Russell Crowe's Elevator Shoes
puff...@my-deja.com
Russell Crowe Wears Elevator Shoes
Russell Crowe is hiding a secret - he wears special shoes to make him
look taller. Russell had women falling all over him at a party in
producer Jerry Bruckheimer's back yard - until he took his shoes off.
The boyfriend of Meg Ryan suddenly lost several inches in height -
because the hunky New Zealander's shoes had lifts in them. Partygoers
say Bruckenheimer nudged Crowe, telling him, "Put your shoes back on,
you're blowing your image."
I saw him in person in Leicester Square and he had on boots with big
heels on them, my guess is he's 5'7"-5'8" MAXIMUM CROWE!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MLM
I saw him a week ago at the the Wyndham Bel Age Hotel on Sunset and
didn't think it was him becasue he was so short (though I know first
hand that slebs are short, RC totally took me back how short he was). He
was dashing through the lobby and believe it or not Susan Hawk from
Survivor was checking in at the front desk (being obnoxious on a cell
phone, calling Australia and demanding to speak to Mark Burnett because
her Hotel room wasn't being paid for by his company - i.e. prior
arrangement had not been made. She was with her husband and looked like
she'd just gotten off of survivor island, as she was dishelved, wearing
glasses and very very tight jeans). I was at a producers conference
there.
I first spotted RC by his GINORMOUS mole on his cheek. He had an
assistant following him and he literally was almost running through the
lobby and avoided all eye contact, but he ran almost smack into me. He's
very very short. I'm 5'5", we were at eye level exactly with each other.
He said "Pardon me" and pretty much moved me out of his way to stand in
front of the elevator and wait. He's not that cute in person, IMO.
-Marcella
Mistress Jude
MLM wrote in message <39FB6625...@earthlink.net>...
>puff...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> On the imdb.com celeb news today:
>>
>> Russell Crowe Wears Elevator Shoes
>I first spotted RC by his GINORMOUS mole on his cheek. He had an
>assistant following him and he literally was almost running through the
>lobby and avoided all eye contact, but he ran almost smack into me. He's
>very very short. I'm 5'5", we were at eye level exactly with each other.
>He said "Pardon me" and pretty much moved me out of his way to stand in
>front of the elevator and wait. He's not that cute in person, IMO.
Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Jude
<gutted>
ClooneySpice
"Mistress Jude" <mistre...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> MLM wrote in message <39FB6625...@earthlink.net>...
> >puff...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On the imdb.com celeb news today:
> >>
> >> Russell Crowe Wears Elevator Shoes
> ------snip
> >I first spotted RC by his GINORMOUS mole on his cheek. He had an
> >assistant following him and he literally was almost running through
He's very very short. I'm 5'5", we were at eye level exactly with each
other. He said "Pardon me" and pretty much moved me out of his way to
stand in front of the elevator and wait. He's not that cute in person,
IMO.
>
> Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!
> Jude
> <gutted>
>
>
mongers would be ALL over him...
Remember, that might not have been him at the hotel....
Cyn - I watched Mystery, Alaska again last night and I tell ya, I'll
take that sexy voice any day of the week...
--
AGC:Keeper of George Clooney and The ROCK
MLM
>
> I would peg him at 5'7" or 5'8". If he was any shorter the gossip
> mongers would be ALL over him...
>
> Remember, that might not have been him at the hotel....
>
> Cyn - I watched Mystery, Alaska again last night and I tell ya, I'll
> take that sexy voice any day of the week...
> --
> AGC:Keeper of George Clooney and The ROCK
Cyn, it was him. We were about 6 inches away from each other eye to eye.
He said "Pardon Me," in a distinclty Australian Accent and then he was
talking to his assistant at the elevator. Definitely him. Short. Very
short. I had on very very low heals, like maybe an inch and we were eye
to eye. He had on sneakers, jeans, a pullover sweater thing and a big
old divers wrist watch. Believe me, I was the total looky-loo.
-Marcella
twoa...@my-deja.com
Gaw-dang people, I know I'm late to the party on this, but you're gonna
give me a complex here. At 5'9 I've always read that I'm at average
height for a male. Imagine my shock to learn that that Crowe may be
5'7 or 5'8 and "REALLY, REALLY SHORT!" Even if the guy is "only" the
advertised 5'11 he's still two inches above average and a good 6 or 7
inches above average height for females.
In article <nI0L5.69461$sE.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"Mistress Jude" <mistre...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
blond...@my-deja.com
like 6-0 now. My bf is 5-8 1/2 and wear MAJOR lifts in his boots to be
6-0 tall. He still barely looks "average" He tell people he is 5-
11...saying he was a full 6-0 would raise to many suspisions.
Crowe lists his height as 5'11 1/2" on his bio page...YEAH RIGHT...with
4" lifts maybe!! I think lifts and elevator shoes are great! Sort of
like the male equivalent of padded bras....if you ain't got it...fake
it!
blondie
In article <8vaer2$l4m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
MLYoung
>like 6-0 now. My bf is 5-8 1/2 and wear
no way it's six feet and the average
height has not increased by three
inches in 20 years.
--margaret
blond...@my-deja.com
from 34B in the 70's to 36C/D today! UGH!!..padded bras can only help
me so much! *L*
Have you seen the height of most teen agers lately! Most are MUCH
taller than they were 20 years ago. 2-3 inches over 20 years is not
that surprising.
Then again....maybe men are just exaggerating more now a days!
blondie
In article <20001128030442...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
MLYoung
>from 34B in the 70's to 36C/D today! UGH!!..padded bras can only help
>me so much! *L*
But there are two factors affecting
breast size--the availability of implants
and the overall gain in girth by
American adults.
>
>Have you seen the height of most teen agers lately! Most are MUCH
>taller than they were 20 years ago. 2-3 inches over 20 years is not
>that surprising.
I haven't seen it myself--if anything,
the increase of emigration from "short"
countries--Mexico, India and various
Asian countries has probably lowered
the average height where I live.
My understanding is that changes in
nutrition bring forth the biggest differences
in height between generations and I
don't recall there being a big malnutrition
problem 20 years ago--certainly not
enough to change the average height
by three inches.
>
>Then again....maybe men are just exaggerating more now a days!
Well, as a tall woman, I can guarantee
that. No man ever admits to being under
5' '7".
Meanwhile, short women tend to wear
heels to compensate. It's only when
I'm at the gym do I realize that most
women aren't all that tall.
--margaret
blond...@my-deja.com
mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS (MLYoung) wrote:
> >Consider the fact that the average bust size for women has increased
> >from 34B in the 70's to 36C/D today! UGH!!..padded bras can only
help
> >me so much! *L*
>
> But there are two factors affecting
> breast size--the availability of implants
> and the overall gain in girth by
> American adults.
True..and the bra manufacturers downsizing their bras to make women
THINK they are bigger! I used to be an AA cup....now almost a B, with
padding...a C cup
> >
> >Have you seen the height of most teen agers lately! Most are MUCH
> >taller than they were 20 years ago. 2-3 inches over 20 years is not
> >that surprising.
>
> I haven't seen it myself--if anything,
> the increase of emigration from "short"
> countries--Mexico, India and various
> Asian countries has probably lowered
> the average height where I live.
Actually poeple from "short" countries have gained a lot of height in
the US, esp Asians, which may contribute to the increase in average.
If you measured only Caucasian men, I bet 6-0 would be average.
>
> My understanding is that changes in
> nutrition bring forth the biggest differences
> in height between generations and I
> don't recall there being a big malnutrition
> problem 20 years ago--certainly not
> enough to change the average height
> by three inches.
Actually nutrition is vastly improved over the last 30 years.
> >
> >Then again....maybe men are just exaggerating more now a days!
>
> Well, as a tall woman, I can guarantee
> that. No man ever admits to being under
> 5' '7".
>
> Meanwhile, short women tend to wear
> heels to compensate. It's only when
> I'm at the gym do I realize that most
> women aren't all that tall.
Guilty....5'7" in public.....5'3" without my height strapped on.
More and more men wear lifts too. I know 3 guys who do...2-3 inches
taller!
Blondie
>
> --margaret
>
> >
> >blondie
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <20001128030442...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
> > mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS (MLYoung) wrote:
> >> >Well...hate to say this, but 5-9 was average about 20 years ago.
> >More
> >> >like 6-0 now. My bf is 5-8 1/2 and wear
> >> I thought 5'10" was average. There's
>
>
Kris_In_Utah
gonna give me a complex here. At 5'9 I've always read that I'm at
average height for a male. Imagine my shock to learn that that Crowe
may be 5'7 or 5'8 and "REALLY, REALLY SHORT!" Even if the guy is "only"
the advertised 5'11 he's still two inches above average and a good 6 or
7 inches above average height for females.<<
Hon, don't let it give you a complex. I'm barely 5'2, and you'd be more
than tall enough for me.
--
Kristy
================
Life is a journey, not a destination.
Tekkwryter
>
>Consider the fact that the average bust size for women has increased
>from 34B in the 70's to 36C/D today!
I suspect that is owed more to the increased availability of implants than to
advances in nutrition. :-)
Cheers,
Linda
j
man picks up a beautiful woman in his arms and all I can think of is
"my god...look at those feet".
Titus
half to whole head taller over 75% of the guys in any public place.
<blond...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8vurvo$ij8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well...hate to say this, but 5-9 was average about 20 years ago. More
> like 6-0 now. My bf is 5-8 1/2 and wear MAJOR lifts in his boots to be
> 6-0 tall. He still barely looks "average" He tell people he is 5-
> 11...saying he was a full 6-0 would raise to many suspisions.
