[I] Musings on the nature of attractiveness
M.E.S
<Melo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Well...as female..I quite like the idea that eyes are very important to a
>chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
>chap[1] are:
I think I'll just chip in here as a second opinion, coming from a
young'un doesn't really make it any less valid I should think. :)
>1) Sense of Humour
This is a very important feature, although unfortunately not visible
to the naked eye.
>2) Smile
This bit I don't find that important. I've personally had crushes on
guys with terrible teeth.
>3) Shoulders (dont ask)
I won't. I think I can understand this one.
>4) Back of neck (ditto)
Now that one doesn't make any sense to me, but don't say I asked!
>5) Height (well....I am nearly 6 feet tall myself)
Very true. I'm only 5 feet 8 myself, but it's an important factor.
>6) Hands..I *like* big hands :o)
I like carpenter's hands, artistic and workable but not *huge*. This
couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I've got a carpenter
grandfather on one side and an engineer grandfather with a thing for
model airplanes on the other, I'm sure. :)
I think the only thing I could add to this is that all my friends
think I'm insane because I tend not to like conventionally handsome
men, and I have a thing for beards and long hair...
>
>
>[1] Hubby fills ALL these criteria in case anyone was wondering <g>
>
>Melody
------
MES : Synonyms as a human thriller, Harmless ran toys inhumanly
%57 AFPure, but still working on it...don't ask about other purity tests...
(when replying, take out the spamspamspam bit)
Newly joined and very cheerful Angel
Karl Ledger
<stephe...@bigfoot.com> writes
<snip stuff>
>Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
Couldn't agree more, personally I believe it's because when you speak
with someone, eye contact is the first thing you notice.
>OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
>Sad? Nice?
Nothing wrong AFAICS
--
Ka...@bluesman0.demon.co.uk
AFPhianced to star (Big Snog)
Heather's little Cherub with Tm. Slipped halo
Elaine's eternal beloved.
(*hugs and kisses to both*)
Tucker McKinney
My second post!... Hurrah.
Stephen Booth wrote:
> If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> look?
Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical indicators.
Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call them. Clearly my girlfriend
definitely emits them. Throughout our 8-month, ongoing relationship
we've kept a running tally of all the respective other suitors we knew
about. The list was easily up to 8 last time I checked, probably more
than that. She's not even the stereotypical toothpick-thin blonde
Barbie-doll type. But Thank God, if you ask me. Who knows, but, I figure
something has to contribute to the fact that -so- many guys have been
after her in her lifetime. ~shrugs~ Its a mystery, as they say. But,
s'gotta do with chemical indicators.
Eyes are nice, too. In the visual sense. :)
> I think it's the eyes.
<croon> This reminds me of a girl in my biology class last year that I
fell absolutely in love with on a totally superficial level. She was
absolutely -radiant-. You know the type, perfect golden hair, for all
intents and purpose snow white skin, and absolutely the most perfect
blue eyes. Let me tell you folks it was sickening. All the while I was
completely infatuated with her, I kept trying to initiate eye contact
with her- because I thought that was how this sort of thing worked. I
hadn't really gotten up the nerve to talk to her and assuredly, had I, I
would've given up pursuit right then and there. After all, there's
something about fundamentalist Christians that, to me, the
quintessential UU Liberal making regularly scheduled appearances on the
*far* end of the left, doesn't quite work in relationships (this is The
Voice of Experience speaking). No offense, strictly a matter of
preference, but the personality would have cut our love affair short, 'm
afraid. Either way, when I finally came to my senses I realized she was
under the impression that I was a satanic anarchist infatuated with
Marilyn Manson and all things dark & spooky. Nono, that was -two- years
ago... (but picture the effect in -her- eyes [I, mind you, have no
problem with that sect of culture]) I'd calmed down my image just a bit
by this point and was at this point fairly mainstream. All the same, her
belief that I was, well, what she thought I was was probably only fueled
further by my rabid attempts to achieve and maintain eye contact with
her, and when I was trying to acheive the effect of a really sweet guy,
I'm pretty sure I came off as a stalker. </croon>
You have to place limits on yourself sometimes.
> No matter what other freatures she may have the one thing that
> will make me take a second look is a really intense beautiful
> pair of eyes. She can be and actress on the screen, a model in a
> photograph, the woman who sits accross the office from me or
> standing in the next queue to mine in the supermarket. A nice
> smile is also a big plus. I've fallen in love with lots of eyes
> recently.
*nods* People do respond to eye contact. Its one of those friendliness
conventions that everybody mistakes in me for flirtation (i'm just doing
it to be nice, i swear). I tend to maintain eye contact with people when
they talk to me and I smile a lot. Consequently, people feel more
welcomed in my prescence, most of the time- i mean, when I'm trying to
be friendly. It makes things more personal and opens things up. And I'm
all about opening up.
S'good relationship advice though anyway- belongs in the primer on How
to Make People Like You. Eye contact -when people are speaking to you or
communicating in some way- and smiling a lot.
> OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
> Sad? Nice?
Well, fool-of-myself made. It doesn't make you anything but a bit more
perceptive, in my view. I'll readily admit that a nice pair of eyes are
a good start. At any rate you can work from there, establish
personality, get a feel for what the person likes, and -then- you can
look down. :)
> [1] Some may have noticed that I occassionally have these
> evenings of self analysis and introspection then broadcast them
> into the aether for public consumption/derision.
~applause~ S'a good thing, openness. Ought to be encouraged more, imho.
