexia is good for you because it reduces your breast cancer risk"
one.

Jenn

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

Carmen wrote:
You aren't one for blowing a lot of smoke, so I guess I'll just
take your word for it. I know Ig can be irritating (Google up the
antifreeze thread G)

Not the antifreeze thread!!!! *shudder* That one even beat out the
"anorexia is good for you because it reduces your breast cancer
risk" one.

laughing I see it didn't escape your notice. That one took on an
unholy life of its own, didn't it?

Take care,
Carmen

In article , Carmen
wrote:

Hi,
On 13-Sep-2004, Carol Frilegh wrote:

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

being both American and canadian I am totally confused now.

I imagine so! The Canadian nice gene side-by-side with the American
loud gene.
BTW, when you see the word "bacon" what sort springs to mind first?
G
"Very crisp, please!"

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman

In article , Carmen
wrote:

Hi,
On 13-Sep-2004, Carol Frilegh wrote:

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

being both American and canadian I am totally confused now.

I imagine so! The Canadian nice gene side-by-side with the American
loud gene.
BTW, when you see the word "bacon" what sort springs to mind first?
G
"Very crisp, please!"

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman

On 13 Sep 2004 16:19:54 GMT, Ignoramus2437
wrote:

Celebrities with and without makeup:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/celeb.html

Well, I'm glad I'm not a celebrity :-). I'm sure if people were
taking hundreds of pictures of me every day, there'd be some pretty
terrible ones among them.

Chris (not that photogenic at the best of times)

"Ignoramus2437" wrote in message
...

Never thought of that... So, then, our "preference" for "attractive"
faces is not cultural, then...

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.

Also, some female magazine did a great experiment once. They took a
completely ordinary looking woman, with acne and everything else you
see on real life people. Then, they did an expensive and professional
makeover, the sort you see done on fashion models, retouched photos,
again like ones in advertisements are retouched.

The result is that the same woman appeared to be strikingly beautiful.

Celebrities with and without makeup:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/celeb.html

Google for "celebrities without makeup" for more...

i

Beauty and attractiveness may be the same to some people and different to
others. Neither one is correct. Also, regardless of how many articles and
studies you pull out, they are SUBJECTIVE qualities and cannot be defined in
the general sense. As I stated above, certain cultures had a standard by
which people were judged but there is no specific definition for what is
attractive.

--
Jenn
Neglecting valuable advice, an ignorant man becomes the cause of his own
misery.

"Carmen" wrote in message
...
Hello,
On 13-Sep-2004, Dally wrote:

JMA wrote:
Carmen wrote:

BTW, I couldn't help noticing that Ig never said one thing about
JMK or PG's appearance in this thread. Point to ponder.

Nah, he's letting you have all of the fun and eating it up for
lunch.

That's my take on this.

Carmen, you showed great wit and cleverness (both), but I think you
don't have a good grasp of the dynamics and history here.

Beauty is only skin deep. Perple Glow and JMK have deeper beauty
than you've noticed.

You aren't one for blowing a lot of smoke, so I guess I'll just take
your word for it. I know Ig can be irritating (Google up the
antifreeze thread G) but I still hold that cracking on his pics was
out of line. Heck, in diet groups it's almost an unwritten rule that
when someone posts their Before and Afters people either say something
complimentary or nothing at all. Even in MFW that's the way things
usually go - and you know they aren't exactly Miss Manners clones.
G

The comments weren't in response to his posting of before and afters but
instead to his own remark about his own attractiveness based on his own
opinion. The responses were no worse than yours were to them -
implications. At least neither of them tried to go back and deny what they
were implying.

And I've seen some pretty rough stuff in MFW w/regards to pics.

--
Jenn
Ignorance breeds fear

"Carmen" wrote in message
...
Hi,
On 13-Sep-2004, "JMA" wrote:

Carmen wrote:
You aren't one for blowing a lot of smoke, so I guess I'll just
take your word for it. I know Ig can be irritating (Google up the
antifreeze thread G)

Not the antifreeze thread!!!! *shudder* That one even beat out the
"anorexia is good for you because it reduces your breast cancer
risk" one.

laughing I see it didn't escape your notice. That one took on an
unholy life of its own, didn't it?

Take care,
Carmen

Never underestimate the power of usenet to make the already bizarre and
ridiculous even more so...

Jenn

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

JMA wrote:
Carmen wrote:

BTW, I couldn't help noticing that Ig never said one thing
about
JMK or PG's appearance in this thread. Point to ponder.

Nah, he's letting you have all of the fun and eating it up for
lunch.

That's my take on this.

Carmen, you showed great wit and cleverness (both), but I think
you
don't have a good grasp of the dynamics and history here.

Beauty is only skin deep. Perple Glow and JMK have deeper beauty
than you've noticed.

You aren't one for blowing a lot of smoke, so I guess I'll just
take
your word for it. I know Ig can be irritating (Google up the
antifreeze thread G) but I still hold that cracking on his pics
was
out of line. Heck, in diet groups it's almost an unwritten rule
that
when someone posts their Before and Afters people either say
something
complimentary or nothing at all. Even in MFW that's the way
things
usually go - and you know they aren't exactly Miss Manners clones.
G

The comments weren't in response to his posting of before and afters
but
instead to his own remark about his own attractiveness based on his
own
opinion. The responses were no worse than yours were to them -
implications. At least neither of them tried to go back and deny
what they
were implying.

Their responses *were* out of line. As for my response to them, if
you'd read the thread you'd see this:
"Hmmm. You'll have to point out where I made a disparaging remark
about someone else's looks. Oh, that's right. I didn't. At most I
intimated that PG and JMK were not *more* attractive than Ig. BTW, my
jpegs are where they've been for quite some time. Just Google for
them."
Pretty plain english. I said PG and JMK are not *more* attractive
than Ig. They both implied Ig is ugly - a POV I clearly do not hold.
Since from my POV Ig isn't ugly, my stating that PG and JMK aren't
*more* attractive than Ig is a statement. Not a dig, as their
comments about Ig clearly were. At no time did I deny any of my prior
statements.
Carmen

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