>
> Crowe lists his height as 5'11 1/2" on his bio page...YEAH RIGHT...with
> 4" lifts maybe!! I think lifts and elevator shoes are great! Sort of
> like the male equivalent of padded bras....if you ain't got it...fake
> it!
>
> blondie
>
>
> In article <8vaer2$l4m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> twoa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
MLYoung
>THINK they are bigger! I used to be an AA cup....now almost a B, with
>padding...a C cup
I hadn't heard that. Interesting. I
know they've done the opposite with
women's clothing--size six used to
be a lot smaller.
>> I haven't seen it myself--if anything,
>> the increase of emigration from "short"
>> countries--Mexico, India and various
>> Asian countries has probably lowered
>> the average height where I live.
>
>Actually poeple from "short" countries have gained a lot of height in
>the US, esp Asians, which may contribute to the increase in average.
Their kids will be taller--a lot of what
I see are zero generation, so the
height factor's not there yet.
>If you measured only Caucasian men, I bet 6-0 would be average.
Well, I am Caucasian and I've stood next to a lot of Caucasian men and the
average isn't 6 feet. This becomes an
issue, unfortunately, when I have to be paired up for dancing and for stuff on
stage. The last show I did had about
15 men--one was 6 feet and another was
6' 2"--the rest were shorter.
>> My understanding is that changes in
>> nutrition bring forth the biggest differences
>> in height between generations and I
>> don't recall there being a big malnutrition
>> problem 20 years ago--certainly not
>> enough to change the average height
>> by three inches.
>
>Actually nutrition is vastly improved over the last 30 years.
Since 1970? Not in terms of protein
and caloric intake. And people seem
to be eating worse, not better, given
the obesity problem.
>> Meanwhile, short women tend to wear
>> heels to compensate. It's only when
>> I'm at the gym do I realize that most
>> women aren't all that tall.
>
>Guilty....5'7" in public.....5'3" without my height strapped on.
>More and more men wear lifts too. I know 3 guys who do...2-3 inches
>taller!
Well, then, more guys are *passing*
as 6-footers. Meanwhile, think of
all the cute short guys you get to date
and the wide selection of shoes you
get to wear.
--margaret (fortunately, I like flats.)
>
>Blondie
>
>
>>
>> --margaret
>>
>> >
>> >blondie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >In article <20001128030442...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
>> > mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS (MLYoung) wrote:
>> >> >Well...hate to say this, but 5-9 was average about 20 years ago.
>> >More
>> >> >like 6-0 now. My bf is 5-8 1/2 and wear
MLYoung
>man picks up a beautiful woman in his arms and all I can think of is
>"my god...look at those feet".
>
Models tend to be tall and big feet go
with tall women.
--margaret (will never pass the Cinderella
slipper test)
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20001129015427...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
"My foot usurps my body."--Goneril
Hogarth
MLYoung
>> slipper test)
>
>"My foot usurps my body."--Goneril
>
>Hogarth
Poor Hoggy, the persona's really
slipping these days.
So, when are you going to get around
to citing the pertinent NY case regarding
"libel per se"?
--margaret
Reets
>Models tend to be tall and big feet go
>with tall women.
>
>--margaret (will never pass the Cinderella
>slipper test)
ROTFL. First she's a famous author, then a medical expert, then a bank ATM
directory assistant, then a biblical hebrew scholar, then a peanut butter
aficionado, then married to a Mssr Mainbocher, then pregnant, and now, a runway
waif.
Please. Thanks for the giggles, Large Marge.
Reets
Peep...@webtv.net
MLYoung:
> Margaret Young wrote:
>
> >Models tend to be tall and big feet go
> >with tall women.
> >
> >--margaret (will never pass the Cinderella
> >slipper test)
>
> ROTFL. First she's a famous author, then a medical expert, then a
bank ATM
> directory assistant, then a biblical hebrew scholar, then a peanut
butter
> aficionado, then married to a Mssr Mainbocher, then pregnant, and now,
a
> runway waif.
You left out 'busy, successful editor' and 'on-the-go journalist'.
& THIS gal almost literally died *ROFL* when she said (in this thread,
no less) that she's a dancer on stage.
"To whit":
> Well, I am Caucasian and I've stood next to a lot of Caucasian men and
the
> average isn't 6 feet. This becomes an
> issue, unfortunately, when I have to be paired up for dancing and for
stuff on
> stage. The last show I did had about
> 15 men--one was 6 feet and another was
> 6' 2"--the rest were shorter.
*ROFLOL.................*
Hugs,
Janice, who's now *thoroughly* convinced Mags is in a chair. Someone
wheels her into a cyber-cafe in the afternoon & wheels her out before
dawn.
God help her.
>
> Please. Thanks for the giggles, Large Marge.
>
> Reets
>
--
GO Green!! GO, Ralph!!
http://www.votenader.com/
(-)> *peep* (-)> *peep* (-)> *muckmouth*
LordHogarth
Goneril:
I don't know what a "pertinent NY case" necessarily has to do with the
well-established doctrine of libel per se, you silly woman.
Hogarth
LordHogarth
> & THIS gal almost literally died *ROFL* when she said (in this thread,
> no less) that she's a dancer on stage.
>
> "To whit":
>
> > Well, I am Caucasian and I've stood next to a lot of Caucasian men and
> the
> > average isn't 6 feet. This becomes an
> > issue, unfortunately, when I have to be paired up for dancing and for
> stuff on
> > stage. The last show I did had about
> > 15 men--one was 6 feet and another was
> > 6' 2"--the rest were shorter.
>
> *ROFLOL.................*
Perhaps Mags performed in the East Palo Alto Civic Theatre production of
"Guys and Dollops"?
Hogarth
MLYoung
>well-established doctrine of libel per se, you silly woman.
Try "leading case" dear--particularly
since the doctrine is not, in fact,
equally well-established in all states
and, in regard to Leslie, doesn't apply.
It's not like the dear has a chaste
reputation to defend. A few of Leslie's
cunt/twat/slut posts would take care
of any such notion. The dear's a pure
gutter creature.
Also, my dear, a *real* lawyer would
know that case law is indeed relevant
here.
So, get to work.
--margaret
>
>Hogarth
>
>
Paul Gallagher
>Also, my dear, a *real* lawyer would
>know that case law is indeed relevant
>here.
>So, get to work.
>--margaret
Hogarth is so annoying that I'm beginning to think he may be a lawyer after all.
Anyway, when I think of "written publication of a false statement about
another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform
his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty
in business," I recall Leslie Feffer stating you are a "stalker," PeepPeep
stating the same and that you can't perform in your profession, and that
Brandy Alexandre has AIDS, etc. Leslie Feffer also wrote repeatedly that
you were sexually obsessed with her -- I've read that in New York, "depiction
which falsely imputes homosexual behavior constitutes libel per se under our
State law." I may be mistaken -- I'm certainly not a lawyer. Maybe the
topic will come up when Leslie Feffer's lawsuit goes to court...
PG
Paul
Peep...@webtv.net
> Goneril:
> > >> --margaret (will never pass the Cinderella
> > >> slipper test)
> > >
> > >"My foot usurps my body."--Goneril
> > >
> > >Hogarth
> >
> > Poor Hoggy, the persona's really
> > slipping these days.
> >
> > So, when are you going to get around
> > to citing the pertinent NY case regarding
> > "libel per se"?
>
> I don't know what a "pertinent NY case" necessarily has to do with the
> well-established doctrine of libel per se, you silly woman.
The funniest thing re: you & Mags has always been that the poor
critter's never even had the basic knowledge/tools to probe a
legally-trained mind, despite her nauseating neediness to engage you.
Hugs of pity,
Janice
Peep...@webtv.net
& Dollops & Dollops & Dollops.
& Still More Dollops.
:^)
Hugs,
Janice, hoping the Theatre's stage was structurally-reinforced for Large
Marge's Sweating To The Oldies number.
MLYoung
>(MLYoung) writes:
>
>>Also, my dear, a *real* lawyer would
>>know that case law is indeed relevant
>>here.
>
>>So, get to work.
>
>>--margaret
>
>Hogarth is so annoying that I'm beginning to think he may be a lawyer after
>all.
Certainly there are annoying lawyers,
but Hoggy just shows none of the
analytical training. I think it's someone
who worked in a law office or as a
legal editor--knowledge of jargon, but
little understanding of the concepts.
>
>Anyway, when I think of "written publication of a false statement about
>another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform
>his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty
>in business," I recall Leslie Feffer stating you are a "stalker," PeepPeep
>stating the same and that you can't perform in your profession, and that
>Brandy Alexandre has AIDS, etc. Leslie Feffer also wrote repeatedly that
>you were sexually obsessed with her -- I've read that in New York, "depiction
>which falsely imputes homosexual behavior constitutes libel per se under our
>State law." I may be mistaken -- I'm certainly not a lawyer. Maybe the
>topic will come up when Leslie Feffer's lawsuit goes to court...
Oh, Leslie's libeled me repeatedly as
has Shrieks, but I suspect both of
them are judgment-proof and their
credibility is so nil that their libels
are essentially meaningless.
What makes their libels particularly
damning is that both of them have,
at various times, admitted they know
they're lying simply with the intent
of attacking me. Shrieks, for example,
goes back and forth as to whether I'm
pregnant depending on what nasty thing
she wants to say.