~shakes your hand~
Send all complaints to cthu...@mindspring.com .
Thank you,
Tucker
SpareTurtle
Stephen Booth has a thing for eyes...
> Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
> musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
> those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
> is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
>
[...]
> OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
> Sad? Nice?
>
>
Probably normal [1].
I have to say that I find a smile very important. Yes I have fallen from quite
a few smiles.
Smiles first, then a pretty face then I go to more ethereal qualities - sense
of humour, intelligence. But a smile and pretty face can just about steal my
heart.
I'll shut up now before I go and upset myself again.
LHDAB
SpareTurtle
[1] But bare in mind from whose keyboard this issues from
Jonathan Ellis
Karl Ledger wrote in message ...
>In article <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Booth
><stephe...@bigfoot.com> writes
><snip stuff>
>>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
>with someone, eye contact is the first thing you notice.
Eye aye to that!
Jonathan.
Dragon Prince
Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk...
|
| No matter what other freatures she may have the one thing that
| will make me take a second look is a really intense beautiful
| pair of eyes. She can be and actress on the screen, a model in a
| photograph, the woman who sits accross the office from me or
| standing in the next queue to mine in the supermarket. A nice
| smile is also a big plus. I've fallen in love with lots of eyes
| recently.
|
| OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
| Sad? Nice?
well everyone has a thing that attracts them to the opposite sex, soom
look at the eyes some look for the legs others the chest area and that
goes equaly for male or female. so Stephen you are not a hopeless
perveret just a normal human being. just look at the average couple in
the street and you will see that each persons idea of beuty is slightly
different :) and thats half the fun.
I cant remember who but I am shure someone once said that the eyes are
he gateway to the soul so its as good a place to start as any.
now if they have the personality and good scence of humer to match then
you are on a winner :-)
--
Dragon Prince
--
Apfianced to Mad Purple Dragon,Debplod,tigger,star and KkatD~2
Afpriend to Inneke | Afpbro to Shim & Thorin98 |afpuncle to Tamara
Stefan Hennig
> [ka-snip!]
>
> Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical indicators.
> Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call them. Clearly my girlfriend
> definitely emits them. Throughout our 8-month, ongoing relationship
> we've kept a running tally of all the respective other suitors we knew
> about. The list was easily up to 8 last time I checked, probably more
> than that. She's not even the stereotypical toothpick-thin blonde
> Barbie-doll type. But Thank God, if you ask me. Who knows, but, I figure
> something has to contribute to the fact that -so- many guys have been
> after her in her lifetime. ~shrugs~ Its a mystery, as they say. But,
> s'gotta do with chemical indicators.
Yep. But Pheromones get turned on/off at times. I remember one time
sitting in the electronics lab with one of the very few female
students[1] in my year doing some work. It was a hot summer, the lab was
in the souterrain, exposed enough to get hot yet buried enough not to
have windows to open. No problem there.
I knew her as a good sport, but neither of us had (and has, btw) any
interest for more.
But from one moment to another (within 15 seconds I'd say) there was a
very special smell and I had to restrain myself very hard not to reach
out and kiss her. I felt electified [2]. This feeling lasted the whole
time I sat next to her and vanished the instant I left the room.
Thinking back I suppose this was the very moment she ovulated or
something and some million year old olfactory billboard lit up and said
something like "Hi, Guys! Come and get it!". *sigh* Isn't civilisation
sometimes something boring? [3] ;-)
Just recently a visited a friend whom I know for quite some time. What I
didn't know: her boyfriend had just left her. What I noticed entering
the room: Something's different. Yea. Smells _are_ important and it's a
pity we are trained/educated to ignore them.
Just my thoughts.
Stefan
[1] that's one of the reasons why i changed from physics to mathematics.
[2] no, I did not touch the wrong wire. They know their students. In the
first years youre not allowed to play with anything more dangerous than
a torch battery. Later then you get stuffed into a lab where the 5kV
powersupplies get earthed the wrong way putting the _case_ to the high
voltage. [5][6]
[3] Well, I behaved well thus sparing me to be thrown out of uni and
beeing branded as a Pervert-Who-Couldn't-Restrain-Himself (tm)[4]
[4] and they use big letters for the 'PWCRH'-branding. It's much better
to make puctuation mistakes in your homework. Then you only get branded
'.'.
[5] my personal statistics: the average postgraduate jumps about 1.5m
per kV.
[6] that's the other reason. I could tell you stories,... but most of
them would sound bitter and many others would be lies. ;-)
Gizelle
>Tucker McKinney wrote:
>> [ka-snip!]
>>
>> Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical
>> indicators. Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call
>> them.
<snip>
>Yep. But Pheromones get turned on/off at times.
<snip story)
I studied aromatherapy last year, and we looked at the effects
of pheremones. Unfortunately :-) we weren't able to try any of
the experiments for ourselves, but one was described where
they placed male pheremones on a chair in a doctor's waiting
room. They let women into the room one at a time, and
apparently 3/4's of them chose to sit in that particular chair.
They repeated the experiment, but this time with a man sitting
in the next chair (the only other person in the waiting room)
and even so, just under half the women who entered the room
chose to sit in the chair - which is quite high considering
that most people prefer to choose a chair on the opposite side
of the room normally!