--margaret
>
>PG
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20001130050853...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> >I don't know what a "pertinent NY case" necessarily has to do with the
> >well-established doctrine of libel per se, you silly woman.
>
> Try "leading case" dear--particularly
> since the doctrine is not, in fact,
> equally well-established in all states
> and, in regard to Leslie, doesn't apply.
> It's not like the dear has a chaste
> reputation to defend. A few of Leslie's
> cunt/twat/slut posts would take care
> of any such notion. The dear's a pure
> gutter creature.
I take it, then, that you're saying Leslie resides in New York and therefore
a "pertinent NY case" is relevant in determining whether the dame Cauthen's
statements might be classified as libel per se. I wouldn't assume so much.
Don't you think there's a choice of law issue here? After all, perhaps Ms.
Cauthen resides in a different state. Or consider that I read Ms. Cauthen's
statements while seated in my armchair in Colorado. Has a cause of action
arisen in Colorado, which Leslie may pursue using Colorado law? Or suppose
Leslie decides to sue Ms. Cauthen's ISP for republication of a defamatory
statement. Wouldn't a suit against the ISP also raise a potential question
as to the choice of law, particularly if Leslie brought suit in Federal
District court?
You note that libel per se is not a consideration when it comes to Leslie,
given her colorful vocabulary in prior posts; i.e., that she's not "chaste."
In spite of the quaintly antiquated notion of "chastity," the category
actually encompasses most imputations of serious sexual misconduct. Don't
confuse either, Mags, the categories of "slander per se" with the rather
more broadly presumed damages of libel per se.
I also notice that you're making yet another unwarranted assumption. You
speak only of Leslie as a potential plaintiff. What about her father?
Hogarth
Reality's bitch
> you're making yet another unwarranted assumption. You speak only of
> Leslie as a potential plaintiff. What about her father?
You'd better beLIEVE dr. feffer would be dragged into any usenet action
involving leslie! It'd be a piece of *cake* requiring his deposition,
and I'd be willing to compose every single interrogatory. 'Tis but one
of my Specialties...
RESIDENT Bush or PRESIDENT Gore?
Click Here
and
COCK the VOTE
Come to Florida where the votin' is fine!
Get you some TRICKERY DICK!
http://www.ShowUsYourDick.com/Presidential-Dick_voting-booth.html
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
> >I take it, then, that you're saying Leslie resides in New York and
therefore
> >a "pertinent NY case" is relevant in determining whether the dame
Cauthen's
> >statements might be classified as libel per se. I wouldn't assume so
much.
> >Don't you think there's a choice of law issue here?
>
> won't do you much good on this one.
Not necessarily. Ms. Cauthen's ISP might have its principal place of
business in California.
> After all, perhaps Ms.
> >Cauthen resides in a different state. Or consider that I read Ms.
Cauthen's
> >statements while seated in my armchair in Colorado. Has a cause of
action
> >arisen in Colorado, which Leslie may pursue using Colorado law? Or
suppose
>
> Poor Hoggy. Knew you'd bail.
Ho-Hum. <Yawn.>
> By the way, Hoggy--aren't you just
> a little concerned about your
> unprofessional behavior here?
What?! Showing repeatedly that you don't know what you're talking about
when it comes to libel law? For that act of civic virtue, my little
buttercup, the American Law Institute should give me some kind of reward.
Hogarth
MLYoung
>a "pertinent NY case" is relevant in determining whether the dame Cauthen's
>statements might be classified as libel per se. I wouldn't assume so much.
>Don't you think there's a choice of law issue here?
Well, Hoggy, California's libel laws
won't do you much good on this one.
After all, perhaps Ms.
>Cauthen resides in a different state. Or consider that I read Ms. Cauthen's
>statements while seated in my armchair in Colorado. Has a cause of action
>arisen in Colorado, which Leslie may pursue using Colorado law? Or suppose
Poor Hoggy. Knew you'd bail.
By the way, Hoggy--aren't you just
a little concerned about your
unprofessional behavior here?
A real lawyer would be. But, of course,
the real lawyers here are extremely
careful about what they post. Discretion,
after all, is part of the deal.
--margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>> won't do you much good on this one.
>
>business in California.
No, Hoggy--I'm referring to the laws
themselves. It's not an easy state
in which to make a libel case.
>> Poor Hoggy. Knew you'd bail.
>
>Ho-Hum. <Yawn.>
As I was saying.
>What?! Showing repeatedly that you don't know what you're talking about
>when it comes to libel law? F
Poor Hoggy--your mask is slipping--
real lawyers don't waste time competing
with nonlawyers. Besides, you haven't
shown anything.
And you're still hedging on that NY
case refernece.
Noted.
--margaret
Paul Gallagher
>What?! Showing repeatedly that you don't know what you're talking about
>when it comes to libel law? For that act of civic virtue, my little
>buttercup, the American Law Institute should give me some kind of reward.
>Hogarth
Sounds reasonable. I've forwarded your posts to Richard Carter.
Paul
Paul Gallagher
>>In <20001130050853...@ng-fh1.aol.com> mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS
>>(MLYoung) writes:
>>
>>Hogarth is so annoying that I'm beginning to think he may be a lawyer after
>>all.
>Certainly there are annoying lawyers,
>but Hoggy just shows none of the
>analytical training. I think it's someone
>who worked in a law office or as a
>legal editor--knowledge of jargon, but
>little understanding of the concepts.
I don't have a good sense of what abilities the average (or below-average)
lawyer demonstrates. He does seem a lot like PeepPeep, that is,
barely attempting rational argument, instead attempting to win through
intimidation. But maybe that's what some lawyers are like: "knowledge of
jargon, but little understanding of the concepts," getting by on pomposity.
I frequently notice how he has some of the same mannerisms as PeepPeep,
such as the witless repetition of certain phrases. For example, he calls you
"Goneril" endlessly, just as PeepPeep repeated certain phrases from Shakespeare
(for example, "You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!")
(But maybe they're just possessed by the same demon.) He shows no interest in
or knowledge of showbiz gossip -- that's not unique on this newsgroup, but it
does seem that someone with his persona wouldn't be posting here in the first
place.
Anyway, the identity of Hogarth is an interesting mystery, but it wouldn't
improve my opinion of Hogarth if he were a lawyer. A successful professional
who delights in tormenting people online is more vile than, as some of the
posters here are said to be, someone with chronic illness who does so, since
the ill have at least a reason to be irritable.
MLYoung
>>>
>>>Hogarth is so annoying that I'm beginning to think he may be a lawyer after
>>>all.
>
>>Certainly there are annoying lawyers,
>>but Hoggy just shows none of the
>>analytical training. I think it's someone
>>who worked in a law office or as a
>>legal editor--knowledge of jargon, but
>>little understanding of the concepts.
>
>I don't have a good sense of what abilities the average (or below-average)
>lawyer demonstrates. He does seem a lot like PeepPeep, that is,
>barely attempting rational argument, instead attempting to win through
>intimidation. But maybe that's what some
quickly and is replaced by obsessive
name-calling.
lawyers are like: "knowledge of
>jargon, but little understanding of the concepts," getting by on pomposity.
Well, I've known tons of lawyers and
some were real clowns, but they all
had some basic grasp of rational
argument. Even if they made a bad
argument, they at least made the
attempt. I mean, basically, they're
professional arguers. As I recall, Hoggy
claims to be U. of Michigan--that's
way too good a law school to graduate
someone so short on fundamentals as
Hoggy.
>
>I frequently notice how he has some of the same mannerisms as PeepPeep,
>such as the witless repetition of certain phrases. For example, he calls you
>"Goneril" endlessly, just as PeepPeep repeated certain phrases from
>Shakespeare
Yep--it's a neither here nor there
insult. Last time I checked I wasn't
telling my father his knights had to go.
Nor was I doing much in the adultery/
bloody betrayal line. Literary insults need
to be on the mark--there should be some
sting of recognition. Pulling out a
random Shakespearian villainess just
doesn't cut it.
>(for example, "You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!")
>(But maybe they're just possessed by the same demon.) He shows no interest in
Well, certainly the same puppeteer.
>or knowledge of showbiz gossip -- that's not unique on this newsgroup, but it
>does seem that someone with his persona wouldn't be posting here in the first
place.
Good point.
>
>Anyway, the identity of Hogarth is an interesting mystery, but it wouldn't
>improve my opinion of Hogarth if he were a lawyer. A successful professional
>who delights in tormenting people online is more vile than, as some of the
>posters here are said to be, someone with chronic illness who does so, since
>the ill have at least a reason to be irritable.
Yes, if he were a lawyer, his conduct
would be unprofessional in the extreme.
--margaret
>
>
>
>
>
Rita Hansard
>A successful professional who delights
>in tormenting people online is more vile
>than,
Well, thank you for such an adequate description of Margaret. She
claims to be a "professional," too.
>as some of the posters here are said to
>be, someone with chronic illness who
>does so, since the ill have at least a
>reason to be irritable.
Oh please, making excuses for the ones who go out of their way to obtain
negative attention is hardly a reasonable argument. It just validates
their own conclusion that *they* have a right to hit and kick and punch,
but anyone who does so to them is behaving badly and should punished by
all means. They are, afterall, sick and not responsible for their
irritation and treatment of others.
Try going to work attempting to abuse everyone you don't like because
you're sick, and see how well the excuse of "sick" goes over.
A ball bat is a wondrous weapon, but you should never grip it at the
end, if you want balance and control. Learn the fundamentals.
--Ty Cobb
Peep...@webtv.net
<SNIP o' most of *the* stOOpidest msg he's posted yet>
*LOL*
>phrases. For example, he calls you
> "Goneril" endlessly
Very appropriately. Goneril was a deeply resentful, pathologically
envious, self-loathing super-ugly w/ zero femininity who was obsessed w/
others' status.
IOW, Hogarth hit the nail on the head.
Per usual.
:-)
Hugs,
Janice
>PeepPeep repeated certain phrases from Shakespeare
> (for example, "You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless
things!")
> (But maybe they're just possessed by the same demon.)
--
Peep...@webtv.net
>>A successful professional who delights
>>in tormenting people online is more vile
>>than,
>Well, thank you for such an adequate
>description of Margaret. She claims to be
>a "professional,"
*LOL*
& I'm sure the uber-neurotic Mags *considers* Hogarth's
relatively-gentle corrections/rebukes of her legal-cluelessness to *be*
"torment" on the level of the Spanish Inquisition, but that just goes to
her state-of-mind/schizo affect.
:-)
Hugs,
Janice
Rita Hansard
>& I'm sure the uber-neurotic Mags
>*considers* Hogarth's relatively-gentle
>corrections/rebukes of her
>legal-cluelessness to *be* "torment" on
>the level of the Spanish Inquisition,
I'm positive that Hogarth is concerned with far more important things,
like how important it is to *lovingly* bait someone into behaving as
badly as possible. Perhaps he should use the *C* word more often.
Bad. Bad Hogarth.
Peep...@webtv.net
>I'm positive that Hogarth is concerned
>with far more important things, like how
>important it is to *lovingly* bait someone
>into behaving as badly as possible.
>Perhaps he should use the *C* word more
>often.
"Cupcake"..........?!
Curious hugs,
Rita Hansard
>>Perhaps he should use the *C* word
>>more often.
>"Cupcake"..........?!
Oh, it doesn't matter, just as long as he spews hatred while maintaining
a heart of nothing but pure looooooooove.
LordHogarth
"Paul Gallagher" <p...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:907k26$jup$1...@panix3.panix.com...
Dick is a good sport. Tell him I want their gold medal.
Hogarth
LordHogarth
> >>In <20001130050853...@ng-fh1.aol.com> mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS
> >>(MLYoung) writes:
> >>
> >>Hogarth is so annoying that I'm beginning to think he may be a lawyer
after
> >>all.
>
> >Certainly there are annoying lawyers,
> >but Hoggy just shows none of the
> >analytical training. I think it's someone
> >who worked in a law office or as a
> >legal editor--knowledge of jargon, but
> >little understanding of the concepts.
>
> I don't have a good sense of what abilities the average (or below-average)
> lawyer demonstrates. He does seem a lot like PeepPeep, that is,
> barely attempting rational argument, instead attempting to win through
> intimidation. But maybe that's what some lawyers are like: "knowledge of
> jargon, but little understanding of the concepts," getting by on
pomposity.
Try having a rational argument with Goneril, Oswald. Or an irrational, one,
for all it matters.
> He shows no interest in
> or knowledge of showbiz gossip -- that's not unique on this newsgroup, but
it
> does seem that someone with his persona wouldn't be posting here in the
first
> place.
Just trying to spread sweetness and light.
> Anyway, the identity of Hogarth is an interesting mystery, but it wouldn't
> improve my opinion of Hogarth if he were a lawyer. A successful
professional
> who delights in tormenting people online is more vile than, as some of the
> posters here are said to be, someone with chronic illness who does so,
since
> the ill have at least a reason to be irritable.
Sorry, Oswald. I didn't realize I was actually "tormenting" Margaret.
Perhaps next time I post you should protect dear Mags by giving her a
heads-up.
Oswald to Goneril: "He's coming, madam; I hear him."
*LOL*
Hogarth
LordHogarth
<Peep...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25359-3A...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Paulie panixed:
>
> <SNIP o' most of *the* stOOpidest msg he's posted yet>
>
> *LOL*
>
> >phrases. For example, he calls you
> > "Goneril" endlessly
>
> Very appropriately. Goneril was a deeply resentful, pathologically
> envious, self-loathing super-ugly w/ zero femininity who was obsessed w/
> others' status.
>
> IOW, Hogarth hit the nail on the head.
>
> Per usual.
>
> :-)
Thanks, but it was a pretty easy toss-up between *Lear's* Goneril and Mrs.
Proudie from Trollope's *Barchester Towers.*
Hogarth
Peep...@webtv.net
>PeepPeep wrote:
>>>Perhaps he should use the *C* word
>>>more often.
>"Cupcake"..........?!
>Oh, it doesn't matter, just as long as he
>spews hatred while maintaining a heart of
>nothing but pure looooooooove.
In that case, he better stick with "cunt".
Hugs,
Peep...@webtv.net
> > Paulie panixed:
> > <SNIP o' most of *the* stOOpidest msg he's posted yet>
> > *LOL*
> > >phrases. For example, he calls you
> > > "Goneril" endlessly
> > Very appropriately. Goneril was a deeply resentful, pathologically
> > envious, self-loathing super-ugly w/ zero femininity who was
obsessed w/
> > others' status.
> > IOW, Hogarth hit the nail on the head.
> > Per usual.
> > :-)
> Thanks, but it was a pretty easy toss-up between *Lear's* Goneril and
Mrs.
> Proudie from Trollope's *Barchester Towers.*
Hmmm, I've read *all* of Shakespeare, but *none* of Trollope.
What would be a good first novel/intro to read.........?!
Curious hugs,
MLYoung
>> Very appropriately. Goneril was a deeply resentful, pathologically
>> envious, self-loathing super-ugly w/ zero femininity who was obsessed w/
>> others' status.
>>
Poor Shrieks, having to support your
alter ego yet again. I'm curious, by
the way, where in Shakespeare it
says she's "super-ugly" or that she
has "zero feminity"--after all, she's
the one with the lover and, ultimately,
driven by her passions. Perhaps you
are confusing her with Lady Macbeth,
who does attempt to "unsex" herself,
but ultimately cannot.
Poor Shrieks. You need to do something
about your desperation--it makes you
stupid and you're someone who needs
to use all the brains she's got.
--margaret
MLYoung
>
>*LOL*
How Shrieksian.
Just for the record, Hoggy, I notice you're
still unable to cite the pertinent case
in New York and that you have, indeed,
bailed on the legal questions once again.
A real lawyer, Hoggy, doesn't need
to hide a retreat under a flurry of
name-calling. A real lawyer would know
that your comments about jurisdiction
were irrelevant. An semi-intelligent
one would know that Leslie's the *last*
plaintiff one would want.
See, the thing is, li'l Webtroll, pretending
to be a lawyer doesn't do it. You've
got to be able to argue like one for the
shtick to work. You just don't have
the training, the knowledge or the
objectivity to pull it off.
Sorry.
--margaret
>
>Hogarth
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20001202165310...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
> >Oswald to Goneril: "He's coming, madam; I hear him."
> >
> >*LOL*
>
> How Shrieksian.
>
> Just for the record, Hoggy, I notice you're
> still unable to cite the pertinent case
> in New York and that you have, indeed,
> bailed on the legal questions once again.
Hardly. Were it simply a matter of citing a "pertinent case in New York," I
could cite for you--according to my 30 second Westlaw search--266 of them
which address the issue of defamation per se. Go ahead a take a look at
Aronsen v. Wiersma (New York Court of Appeals, 1985), the first one on the
list, if you want to satisfy yourself.
> A real lawyer would know
> that your comments about jurisdiction
> were irrelevant.
Really? Why?--and please be specific.
If Jones, domiciled in State A, commits the tort of defamation against
Smith, who is domiciled in State B, can't Smith sue Jones in a court in
State A? Can't Smith perhaps sue Jones in state B's courts? If AOL
republishes the defamatory statement in State C, can't Smith sue AOL in
State C's courts? If not, why not? If Smith chooses to sue Jones in
Federal District Court in State B (on diversity of citizenship grounds),
isn't it *possible* that the law of State B will apply?
> An semi-intelligent
> one would know that Leslie's the *last*
> plaintiff one would want.
I can't say I agree; and what about her father?
> See, the thing is, li'l Webtroll, pretending
> to be a lawyer doesn't do it. You've
> got to be able to argue like one for the
> shtick to work. You just don't have
> the training, the knowledge or the
> objectivity to pull it off.
Well! The thing is, Mags, pretending you know something about the law isn't
going to cut it with me. I'm willing to call your bluff when you
misrepresent and misinform the good folks who read this message board.
Hogarth
LordHogarth
> Hmmm, I've read *all* of Shakespeare, but *none* of Trollope.
>
> What would be a good first novel/intro to read.........?!
Well, you've read more Shakespeare than I have. I'd suggest *Orley Farm* or
the shorter *The Warden* as good books to start with.
Hogarth
MLYoung
>could cite for you--according to my 30 second Westlaw search--266 of them
>which address the issue of defamation per se. Go ahead a take a look at
>Aronsen v. Wiersma (New York Court of Appeals, 1985), the first one on the
>list, if you want to satisfy yourself.
Poor Hoggy, you didn't look at Westlaw--
here's where you got it--
LABOR RELATIONS
Issues and Trends in Employment References and Defamation
By John P. Furfaro and Maury B. Josephson
The New York Law Journal
June 6, 1997
Furthermore, it has nothing to
do with defining "libel per se" and,
what's more, the case was dismissed.
A real lawyer, Hoggy, would have
bothered to find out about the case
before referring to it.