I also saw a picture of an experiment taking place which
showed a line of about 50 shirtless men with their arms in the
air, while 5 students, all in white coats, walked down the
line sniffing each armpit. I have no idea what they were
trying to prove, but the picture was quite funny :-)
Gizelle
--
AFPlaymate to kevin.caomhin :-)
AFPsister to Marie <x>
"No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies
half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge." Kahlil Gibran
co. & Ponder Stibbons
Booth) wrote:
>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?
>
>Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
Yup! Like everybody else seems to have said, it's eyes first.
(And for me, as you know, next is beard and then long hair.)
>No matter what other freatures she may have the one thing that
>will make me take a second look is a really intense beautiful
>pair of eyes. She can be and actress on the screen, a model in a
>photograph, the woman who sits accross the office from me or
>standing in the next queue to mine in the supermarket. A nice
>smile is also a big plus. I've fallen in love with lots of eyes
>recently.
>
>OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
>Sad? Nice?
If you are, so are a lot of other people hopeless perverts! Most of
the human race IMNSHO ;-)
I know sometimes you seem sad - but not in the way you meant then ;-)
And I happen to think your very nice :-)
>[1] Some may have noticed that I occassionally have these
>evenings of self analysis and introspection then broadcast them
>into the aether for public consumption/derision.
You're very welcome. Any time :-))
--
Elaine, afphianced to Stephen, John, Matt and AfPhantom,
and eternally, undyingly afpbeloved of Karl
The Things are also People
Kevin Golding
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you?
I heard somewhere that symmetry is the mythical factor, apparently
someone's analysed photo's of people who are regarded as "attractive"
and their features are symmetrical, although I think they also mention
ratio's too, apparently attractive people find their nose is a certain
ratio from their ears or something and apparently attractive women have
a certain hip-waist ratio too. How true it is I don't know, I've not
spent enough time measuring people's bodies to be able to comment
really, just passing on things I've read.
>Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
Are they symmetrical? <g> but seriously, it's quite a well accepted
soft spot, IMHO it's to do with the way people view them as windows to
the soul etc. Many people seem to believe that the eyes will give away
a lie and so judge people by them.
>OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
>Sad? Nice?
Inquisitive? Human?
Caomhin
--
ke...@caomhin.demon.co.uk
"I am Like a Slip of Comet..."
G.M.Hopkins
Barry Vaughan
<stephe...@bigfoot.com> writes
>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?
>
Just to be obscure, I would have to say it's the expression
on her face. You can tell a lot about a person through the
face they present to the world, whether they're smiling or
sulking or whatever.
Barry.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I lie awake at night, thinking that we're dead.
That all this is just Death's last joke.
That we're living one last dream before the lights go out.
And then I think, so what's new?
-Death, The Time of your life - Neil Gaiman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ba...@samael.demon.co.uk
Barry Vaughan
<gr...@homechoice.co.za> writes
>Stefan Hennig wrote :
>
>>Tucker McKinney wrote:
>>> [ka-snip!]
>>>
>>> Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical
>>> indicators. Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call
>>> them.
>
><snip>
>
>>Yep. But Pheromones get turned on/off at times.
>
><snip story)
>
>I studied aromatherapy last year, and we looked at the effects
>of pheremones. Unfortunately :-) we weren't able to try any of
>the experiments for ourselves, but one was described where
>they placed male pheremones on a chair in a doctor's waiting
>room. They let women into the room one at a time, and
>apparently 3/4's of them chose to sit in that particular chair.
>
>They repeated the experiment, but this time with a man sitting
>in the next chair (the only other person in the waiting room)
>and even so, just under half the women who entered the room
>chose to sit in the chair - which is quite high considering
>that most people prefer to choose a chair on the opposite side
>of the room normally!
>
And presumably they did the same experiments with no pheromones
on the chair and the experimenters didn't know which bottle
had the pheromones and which was just water.
Sorry to be boring with the old "double-blind" thing again,
but experiments _really_ don't mean anything unless that's
how they're done. Anything else is just playing around.
This sort of experiment makes me very suspicious, if there was
anything in the pheromones thing, why not do a proper experiment?
Why do such a hashed-up version of one?
mark
1 A nice smile
2 eyes
3 sense of humor
4 figure
5 intellect
although once I get to know somebody all that matters is 3 and 5
(although having 1, 2, and 4 are a big help)
David Chapman
Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk...
> If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> look?
The soul. If you know how to look for it, it's the only feature worth
considering.
If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>
Rob Smiley
Barry Vaughan <Ba...@samael.newantispam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >
> Just to be obscure, I would have to say it's the expression
> on her face.
AOL!
I saw a young woman, who whilst not a 'stunna' was still quite pretty (what
a quaint word, why don't more people use it these days?).
The thing that left me gobsmacked was when she smiled, a scene my humble
imagination can only liken to watching every beautiful sunrise you've ever
seen in your whole life, all at once! WOW!
Now I know what people mean when they say 'a smile lit up her face' because
this is the effect it had on this woman.
--
rcsm...@yahoo.com "Mention the Lord of the Rings just once more,
And I'll more than likely kill you." AFPfianced to Nisaba and MEG.
AFPbrother to Antti(still) and Heather and Peter and Claire and many many
more!
Rob Smiley
>
> And presumably they did the same experiments with no pheromones
> on the chair and the experimenters didn't know which bottle
> had the pheromones and which was just water.
>
This one doesn't have to be 'double blind' or have a 'control group'.