Try again.
--margaret
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20001203185428...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> >Hardly. Were it simply a matter of citing a "pertinent case in New
York," I
> >could cite for you--according to my 30 second Westlaw search--266 of them
> >which address the issue of defamation per se. Go ahead a take a look at
> >Aronsen v. Wiersma (New York Court of Appeals, 1985), the first one on
the
> >list, if you want to satisfy yourself.
>
> Poor Hoggy, you didn't look at Westlaw--
> here's where you got it--
>
> LABOR RELATIONS
>
So what? The case citation also appears in a journal article--big surprise.
> Issues and Trends in Employment References and Defamation
> By John P. Furfaro and Maury B. Josephson
> The New York Law Journal
> June 6, 1997
>
> Furthermore, it has nothing to
> do with defining "libel per se" and,
> what's more, the case was dismissed.
Did you read the case? You wanted a case in which a New York court
discussed the principle of libel, or defamation, per se. I found a listing
of 200+ cases for New York. Simply because the case dealt with an
defamation in the context of an agency relationship doesn't mean the court
didn't address the per se doctrine. Go read it and find out. If it doesn't
answer your question, I've got another 265 you can comb through.
Hogarth
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
> Oh, this is fun.
>
> Here's a little something on
> jurisdiction:
>
> ". See, e.g., Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., 166 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 1999)
> (applying New Jersey libel law; "Under New York choice-of-law rules in
> defamation cases the state of the plaintiff's domicile will usually have
the
> most significant relationship to the case, and its law will therefore
govern."
So what? I originally told you, some days ago, that there was a potential
choice of law issue, depending upon where the plaintiff brings suit. In
tort claims, the law of the plaintiff's domicile doesn't always,
mechanically, apply, even in defamation cases. Even your capsule above says
"usually." If plaintiff A from Ohio sues defendant B from New York in a
defamation suit in NY court, then the NY choice of law rule tells you that
Ohio law has the greater relationship to the case. That tells you nothing
about what choice of law rule Ohio might follow if the plaintiff lives in NY
but brings suit against a defendant in an Ohio court.
You're also confusing choice of law with jurisdiction. You said that a
"real lawyer" would realize there's no jurisdictional issues in the
defamation case. I showed you that's simply not the case where the tort is
committed by a defendant living in one state and the plaintiff lives in
another.
Hogarth
LordHogarth
> >Poor Hoggy, you didn't look at Westlaw--
> >here's where you got it--
> >
> >LABOR RELATIONS
>
> Journal Web site. I don't think you
> actually bothered to read the article,
> which, of course, deals with employers
> and defamation--quite a different issue
> than a spat on Usenet.
Of course I haven't read the article. I've never seen it.
> Once again, my little troll, desperation
> led you astray. Also, by the way,
> it's doubtful if you'd looked at Westlaw
> that a 15-year-old case would have
> been the first thing to show up.
It wasn't the first one to show-up. It was the first one on my *list*--from
among the 266 headings--that I selected on the basis of the key words
displayed (i.e., by relevance). Some of the others were (all are NY Ct. of
Appeals cases):
Foster v. Chruchill (1996)
Mahoney v. Adirondack Pub. Co. (1987)
Weiner v. Doubleday (1989)
Moran v. Hearst Corp. (1976)
Rupert v. Sellers (1980)
Steinhilber v. Alphonse (1986)
Hahn v. Andrello (1975)
Harwood v. NBC (1971)
&c.
&c.
&c.
Hogarth
Peep...@webtv.net
> Goneril:
> > A real lawyer would know
> > that your comments about jurisdiction
> > were irrelevant.
>
> Really? Why?--and please be specific.
>
> If Jones, domiciled in State A, commits the tort of defamation against
> Smith, who is domiciled in State B, can't Smith sue Jones in a court
in
> State A? Can't Smith perhaps sue Jones in state B's courts? If AOL
> republishes the defamatory statement in State C, can't Smith sue AOL
in
> State C's courts? If not, why not? If Smith chooses to sue Jones in
> Federal District Court in State B (on diversity of citizenship
grounds),
> isn't it *possible* that the law of State B will apply?
Hey, stop *tormenting* Mags.
You're gonna drive the old bat to slinging hash for her imaginary hubby
again.
Sheesh.
Hugs of concern,
Peep...@webtv.net
> >Hardly. Were it simply a matter of citing a "pertinent case in New
York," I
> >could cite for you--according to my 30 second Westlaw search--266 of
them
> >which address the issue of defamation per se. Go ahead a take a look
at
> >Aronsen v. Wiersma (New York Court of Appeals, 1985), the first one
on the
> >list, if you want to satisfy yourself.
>
> Poor Hoggy, you didn't look at Westlaw--
> here's where you got it--
>
> LABOR RELATIONS
>
> Issues and Trends in Employment References and Defamation
> By John P. Furfaro and Maury B. Josephson
> The New York Law Journal
> June 6, 1997
?!
*ROFLOLPMP*
Is her tarot-pack speaking to her again?!
Buh-zarre hugs,
MLYoung
>>could cite for you--according to my 30 second Westlaw search--266 of them
>>which address the issue of defamation per se. Go ahead a take a look at
>>Aronsen v. Wiersma (New York Court of Appeals, 1985), the first one on the
>>list, if you want to satisfy yourself.
>
>Poor Hoggy, you didn't look at Westlaw--
>here's where you got it--
>
>LABOR RELATIONS
Well, specifically, the New York Law
Journal Web site. I don't think you
actually bothered to read the article,
which, of course, deals with employers
and defamation--quite a different issue
than a spat on Usenet.
Once again, my little troll, desperation
led you astray. Also, by the way,
it's doubtful if you'd looked at Westlaw
that a 15-year-old case would have
been the first thing to show up.
--margaret
MLYoung
Here's a little something on
jurisdiction:
". See, e.g., Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., 166 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 1999)
(applying New Jersey libel law; "Under New York choice-of-law rules in
defamation cases the state of the plaintiff's domicile will usually have the
most significant relationship to the case, and its law will therefore govern."
So, Hoggy, how about that leading
case regarding "libel per se"?
A real lawyer knows how to do more
than call up an index.
Particularly one who claims to have
done appellate law.
--margaret
Paul Gallagher
>A real lawyer knows how to do more
>than call up an index.
By the way, Westlaw is offering free trials,
http://register2.westgroup.com/freetrial/.
Paul
MLYoung
>defamation in the context of an agency relationship doesn't mean the court
>didn't address the per se doctrine. Go read it and find out. If it doesn't
>answer your question,
Poor Hoggy, discussing the issue
hardly makes it a leading case on the
matter.
And a *real* lawyer would explain
why the case was or was not relevant
to Snarks' situation.
Try again.
--margaret
MLYoung
>> most significant relationship to the case, and its law will therefore
>govern."
>
>choice of law issu
So, my poor Hoggy, you tried to sidestep
my question about New York libel
law by pretending that it was unclear
what state would have jurisdiction.
A *real* lawyer wouldn't make that
kind of mistake. But, then, *real*
lawyers use evidence to support
arguments.
> showed you that's simply not the case where the tort is
>committed by a defendant living in one state and the plaintiff lives in
>another.
Actually, Hoggy, you showed nothing
of the sort, you simply raised the issue
without evidence. Once again, Hoggy
*real* lawyers use evidence when
making arguments. And *real*
lawyers aren't so pathetically competitive
with non-lawyers.
--margaret
MLYoung
>among the 266 headings--that I selected on the basis of the key words
>displayed (i.e., by relevance). Some of the others were (all are NY Ct. of
>Appeals cases):
In other words, you did a primitive
search and didn't even bother to
exclude the vast majority of these,
which involve media defendants.
Not much in the way of a controlling
case.
A *real* lawyer would explain why any
of these cases govern the instant action.
--margaret
Peep...@webtv.net
>>Very appropriately. Goneril was a deeply
>>resentful, pathologically envious,
>>self-loathing super-ugly w/ zero femininity
>>who was obsessed w/ others' status.
>Poor Shrieks, having to support your
>alter ego yet again.
Thanks for reminding me. Goneril was paranoid, too.
>I'm curious, by the way, where in
>Shakespeare it says she's "super-ugly"
Actually, IIRC, Shakes doesn't go into that, but in the HISTORIE OF KING
LEIR on which Shakes based his play, Goneril & Regan are both depicted
as ugly & very envious of their beautiful sister, Cordelia.
>or that she has "zero feminity"
Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
>Perhaps you are confusing her with Lady
>Macbeth, who does attempt to "unsex"
>herself, but ultimately cannot.
Actually, Lady M. asked supernatural Spirits to unsex her which
pathetically belied her attempt to "unsex" herself.
Goneril never had to "unsex" herself. She was never feminine to begin
with.
>Poor Shrieks. You need to do something
>about your desperation--it makes you
>stupid and you're someone who needs
>to use all the brains she's got.
Now, *what* would an ML-dropping be sans projection?!
Hugs,
Janice......"O Goneril,
You are not worth the dust which the rude
wind Blows in your face."
MLYoung
Fancy that . . .
--margaret
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Russell Crowe's Elevator Shoes
>Path: lobby!newstf02.ne
MLYoung
>
>
>>>Poor Hoggy, you didn't look at Westlaw--
>>>here's where you got it--
>>>
>>>LABOR RELATIONS
>>
>>Well, specifically, the New York Law
>>Journal Web site.
>
>subscription service for lawyers only?
>
Apparently, they're offering some free
trial service right now. But everything
Hoggy supplied can be found without
Westlaw.
--margaret
Peep...@webtv.net
> >>A real lawyer knows how to do more
> >>than call up an index.
> >
> >By the way, Westlaw is offering free trials,
> >http://register2.westgroup.com/freetrial/.
>
> Fancy that . . .
Shuh-eesh, the poor critter's actually palpably envious that Hogarth has
access to *Westlaw*.............?!
*ROFLOLOL*
Hugs,
Janice......"They shoot trolls, don't they?!"
LordHogarth
<Peep...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11088-3A2...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Poor Marge:
>
> >>Very appropriately. Goneril was a deeply
> >>resentful, pathologically envious,
> >>self-loathing super-ugly w/ zero femininity
> >>who was obsessed w/ others' status.
>
> >Poor Shrieks, having to support your
> >alter ego yet again.
>
> Thanks for reminding me. Goneril was paranoid, too.
>
> >I'm curious, by the way, where in
> >Shakespeare it says she's "super-ugly"
>
> Actually, IIRC, Shakes doesn't go into that, but in the HISTORIE OF KING
> LEIR on which Shakes based his play, Goneril & Regan are both depicted
> as ugly & very envious of their beautiful sister, Cordelia.
> >or that she has "zero feminity"
>
> Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
Interestingly, in all three performances of *Lear* that I've seen (one by
the RSC), Goneril was portrayed as a physically-unwholesome woman. Add-in
Shakes' dialogue, and you've got a figure almost as frightening as Hillary.
> >Perhaps you are confusing her with Lady
> >Macbeth, who does attempt to "unsex"
> >herself, but ultimately cannot.
>
> Actually, Lady M. asked supernatural Spirits to unsex her which
> pathetically belied her attempt to "unsex" herself.
>
> Goneril never had to "unsex" herself. She was never feminine to begin
> with.
>
> >Poor Shrieks. You need to do something
> >about your desperation--it makes you
> >stupid and you're someone who needs
> >to use all the brains she's got.
>
> Now, *what* would an ML-dropping be sans projection?!
An improvement?
Hogarth
LordHogarth
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20001204031052...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> >It wasn't the first one to show-up. It was the first one on my
*list*--from
> >among the 266 headings--that I selected on the basis of the key words
> >displayed (i.e., by relevance). Some of the others were (all are NY Ct.
of
> >Appeals cases):
>
> In other words, you did a primitive
> search and didn't even bother to
> exclude the vast majority of these,
> which involve media defendants.
Why should I spend my precious time slogging through 200+ headers? It's
apparent that libel per se is alive and well in New York, as I told you days
(weeks?) ago. Take Oswald's hint and sign-up for a trial subscription to
Westlaw and you can spend some of your "down time" from ASG reading the
cases. Type "libel per se" into the search window and look at the Mencher,
Wadsworth, Puranmalka, James/Gannett Co., &c. &c. &c. cases.
> Not much in the way of a controlling
> case.
It's not a question of "a controlling case" where a well-established common
law principle is readily accepted by the state's courts. You cite the cases
on point, depending upon the defamatory statement. You can figure it out.
Now, Mags, until you've done your homework, I'm unwilling to discuss the
tort of defamation with you further (i.e., waste my time). I'll go back to
arguing with the brick wall in my office. It's more satisfying, anyway.
Hogarth
Peep...@webtv.net
*LOL*
I'm beginning to think your "communications" w/ Mags belong on the
SciFiChannel, milord. I don't think she's ever chatted w/ a real atty.
before &, as a result, your conversations have the eerie sound/feel of a
First Contact.
:-O
~WooHoos~,
Janice.......Hogarth is from Earth, Mags is from the interior of
Uranus.........
MLYoung
>> LEIR on which Shakes based his play, Goneril & Regan are both depicted
>> as ugly & very envious of their beautiful sister, Cordelia.
>> >or that she has "zero feminity"
In other words, it's not in Shakespeare.
As I thought.
Pathetic, totally pathetic.
>Interestingly, in all three performances of *Lear* that I've seen (one by
>the RSC), Goneril was portrayed as a physically-unwholesome woman.
Really? You should check out Goneril
in, oh, the version with Laurence Olivier
and the one with Ian Holm.
As I say, pathetic.
But, really, this is *so* typical of you,
li'l Webtroll--you make a complete
idiot of yourself, as you did here, and
then you use your sock puppets to
bolster your silly little dodges and
make sure I see your inane personal
attacks.
--margaret
MLYoung
>> search and didn't even bother to
>> exclude the vast majority of these,
>> which involve media defendants.
>
>Why should I spend my precious time slogging through 200+ headers?
Why would a *real* lawyer, Hoggy,
be wasting his "precious" time
attacking people on Usenet on a
Monday afternoon?
And why is a *real* lawyer so incapable
of doing efficient research? Particularly
one who claims to have done appellate
law?
It's
>apparent that libel per se is alive and well in New York, as I told you days
>(weeks?) ago. Take Oswald's hint and
So, New York recognizes libel per se means a New York judge will apply this
doctrine to Usenet?
your "down time" from ASG reading the
>cases. Type "libel per se" into the search window and look at the Mencher,
>Wadsworth, Puranmalka, James/Gannett Co., &c. &c. &c. cases.
Poor Hoggy, see above. Once again,
ya gotta be able to apply the facts
to the case at hand.
It's what *real* lawyers do instead of
posting to Usenet on a Monday
afternoon.
>> Not much in the way of a controlling
>> case.
>
>It's not a question of "a controlling case" where a well-established common
>law principle is readily accepted by the state's courts. You cite the cases
But you didn't, dearie. You cited
cases that don't apply.
Try again.
--margaret
Paul Gallagher
>>I'm curious, by the way, where in
>>Shakespeare it says she's "super-ugly"
>Actually, IIRC, Shakes doesn't go into that, but in the HISTORIE OF KING
>LEIR on which Shakes based his play, Goneril & Regan are both depicted
>as ugly & very envious of their beautiful sister, Cordelia.
Gonnoril and Ragan envy Cordella's beauty in King Leir, but where in the
text are they called ugly? In any case, Shakespeare removes all reference
to Cordelia's beauty, and there's no indication Shakespeare took the
cheap ploy of making Goneril ugly:
"howe'er thou art a fiend,
A woman's shape doth shield thee."
>>or that she has "zero feminity"
>Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
Goneril and Regan's lust for power, violence, and ruthlessness are not
characteristically feminine: indeed, in some sources, Lear has rebellious sons.
However, Lear seems to see their actions as arising from woman's nature, or
from female sexuality (see 1.4.252-266, 4.6.115-126). In King Leir
Gonnoril and Ragan are driven by lust, but in King Lear they seek political
power. But their relationship with Edmund shows them entirely capable of
lust, sexual jealousy, and love.
MLYoung
>text are they called ugly? In any case, Shakespeare removes all reference
>to Cordelia's beauty, and there's no indication Shakespeare took the
>cheap ploy of making Goneril ugly:
> "howe'er thou art a fiend,
> A woman's shape doth shield thee."
Shakespeare was far too interesting
a writer to fall back on simplistic
cliches like evil is ugly, good is beautiful.
That Shrieks/Hoggy does indicates a
lack of imagination.
>>>or that she has "zero feminity"
>
>>Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
>
>Goneril and Regan's lust for power, violence, and ruthlessness are not
>characteristically feminine: indeed, in some sources, Lear has rebellious
>sons.
>However, Lear seems to see their actions as arising from woman's nature, or
>from female sexuality (see 1.4.252-266, 4.6.115-126). In King Leir
>Gonnoril and Ragan are driven by lust, but in King Lear they seek political
>power. But their relationship with Edmund shows them entirely capable of
>lust, sexual jealousy, and love.
>
And this is their undoing.
Once again, Shrieks is hindered by
her lack of imagination and perception.
Catherine the Great certainly sought
political power as did Madame de
Pompadour, but neither was particularly
unfeminine.
--margaret
>
>
>
>
>
Peep...@webtv.net
Hogarth stated for the record:
> > Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
>
> Interestingly, in all three performances of *Lear* that I've seen (one
by
> the RSC), Goneril was portrayed as a physically-unwholesome woman.
In the one production of LEAR I saw, Goneril was butt-ugly & wore more &
more mens' clothing as the play "progressed".
>Add-in
> Shakes' dialogue, and you've got a figure almost as frightening as
Hillary.
Given the 'tOOns -- coupled w/ the current election-bizarreness -- THIS
gal's *convinced* there's a coven of Weird Sisters w/ a cauldron full of
eyes o' Newt.
:-O
> > >Perhaps you are confusing her with Lady
> > >Macbeth, who does attempt to "unsex"
> > >herself, but ultimately cannot.
> >
> > Actually, Lady M. asked supernatural Spirits to unsex her which
> > pathetically belied her attempt to "unsex" herself.
> >
> > Goneril never had to "unsex" herself. She was never feminine to
begin
> > with.
> >
> > >Poor Shrieks. You need to do something
> > >about your desperation--it makes you
> > >stupid and you're someone who needs
> > >to use all the brains she's got.
> >
> > Now, *what* would an ML-dropping be sans projection?!
>
> An improvement?
No argument there.......:-)
Hugs,
Janice
> >
> > Hugs,
> > Janice......"O Goneril,
> > You are not worth the dust which the rude
> > wind Blows in your face."
--
Peep...@webtv.net
>Really? You should check out Goneril
>in, oh, the version with Laurence Olivier
>and the one with Ian Holm.