The purpose of the first experiment, the old 'pheromones on the chair in the
waiting room', is to see if the test subjects are attracted to something
they CANNOT DETECT on a normal basis.(BTW I've seen one of these filmed with
a hidden camera and the resulting video time-lapsed, quite interesting)
The second is to see if the effect of the pheromones can outweigh peoples
natural instinct to maintain a distance from a stranger.
This is, after all, the whole point of "the ol' sexual alchemy"[1], to
attract a member of the opposite sex without having to resort to something
as innane as "Do you come here often?"<G>
[1] By throwing in a Gaspode quote in context, does this thread become [R]?
Gizelle
>Sorry to be boring with the old "double-blind" thing again,
>but experiments _really_ don't mean anything unless that's
>how they're done. Anything else is just playing around.
>
Maybe the English language needs more words? :-) When I use the
word experiment I don't mean it in the same sense that I would
mean a clinical trial, or something necessarily formal and
scientific... An experiment doesn't *have* to mean anything, and
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with 'just playing around' to see
what happens.
Kimberley Verburg
>Barry Vaughan <Ba...@samael.newantispam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:dr8fyIAS...@samael.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> And presumably they did the same experiments with no pheromones
>> on the chair and the experimenters didn't know which bottle
>> had the pheromones and which was just water.
>>
>Err...
>This one doesn't have to be 'double blind' or have a 'control group'.
>
>The purpose of the first experiment, the old 'pheromones on the chair in the
>waiting room', is to see if the test subjects are attracted to something
>they CANNOT DETECT on a normal basis.(BTW I've seen one of these filmed with
>a hidden camera and the resulting video time-lapsed, quite interesting)
>
>The second is to see if the effect of the pheromones can outweigh peoples
>natural instinct to maintain a distance from a stranger.
I still think that for the results to be acceptable, this "natural
instinct" should be tested in a control group. How else would we know,
for example, the minimum distance that must be kept from a stranger
under normal circumstances? If you don't know that then you won't know
exactly how attractive these pheromones are.
--
Kimberley Verburg k...@lspace.org
FAQs for AFP/ABP are at http://www.lspace.org/
"You're the closest thing we've got to a woman."
- Leo Breebaart, Delft 1.5
Matt A Simms
Stephen Booth wrote in message <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?
I have to agree with you on the eyes. It's the first thing I look at unless
she has her back to me, but then I'll still reserve judgement until I see
her blinkers.
IMHO the order for me is:
1.) Eyes
2.) Smile
3.) How she carries herself
4.) Her Laugh
5.) Her smell
6.) Sense of humour
Melody Shanahan-Kluth
Matt A Simms <matt...@wordonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3730...@glitch.nildram.co.uk...
Well...as female..I quite like the idea that eyes are very important to a
chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
chap[1] are:
1) Sense of Humour
2) Smile
3) Shoulders (dont ask)
4) Back of neck (ditto)
5) Height (well....I am nearly 6 feet tall myself)
6) Hands..I *like* big hands :o)
[1] Hubby fills ALL these criteria in case anyone was wondering <g>
Melody
--
AFPaunt to Nugent , AFPtwin to the lovely Irina and AFPsis to The Apostate
XXX
AAT d- s+:+ a+ U++ R++++ F h P-- OS+:++ C+++ M pp--- L+ c+ B+ Cn PT+ Pu30+
5++ X- MT- e r++ x++++
Lindsay Endell
> If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> look?
>
Do you know, I have absolutely no idea. There isn't any *one* thing.
On some people it's leather trousers (sigh...), on others it's the
eyes, or the voice, or the smile. Different people have different
attractive features, for me.
Okay, it's *not* the beard. I can honestly say I've never looked at a
man and looked again thinking "Gosh, what a wonderful and sexy beard,
I really fancy that man". Sorry, bearded guys. Even though Matt's got
one, I am not the world's number one beard fan...
Linz
--
Oh, not really a pedant, I wouldn't say.
http://www.gofar.demon.co.uk/ - Issue 2.0 available now
In AUE all Englishes are equal, though each is more
equal than all the others. Bob Lieblich, aue
Tom Lawton
<gr...@homechoice.co.za> writes
>... An experiment doesn't *have* to mean anything, and
>IMHO, there is nothing wrong with 'just playing around' to see
>what happens.
>
>Gizelle
sounds like the now infamous "Teapot" "Experiment".
TTFN,
--
Tom Lawton
ICQ:21604785
DJ and Thrower of Disco Shapes since 1995
Asperger's Syndrome: A socially acceptable affliction for the new millenium.
Gizelle
>
>sounds like the now infamous "Teapot" "Experiment".
>
Hmmm. literally *in*-famous, I have never heard of it :-). Care
to elucidate?
in...@fdhoekstra.nl
>
> Tom Lawton wrote :
>
> >sounds like the now infamous "Teapot" "Experiment".
> >
> Hmmm. literally *in*-famous, I have never heard of it :-). Care
> to elucidate?
It was a bit of ground-breaking social research by our esteemed
co-afp'er Chris J. Horry, who conducted it by simply placing a
teapot in the middle of the group and watching the group's
reactions. The teapot was a small and red one[1].
I don't know what interesting, perhaps scientifically significant,
conclusions Mr. Horry drew from this experiment, but we certainly
enjoyed the tea[2].
Richard
[1] This kind of detail is important in describing experiments :-)
[2] Well, I'm a teaoholic, ok?
Mike Knell
In article <372b5778....@news.lspace.org>,
M.E.S <kazulspa...@rotfl.com> wrote:
>>2) Smile
>
>This bit I don't find that important. I've personally had crushes on
>guys with terrible teeth.