Hmm, Ian's a TAD more *butch*, baby, so I'm guessing he made the better
Goneril.
C'est vrai........?!
>As I say, pathetic.
As you are, pathetic.
>But, really, this is *so* typical of you, li'l
>Webtroll--you make a complete
>idiot of yourself, as you did here, and
>then you use your sock puppets to
>bolster your silly little dodges and
>make sure I see your inane personal
>attacks.
For Aunt Pitty's sake, calm down cupcake.
(!!)
If you get ANY more upset, you're gonna induce "premature-labor".
Hugs of concern,
Nurse Janice, sure Mags' "wee one" will be the first "pumkin" born w/
peptic-ulcers.
Peep...@webtv.net
> Gonnoril and Ragan envy Cordella's beauty in King Leir, but where in
the
> text are they called ugly? In any case, Shakespeare removes all
reference
> to Cordelia's beauty, and there's no indication Shakespeare took the
> cheap ploy of making Goneril ugly:
> "howe'er thou art a fiend,
> A woman's shape doth shield thee."
*LOL*
Having a "woman's shape" is hardly guarantee v. ugliness, pumkin.
Duh.
Hell, *Roseanne's* got a "woman's shape".
And, more to the point, Lear describes Goneril as having a "wolvish
visage".
*Not* very attractive..........
> >>or that she has "zero feminity"
>
> >Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
>
> Goneril and Regan's lust for power, violence, and ruthlessness are not
> characteristically feminine: indeed, in some sources, Lear has
rebellious sons.
Personally, I'd enjoy LEAR more that way.
> However, Lear seems to see their actions as arising from woman's
nature,
>or
> from female sexuality
Wrong.
>(see
>1.4.252-266, 4.6.115-126). In King Leir
> Gonnoril and Ragan are driven by lust, but in King Lear they seek
political
> power. But their relationship with Edmund shows them entirely capable
of
> lust, sexual jealousy, and love.
Lust & sexual jealousy were *not* considered feminine qualities in
Shakes' time.
Duh again.
&, as for love, Goneril's described as having the heart of a dog.
So, you're right -- mayhaps she can get on w/ a sheepdog.
:-)
Hugs,
Janice
Paul Gallagher
>p...@panix.com (Paul Gallagher) wrote:
>> Gonnoril and Ragan envy Cordella's beauty in King Leir, but where in
>the
>> text are they called ugly? In any case, Shakespeare removes all
>reference
>> to Cordelia's beauty, and there's no indication Shakespeare took the
>> cheap ploy of making Goneril ugly:
>> "howe'er thou art a fiend,
>> A woman's shape doth shield thee."
>*LOL*
>Having a "woman's shape" is hardly guarantee v. ugliness, pumkin.
>Duh.
>Hell, *Roseanne's* got a "woman's shape".
>And, more to the point, Lear describes Goneril as having a "wolvish
>visage".
>*Not* very attractive..........
The three daughters, including Cordelia, are variously described as animals:
serpents, tigers, wolves, dogs, kites, adders, insects, rats. The "wolvish
visage" may not be a literal description. A recurrent theme in King Lear is
not to trust outward appearances.
>> >>or that she has "zero feminity"
>>
>> >Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
>>
>> Goneril and Regan's lust for power, violence, and ruthlessness are not
>> characteristically feminine: indeed, in some sources, Lear has
>rebellious sons.
>Personally, I'd enjoy LEAR more that way.
>> However, Lear seems to see their actions as arising from woman's
>nature,
>>or
>> from female sexuality
>Wrong.
>>(see
>>1.4.252-266, 4.6.115-126). In King Leir
>> Gonnoril and Ragan are driven by lust, but in King Lear they seek
>political
>> power. But their relationship with Edmund shows them entirely capable
>of
>> lust, sexual jealousy, and love.
>Lust & sexual jealousy were *not* considered feminine qualities in
>Shakes' time.
>Duh again.
'Hysterica passio!' It seems to have been widely believed that women lacked
men's will and self-control, and hence their sexual desire, emotions, and
passions were unchecked and needed to be controlled by men. 'You are pictures
out of door,/ Bells in your parlours; wildcats in your kitchens,/Saints in
your injuries...Players in your huswivery, and hussies in your beds.'
Peep...@webtv.net
> >And, more to the point, Lear describes Goneril as having a "wolvish
> >visage".
>
> >*Not* very attractive..........
>
> The three daughters, including Cordelia,
Where is Cordelia described as such?
>are variously described as animals:
> serpents, tigers, wolves, dogs, kites, adders, insects, rats. The
"wolvish
> visage" may not be a literal description.
Oh, but I think it is. One doesn't usually get metaphorical about a
visage unless it's a fairly apt likening.
The other comparisons to other animals are metaphorical vis-a-vis the
*natures & actions* of Goneril & Regan.
& barring the lack of any other details re: Goneril's appearance, it
does carry a lot of weight.
>A recurrent theme in King Lear is
> not to trust outward appearances.
*Trust* the wolvish visage description.
> >> However, Lear seems to see their actions as arising from woman's
> >nature,
> >>or
> >> from female sexuality
> >Wrong.
>
> >>(see
> >>1.4.252-266, 4.6.115-126). In King Leir
> >> Gonnoril and Ragan are driven by lust, but in King Lear they seek
> >political
> >> power. But their relationship with Edmund shows them entirely
capable
> >of
> >> lust, sexual jealousy, and love.
> >Lust & sexual jealousy were *not* considered feminine qualities in
> >Shakes' time.
>
> >Duh again.
>
> 'Hysterica passio!' It seems to have been widely believed that women
lacked
> men's will and self-control, and hence their sexual desire, emotions,
and
> passions were unchecked and needed to be controlled by men.
That's the *Latin* idea of women, *not* the Anglo-Saxon.
>'You are pictures
> out of door,/ Bells in your parlours; wildcats in your
kitchens,/Saints in
> your injuries...Players in your huswivery, and hussies in your beds.'
That's not support for your contention.
LordHogarth
<Peep...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18777-3A...@storefull-158.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I'm beginning to think your "communications" w/ Mags belong on the
> SciFiChannel, milord. I don't think she's ever chatted w/ a real atty.
> before &, as a result, your conversations have the eerie sound/feel of a
> First Contact.
<Shudder>. That's one Close Encounter I don't wish to encourage.
> :-O
>
>
> ~WooHoos~,
> Janice.......Hogarth is from Earth, Mags is from the interior of
> Uranus.........
Is *that* what that is?! I thought it was a blasted hemorrhoid.
Hogarth
Itching like 'bedamned.
johny...@my-deja.com
I just want to say:
That this is the most muddied, nonsensical,absurd thread
I have ever read.
And I mean that as a compliment.
For the person who wanted to know where to start on Trollope, while Im
neither an ethusiast nor an expert-- try, I think its "Can You Forgive
Her." Its has Lady Glencora in it.
And now to bring the all the trollops back home to
alt.gossip.celebrities--
Sir Alec Guinness wrote in The Daily
Telegraph Magazine: "A wise man told
me I would learn more about life from a
great novelist than from any other source. I
did not believe him. Now I wouldn't
dream of going on holiday without a
Trollope. He has enlarged my world."
Johnny
Once I was the Celestial Comet,
Inspiration for Coach Hop-Along-Hobalitz's
famed W formation,
Now I am merely Johnny Chung
Plainfiel...@yahoo.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MLYoung
>>Shakes' time.
>
>>Duh again.
>
>'Hysterica passio!' It seems to have been widely believed that women lacked
>men's will and self-control, and hence their sexual desire, emotions, and
>passions were unchecked and needed to be controlled by men.
Yep, this is also seen in Chaucer--
the Wife of Bath. After all, women
were descended from Eve.
Shrieks seems to be confusing the
view of women in Shakespeare's
time with the later Victorian stereotype
of the Angel of the House.
--margaret
pace_wi...@my-deja.com
Peep...@webtv.net (Peep...@webtv.net) wrote:
> Fresh from the pp. of The Peerage Ed. of Martindale-Hubbell, Lord
> Hogarth stated for the record:
>
> >
> by
> > the RSC), Goneril was portrayed as a physically-unwholesome woman.
>
> In the one production of LEAR I saw, Goneril was butt-ugly & wore more &
> more mens' clothing as the play "progressed".
The two performances of Lear that I saw both had Reagan and Goneril barking
in *most* abrasive voices.
I believe Shakespear himself referred to the greedy sisters as "masculine
women" which, in his time, would render them as virtual monsters--which is
why they're referred to as sub-human so often in the play.
Remember that even their father cursed them by wishing upon them sterility--a
total, absolute and shocking negation of their sexual role.
LordHogarth
<johny...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90hh16$1hc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Im 5'1'' and insensitive people use my head for a tray.
Try wearing a hat, Chung old chap.
> I just want to say:
> That this is the most muddied, nonsensical,absurd thread
> I have ever read.
> And I mean that as a compliment.
>
> For the person who wanted to know where to start on Trollope, while Im
> neither an ethusiast nor an expert-- try, I think its "Can You Forgive
> Her." Its has Lady Glencora in it.
Yes--one of the better ones. But is it advisable, do you think, to jump
right into the Palliser novels?
> And now to bring the all the trollops back home to
> alt.gossip.celebrities--
>
> Sir Alec Guinness wrote in The Daily
> Telegraph Magazine: "A wise man told
> me I would learn more about life from a
> great novelist than from any other source. I
> did not believe him. Now I wouldn't
> dream of going on holiday without a
> Trollope. He has enlarged my world."