There's more to a smile than rows of pearly whites. It has to reach the
eyes, you know.
Besides, enough people generally keep their mouths closed when smiling
(myself included, just to declare the vested interest) that teeth just
ain't an issue most of the time. Indeed, one could say that the typical
"toothy grin" can be taken too far - what's known as the American High
School Yearbook Syndrome. Lots of rows of gleaming gnashers with nothing
behind them...
Then again, the bits of me that people seem to remark on are a bit,
ah, lower down, so what do I know?
Mike "Stan" K.
Melody Shanahan-Kluth
Mike Knell <m...@tuatha.org> wrote in message
news:7gs5t9$ub5$1...@dagda.tuatha.org...
Snipped to get to the erm interesting bit <g>
>
> Then again, the bits of me that people seem to remark on are a bit,
> ah, lower down, so what do I know?
Ahhh..ermm..okaay..how do I put this genteely? Errr I *think* we were
talking abpout first impressions....and unless you are a flasher (not
unknown Ill grant you that) or you are talking about legs (I covered that
with the height thing I reckon and anyway they are normally covered by
trousers) I'm at a loss...care to elucidate? :o)
Ray-Me-Krid
>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?
It may sound strange, but think about it... I found that the nose
plays quite a determining factor.
If the nose is nice or not can completely determine the overall effect
of a face.
Well, of course I, too, don't consciously look at someones nose first,
but I think it's the part of the face that adds most to the character
of someone's looks.
If you don't think that a cute nose can make an otherwise 'avarage'
face beautiful, I think that at least most people will agree that an
ugly nose (whatever may seem ugly to your personal preferences) can
completely ruin the effect of an otherwise beautiful face.
And - as eyes have been mentioned quite often here - it takes quite
close examination to find out, if the eyes are really beautiful and
they surely can't give someone a beautiful profile.
Apart from that, the 'attitude' may play the most important role. The
overall impression you get from someone - if s/he is open minded and
has a nice smile - can often be more important than plain physical
looks. But this probably already counts as second impression, as you
actually have to observe that person in a conversation / social
situation.
Bye,
Krid. (NOT a nose-fetishist... hmm... but then again.....;) )
esmi
> >This bit I don't find that important. I've personally had crushes on
> >guys with terrible teeth.
> There's more to a smile than rows of pearly whites. It has to reach the
> eyes, you know.
>
> Besides, enough people generally keep their mouths closed when smiling
> (myself included, just to declare the vested interest) that teeth just
> ain't an issue most of the time.
IIRC, smiles that show little or no teeth tend to be the most genuine or
natural smiles. When was the last time you asked a child to smile for the
camera and got the most awful, face-clenched, eyes screwed up, toothy
grimace? From what I can remember from reading a few tomes on body
language/non-verbal communication, over emphasised displays of toothiness
when smiling tend to imply aggression. IIRC there was a parallel drawn
between non-natural human smiles and the teeth baring displays that apes
enact when threatened.
Laughter, OTOH, often results in the kind of wide open mouth where
everyone can see your recent dental treatment....which could, I suppose,
mean that laughter (and humour) indicates a reaction to a threatening
situation....
Oooer...I feel a sense of deja vue...
esmi
--
Lspace Web: <http://www.lspace.org/>
Need help with afp?
Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
Nathan F. Yospe
1999 20:56:46 GMT, you claimed:
>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?
For a long time, it was predatory eyes. Narrowing, focussed, intelligent
eyes that ripped you bare...
See, I'd fallen in love with a girl with eyes like that. Not that I fell
for the eyes at first. I hadn't even noticed what she looked like before
I fell in love. Love at first listen... I've never heard anyone else who
could talk physics in such an intoxicating manner, and still be utterly,
unbelievably passionate...
So, for a long time, it was just a matter of having the same mannerisms,
good or bad, as someone else.
But I got burned a few times, and I got over her, and for a long time, I
didn't even look, and certainly was never tempted...
Now, it might have been that if I had met one or three of the people who
are now a part of my life before other events had transpired, I might've
found my way into a relationship again, by the old method of noticing an
attractive girl with intelligence... I think I subconciously tally their
textbooks and sort their speeches... but that was not how events were to
unfold.
You see, I met someone upon this very forum who impressed me with mental
acuity and humour, and who captivated me with common interests, and such
was my impression that, upon meeting her face to face, I discovered that
same intense fascination I'd felt once before...
And so, I say here, with absolute honesty... it is words first, and only
then do I see beauty.
--
Look, there's no reason we can't get along. Aside from one minor detail:
You're a rat, I'm a cat, cats eat rats. And I hate to befriend my lunch.
Nathan F. Yospe: email yospe#hawaii.edu; <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe>
University of Hawaii, Manoa Dept. of Physics; Textron Systems, Maui Ops.
Morgan Lewis
>
> stephe...@bigfoot.com (Stephen Booth), is it true that on Mon, 03
> May 1999 20:56:46 GMT, you claimed:
>
> >If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> >attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> >street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> >really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> >and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> >look?
>
> For a long time, it was predatory eyes. Narrowing, focussed,
> intelligent eyes that ripped you bare...
>
> See, I'd fallen in love with a girl with eyes like that. Not that I
> fell for the eyes at first. I hadn't even noticed what she looked like
> before I fell in love. Love at first listen... I've never heard anyone
> else who could talk physics in such an intoxicating manner, and still
> be utterly, unbelievably passionate...
> Nathan F. Yospe:
With me, both of those are definitely factors.... Since most people I
meet I see before I hear them, visual factors are definitely there. The
eyes being first and foremost; I always notice a person's eyes before
the rest of them, so it's only natural that I'd notice an attractive
girl's eyes right off the bat as well. And the girls I tend to fall
hardest for are those that impress me with their intelligence (usually
by being so smart that even a person with my ego has to admit that he
just might be outmatched. This isn't to say I think I'm smarter than
most people; rather that I have trouble admitting that anybody might be
*smarter* than me. This weird juxtaposition leads to my "everybody is a
genius" theory...) And, also, their voice itself is a definite factor
with me. When you live the first ten years of your life with such poor
vision that faces can't be made out more than 6 inches away (and without
realizing it's not normal, since you've never known different), you
learn to pay great attention to sound. So a person's voice is probably
the first thing I notice other than their eyes. (The girl I probably
fell hardest for had beautiful, tranquil eyes, a keen intellect, and a
laugh that I can honestly say was like music. Naturally she wasn't the
least bit interested in me. C'est la vie.)
After those factors, I'd say the next important thing is if it all goes
together well....Are her eyes, hair and skin all colors that look nicely
together, or do they clash a bit? (To me, pale skin and raven hair
clash and aren't attractive, though many guys find it so. To each their
own. No offense to any Snow Whites out there.) Is everything in
proportion? If yes to both, then the girl will probably be at least
moderately attractive to me, though not necessarily enough to really
pique my interest. (The above paragraph being requirements for that.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Marian
In article <7gptvr$n1h$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
"Melody Shanahan-Kluth" <Melo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
> Matt A Simms <matt...@wordonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3730...@glitch.nildram.co.uk...
> >
> > Stephen Booth wrote in message <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > >If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> > >attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> > >street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> > >really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> > >and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> > >look?
> >
> >
> > I have to agree with you on the eyes. It's the first thing I look at
> unless
> > she has her back to me, but then I'll still reserve judgement until I see
> > her blinkers.
> > IMHO the order for me is:
> > 1.) Eyes
> > 2.) Smile
> > 3.) How she carries herself
> > 4.) Her Laugh
> > 5.) Her smell
> > 6.) Sense of humour
>
> Well...as female..I quite like the idea that eyes are very important to a
> chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
> chap[1] are:
> 1) Sense of Humour
> 2) Smile
> 3) Shoulders (dont ask)
> 4) Back of neck (ditto)
> 5) Height (well....I am nearly 6 feet tall myself)
> 6) Hands..I *like* big hands :o)
>
> [1] Hubby fills ALL these criteria in case anyone was wondering <g>
First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He
needs to have nice shoulders. Both of the guys I'm dating have absolutely
wonderful shoulders (the one finds it quite humorous that every girl he has
dated who has made claim to a certain body part or feature as being the
reason she liked him at first has chosen a different one).
It has to be the shoulders. I've met some very nice guys who just had the
wrong type of shoulders, too frail or too big or what have you and just
wasn't interested for that reason alone.
Long hair, height, humor, interests that they share other than tongue
wrestling, shoulders . . . umm, shoulders . . . chest, shoulders . . . did I
mention the shoulders? Oh yes, and a definite plus is if he can give a back
rub. I melt at the mere mention of back rubs . . .
--
"I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you,
and so following; but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor
pray with you. What news on the Rialto?"
- Merchant of Venice I.ii.35-38
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marian
"David Chapman" <sent...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> --
> sent...@globalnet.co.uk
> Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> > street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> > really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> > and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> > look?
>
> considering.
>
> If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
> initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>
Never heard of double Cs. I thought they went AA, A, B, C, D, DD and were
1/2" more than the underbust, 1", 2", 3", 4", 5" . . . then you get into
other letters . . .
I think I personally am a 36D[1][2] but I haven't bought a bra since I was 14
and tend only to wear them when I have a really lovely outfit which, if I want
to fit in, I need to do some compressing.
[1] I had to use a measuring tape to figure this out. 40" bust, 36"
underbust. [2] For some reason men who know I'm getting involved in the SCA
keep making all these suggestions and hints about Elizabethan garb.
SpareTurtle
Marian ... hang on aren't you really Brucianna?...
> Bruci's back!
>
> In article <7gptvr$n1h$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "Melody Shanahan-Kluth" <Melo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
> > chap[1] are:
>
> First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He
> needs to have nice shoulders.
I'm doomed.
That's two women in a row who say that they go for shoulders.
Both my shoulders have been turned into un-lovely wrecks by surgery over the
last 2 years.
I'm doomed....
Unless there is someone out there who has a nice smile and doesn't care about
a man's shoulders.
*sniffle*
SpareTurtle
Julia Jones
>If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
>initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>
Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
(Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
co. & Ponder Stibbons
Don't cry dear Spare Turtle, just grow your hair and grow a beard!
There's more than one afper that will find you attractive *regardless*
of your shoulders, AFAIAA ;-)
--
Elaine, afphianced to Stephen, John, Matt and AfPhantom,
and eternally, undyingly afpbeloved of Karl
The Things are also People
David Scully
>From what I can remember from reading a few tomes on body
>language/non-verbal communication, over emphasised displays of toothiness
>when smiling tend to imply aggression. IIRC there was a parallel drawn
>between non-natural human smiles and the teeth baring displays that apes
>enact when threatened.