> Johnny
Thanks for this, J.C. I'm a great fan of Guinness' movies, and I think more
highly of him for having admired Trollope. But I disagree with him about
learning anything about life from a novel. You learn about life by doing
it.
Hogarth
LordHogarth
> Why would a *real* lawyer, Hoggy,
> be wasting his "precious" time
> attacking people on Usenet on a
> Monday afternoon?
I run the shop, so I gave myself the day off to x-country ski with my pal,
"Schluss" Mortimer.
> Poor Hoggy, see above. Once again,
> ya gotta be able to apply the facts
> to the case at hand.
>
> It's what *real* lawyers do instead of
> posting to Usenet on a Monday
> afternoon.
How *little* you know about the way lawyers spend their time when nobody's
looking. But I'm always pleased to enlighten the home-bound on the workings
of the real world.
Now stop grinding your teeth, fire-up that complimentary Westlaw
subscription and try reading a few of those cases. Quiz on Friday.
Hogarth
LordHogarth
<pace_wi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90i2um$f5e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <26589-3A...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Peep...@webtv.net (Peep...@webtv.net) wrote:
> > Fresh from the pp. of The Peerage Ed. of Martindale-Hubbell, Lord
> > Hogarth stated for the record:
> >
> > > > Oh please, ditz, buy a clew.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, in all three performances of *Lear* that I've seen (one
> > by
> > > the RSC), Goneril was portrayed as a physically-unwholesome woman.
> >
> > In the one production of LEAR I saw, Goneril was butt-ugly & wore more &
> > more mens' clothing as the play "progressed".
>
> The two performances of Lear that I saw both had Reagan and Goneril
barking
> in *most* abrasive voices.
>
> I believe Shakespear himself referred to the greedy sisters as "masculine
> women" which, in his time, would render them as virtual monsters--which is
> why they're referred to as sub-human so often in the play.
>
> Remember that even their father cursed them by wishing upon them
sterility--a
> total, absolute and shocking negation of their sexual role.
Well said, Pace! This should be the final word on the subject, I think.
Hogarth
Paul Gallagher
> Oswald:
>> >And, more to the point, Lear describes Goneril as having a "wolvish
>> >visage".
>>
>> >*Not* very attractive..........
>>
>> The three daughters, including Cordelia,
>Where is Cordelia described as such?
I was wrong. I looked and couldn't find any comparison of Cordelia to
an animal.
Lots of books have been written on Shakespeare and gender -- anyone
interested can turn to them. Mr. Jack Hogarth has declared that he has
the last word, so there's nothing more to be done here.
james jorden
> Catherine the Great certainly sought
> political power as did Madame de
> Pompadour, but neither was particularly
> unfeminine.
More recently, one might point out Eva Peron and Nancy Reagan.
==============
james jorden
jjo...@bellatlantic.net
www.parterre.com
"I cannot begin to describe the filth backstage." -- Kyra Vayne
Paul Gallagher
> Westlaw is available to the public? I thought it was a
>subscription service for lawyers only?
It's available to the public, but it's very expensive. There are different
gateways to Westlaw and to the other major legal research service, LEXIS-NEXIS,
and they have a variety of pricing plans. If you just need one document,
go to www.westdoc.com and pay $10. But if you need to use Westlaw a lot,
you can subscribe as a "non-attorney" and pay a monthly fee plus a hourly
rate. I don't know the current price, but the monthly fee back in 1995
was $125 and online searching was billed at $185 per hour.
www.versuslaw.com provides a much smaller set of searchable legal databases
for $6.95 a month.
Free legal information is available at http://www.findlaw.com. Findlaw offers
far less information than Westlaw, and does not offer Westlaw's search
capabilities, but it can provide answers to many questions about the
law.
Paul
Paul
MLYoung
>
>> Catherine the Great certainly sought
>> political power as did Madame de
>> Pompadour, but neither was particularly
>> unfeminine.
>
>More recently, one might point out Eva Peron and Nancy Reagan.
Very true, both of them very much traded
on feminine stereotypes and perfect
wife imagery.
--margaret
>
>==============
>
>james jorden
>jjo...@bellatlantic.net
>www.parterre.com
>
>"I cannot begin to describe the filth backstage." -- Kyra Vayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: R
MLYoung
>sterility--a
>> total, absolute and shocking negation of their sexual role.
Sure, cupcake, because of their
*deeds*--it has nothing to do with their
being "super-ugly".
>
>Well said, Pace! This should be the final word on the subject, I think.
Ah, then, pretty stupid to
call a woman about to have a baby
Goneril, isn't it?
I think you can leave off lit crit along
with lawyering, Hoggy.
--margaret
>
>Hogarth
Peep...@webtv.net
>The two performances of Lear that I saw
>both had Reagan and Goneril barking in
>*most* abrasive voices.
IIRC, Lear mentions how beautiful-sounding & soothing Cordelia's voice
is.
Peep...@webtv.net
>>It's what *real* lawyers do instead of
>>posting to Usenet on a Monday
>>afternoon.
>How *little* you know about the way
>lawyers spend their time when nobody's
>looking. But I'm always pleased to
>enlighten the home-bound on the
>workings of the real world.
>Now stop grinding your teeth, fire-up that
>complimentary Westlaw subscription and
>try reading a few of those cases. Quiz on
>Friday.
*LOLOL*
Milord, if you ever bump into your colleague, David Boies, Esq., PLS
direct him to MLYoung @ ASG.
A little MagsSport is *just* what the Doc ordered to keep his face from
breaking out.
Peep...@webtv.net
<eXcellent Pace-post snipped for space>
>Well said, Pace! This should be the final
>word on the subject, I think.
Bait for Large Marge duly noted.
*LOL*
Peep...@webtv.net
> > Catherine the Great certainly sought
> > political power as did Madame de
> > Pompadour, but neither was particularly
> > unfeminine.
>
> More recently, one might point out Eva Peron and Nancy Reagan.
(None of the above are Goneril/Reganesque)
But...we all know that Nancy Reagan was really behind the '80s military
build-up, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the eradication of communism
in the W. Hemisphere, supply-side economics and cutting the size of
gov't.
*LOL*
Hugs,
Janice, ALways amused by this bit of DNC paranoia, esp. since *all*
Nancy cared about was taking care of Ronnie, clothes, hair, parties &
china patterns.
Sheesh.
lola
"Peep...@webtv.net" wrote:
>
> Zsa-Zsa Jordeen:
>
> > > Catherine the Great certainly sought
> > > political power as did Madame de
> > > Pompadour, but neither was particularly
> > > unfeminine.
> >
> > More recently, one might point out Eva Peron and Nancy Reagan.
>
> (None of the above are Goneril/Reganesque)
>
> But...we all know that Nancy Reagan was really behind the '80s military
> build-up
LOL-better known as the budget deficit and recession of the late 80's.
>the collapse of the Soviet Union, the eradication of communism
Which we can thank Gorbachev for.
>supply-side economics
which didn't work
>and cutting the size of gov't.
as well as the size of air traffic control, which helped lead to the
mess in the skies today.
But, come on now--Nancy deserves some credit--she did find that
*fabulous* astrologer to schedule state dinners. Oh and--LOL--help all
those crack addicts and junkies quit drugs by *just saying no*.
Peep...@webtv.net
> But, come on now--Nancy deserves some credit--she did find that
> *fabulous* astrologer to schedule state dinners. Oh and--LOL--help
all
> those crack addicts and junkies quit drugs by *just saying no*.
The Astrology fixation belongs in the Taking Care of Ronnie File. After
the assassination attempt, Nancy flipped/freaked b/c of the 'irrational
history' of POTUSes who are elected in years ending in 0 *dying* in
office.
Panicky, Nurse Nancy turned to equally-irrational astrology to
codify/clarifly/control "The Curse".
Ronnie et al mostly humored her b/c she "lovingly meant well", although,
maybe it really worked...........;-O
& mayhaps Laura Bush needs to pick up the Astro-torch & prevent W from
re-vivifying The Curse..........:-)
Hugs,
Janice
Rita Hansard
>been widely believed that women lacked
>men's will and self-control,
Women don't need men's self-control. We have those multiple things.
A ball bat is a wondrous weapon, but you should never grip it at the
end, if you want balance and control. Learn the fundamentals.
--Ty Cobb
MLYoung
>>the collapse of the Soviet Union, the eradication of communism
>
>Which we can thank Gorbachev for.
Though Nancy takes credit for getting
hubby to meet with Gorby in
her autobiography.
>
>>supply-side economics
>
>which didn't work
Feudalism renamed.
>
>>and cutting the size of gov't.
i.e. expanding the military while reducing
basic services. Clinton and Gore did
a better job and reduced the deficit.
>
>as well as the size of air traffic control, which helped lead to the
>mess in the skies today.
>
>But, come on now--Nancy deserves some credit--she did find that
>*fabulous* astrologer to schedule state dinners. Oh and--LOL--help all
>those crack addicts and junkies quit drugs by *just saying no*.
Don't forget her mouthing words to
her Alzheimer-ridden husband.
--margaret (Does anyone really believe
Reagan only came down with Alzheimer's
after his presidency?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Russell Crowe's Elevator Shoes
Caius Marcius
"Paul Gallagher" <p...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:90hrh7$3en$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> passions were unchecked and needed to be controlled by men.
Those Elizabethan women! So all the men in Lear have will and self-control
and hold their desire,emotions, and passions in check? As if!
- CMC (Ask me about my S/M proclivities)