ICBW, but I thought that teeth-baring in apes (chimpanzees anyway)
was a sign of submission and a declaration of *non*-aggression.
Maybe I was reading different books.....
--
David Scully
Heather Knowles
<a...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
Only eight and a half? ;)
>
>(Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)
There's nothing like a well-hung lurker.....
--
luv Heaven - Nanny Ogg to Stewart's Coven, snug in the Molehill,
At One with Mad Purple Dragon, Keeper of Heaven's Little Angels
(*hug*), and afpfiancée to Miq the Archangel Michael (*snog*)
Pam xxx
<snip very informative measurements>
> That's for normal day-to-day wear of course. Ideally you should
> try to get a proper fitting with a specialist bra fitter whenever
> you can. I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the
> developed world will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of
> their adult life, either too small so it cuts them in the bust
> and crushes their breasts (a potential cause of problems in later
> life) or too large and so not providing enough support (also a
> potential cause of problems in later life) -- very often a
> combination of both (bust to small and cup too large or cup to
> samll and bust too large)!
Speaking from the point of view of 42G I found the greatest danger to
my health to be from having a bra professionally fitted - when I left
the shop, wearing the new, excellently fitting garment, I overbalanced,
not being able to see the kerb, and I still swear I rocked when my
front hit the pavement <g> I certainly had a problem getting to my feet
again.
---
Pam xxx
Miq
>Unless there is someone out there who has a nice smile and doesn't care about
>a man's shoulders.
*I've* got a nice grimace and really don't give a toss about a
man's shoulders.
Unless he's about to hit me, that is.
>*sniffle*
*hug*
--
Miq
Laurabelle
<huge schnipp>
> That's for normal day-to-day wear of course. Ideally you should
> try to get a proper fitting with a specialist bra fitter whenever
> you can. I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the
> developed world will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of
> their adult life
<schnipp>
Hmmph, well that's because it's *impossible* to find the right size bra
for me! I will not broadcast my bra size on usenet, but suffice it to say
that it's possible to commonly find the right bust size but a too-small
cup size, or the approximately right cup size and a too-large bust size.
I have to go to specialized lingerie shops, and even then they don't have
my size in lots of styles! It really bites!
--
Laurabelle, AFPrelated to more lovely AFPers than will fit in this sig
"What a sense of possession, of confidence, it gave one to have pockets,
to shove one's fists into them, as if in simply owning pockets one owned
riches, owned independence." -- Anita Desai, _Clear Light of Day_
Paul E. Jamison
> In article <7gpung$apc$3...@gxsn.com>, David Chapman
> <sent...@globalnet.co.uk> writes
> >If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
> >initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>
>
> Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>
> (Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)
I;m reminded of an old jazz standard that Maria Muldaur covered back in the
'70s: "It Ain't the Meat, It's the Motion". Says it all for me, really.
Paul E. Jamison, Esq.
--
"So this Vorlon says to me, 'Never ask that question!' And I go, I says,
'IT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I'VE GOT, BABY!!"
- The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs Space Stations at Midnight
Charles A. Lieberman
> Indeed, one could say that the typical
> "toothy grin" can be taken too far - what's known as the American High
> School Yearbook Syndrome.
a/k/a "Jimmy Carter."
I don't rightly know what I find attractive in women. I can't think of a
feature any two of the women I've been attracted to in the last recently
share (well, other than the basic ones).
Including the most recent -- thanks, folks what counciled me ::hugs::
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "[A]pproximately 70% of the students at Stuyvesant
Brooklyn, NY, USA | fit the description of a teen-age homicidal maniac"
calieber at bu.edu | --letter in New York Post, April 28, 1999
Nathan F. Yospe
07 May 1999 07:38:22 GMT, you claimed:
>Bruci's back!
Hey! Welcome back, Marian!
>First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He
>needs to have nice shoulders. Both of the guys I'm dating have absolutely
<snip> Um... Sure.
>It has to be the shoulders. I've met some very nice guys who just had the
>wrong type of shoulders, too frail or too big or what have you and just
>wasn't interested for that reason alone.
So define "too big" with regard to shoulders, then? <fx: preparing broad
shoulders for possible offendedness and reminding them that the one that
counts likes them just fine as big as they are...>
I'll get my coat. It's that trench with wide shoulders.
Paul Wilkins
>Julia Jones writes
>>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>>
>>(Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)
>
Well, there's the well hung poster.
Then you can keep and admire them.
Paul Wilkins
Brian Howlett
[...bigsnip...]
>
> [Source: Littlewoods Catalogue]
<<<Boggle>>>
>
>
> That's for normal day-to-day wear of course. Ideally you should try
> to get a proper fitting with a specialist bra fitter whenever you can.
> I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the developed world
> will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of their adult life,
> either too small so it cuts them in the bust and crushes their breasts
> (a potential cause of problems in later life) or too large and so not
> providing enough support (also a potential cause of problems in later
> life) -- very often a combination of both (bust to small and cup too
> large or cup to samll and bust too large)!
Stephen - you really need to get out more... ;-)
--
Brian Howlett
--------------------------------------------------
Sex is great, but you can't beat the real thing...
Meg (the Magpie) Thornton
(Stephen Booth) said :
>I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the
>developed world will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of
>their adult life, either too small so it cuts them in the bust
>and crushes their breasts (a potential cause of problems in later
>life) or too large and so not providing enough support (also a
>potential cause of problems in later life) -- very often a
>combination of both (bust to small and cup too large or cup to
>samll and bust too large)!
>
Rant warning: To all those on #afp or elsewhere who have heard my "bra
rant" and don't want to hear it again - look away *now*
<rant>
Hmmm... let me tell you about ill-fitting bras. I'm a size 18 E
(Australian sizes - about 44E by the chart Stephen reproduced). This
means that my breasts weigh about 1kg *each*. Most bras, oddly
enough, are designed to support little B and C cup sizes (usually
about 200g per breast). See the disparity there?
So this is what happens to my bras: First, the weight of the breast
in the cup pulls the bra downward. This pulls the back strap (which
is the *only* anchor most bras have) up my back. Then, when the back
strap is as far up as it can manage (my shoulders get in the way -
real design fault there, maybe I should get them removed), the sliding
clip on the straps starts to work its way from the shortest possible
length (which is what I *always* set them at - I've been living with
this for years now, I'm used to it) to the longest. End result: My
bras provide support for a maximum of 3 weeks. After that, they're
useless.
Oh, and with an underwire bra, what happens is that the underwires,
instead of laying snugly against my chest/decolletage/the bit between
the tits, pout forward. This creates a very handy spot to put my keys
(anyone who tries to nick 'em is going to have to get *rather*
personal), but a rather ugly line on tshirts and suchlike.
The point being, for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly. They're just not
built to take the weight - the suspension system won't handle it.
What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
*easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
dressmaking out there?
</rant>
It's safe to look now <grin>
--
Meg (the Magpie) Thornton email: mag...@megabitch.tm
Please note: sending me spam or flames via email means that
you have consented to a $100 (.au) proofreading fee.
doc
the world a better place by saying...
> I;m reminded of an old jazz standard that Maria Muldaur covered back in the
> '70s: "It Ain't the Meat, It's the Motion". Says it all for me, really.
Related to Geoff Muldaur, i wonder? "Geee baby, ain't i good to you?"...
--
love&piece http://www.drvielgut.de
doc. mailto:d...@drvielgut.de
Rudewind-Rustling B.F.,B.Am.Ta. D.C.M (Unseen) The Order of Midnight
of wisdom:
Greetings Pam xxx
>Speaking from the point of view of 42G I found the greatest danger to
>my health to be from having a bra professionally fitted - when I left
I can't help but feel, that at 42G they should be registered as
lethal weapons :)
--
Rudewind-Rustling, _Shad0w_ to people on ICQ or even Chris Crowther on ocassion.
1613694 @ ICQ - sha...@shad0w.org - http://www.blood-runs-deep.org/shad0w/
Julia Jones
<heaven...@fanged.demon.co.uk> writes><a...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>
>>
I'm not repeating the story in a family newsgroup, but there is a
particular significance to the figure, and I know that other members of
the mailing list lurk here from time to time.
Heather Knowles
<pm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes
>Heather Knowles wrote
>>Julia Jones writes
>>>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>>>
>>
>>There's nothing like a well-hung lurker.....
>
>Well, there's the well hung poster.
>Then you can keep and admire them.
>
Don't make me laugh like that, Paul, it hurts my stomach muscles! :))
Ben Hutchings
In article <3731...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,
Chris Horry <lo...@the.sig.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>The original idea for the experiment was by one Kelvin Phillips, esq.
>Full information on what happened is available at
>http://www.wibble.co.uk/teapot [1]. of, if you want to see the results
>for yourself.
>
>Place a little red teapot in the center of the room. Sit back, and watch.
<snip>
Doesn't it start to rotate and wobble, and reflect multiple light
sources in an extremely realistic way?
Oh no, that's just an OpenGL demo.
So, why are teapots mandatory in OpenGL demos?
Ben (short and stout) (that was a lie)
--
Ben Hutchings - wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk, http://nowhere.at.the.moment
Team *AMIGA* | Jay Miner Society | Linux - the choice of a GNU generation
Sturgeons's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crud.
Ben Hutchings
Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
<snip>
>You measure your ribcage immediatly under your bust and teh
>fullest par of you bust then It's (all measurements in inches):
<snip tables>
Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)
Ben.
Martyn Clapham
afpers may be interested in the information.
In article <3733e677...@newshost.dynamite.com.au>, Meg (the Magpie)
Thornton <mag...@megabitch.tm> writes
[ snip Megs bra problems ]
>The point being, for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
>about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly. They're just not
>built to take the weight - the suspension system won't handle it.
>What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
>the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
>*easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
>the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
>dressmaking out there?
There was a program on UK TV about this recently ( actually a repeat
from last year ).
Two designers were challenged to re-design common objects ( a car, a bra
and a loo! ).
For the bra they came up with the idea of replacing the under-wire with
a semi-flexible plastic moulding. This is designed to give support
without the problem of a wire coming adrift, but it will also mould
itself to the shape of the breast so that all of it is supported.
IIRC the manufacturer is Charnos and the update at the end of the
program stated that the bras are now undergoing manufacturing tests and
should be on the market within 6 to 12 months.
During the design stage they had the help of a young lady who models
bras for larger bust sizes, she thought it was a great improvement and
that was one of the early prototypes.
>It's safe to look now <grin>
I'd rather not as I don't fancy a slap! :-))
Mart - fount of useless knowledge!
--
http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk/index.htm Mobile 0410 468303
Full-time general weirdo and professional ex-afpfiance. :-)
Kevin Hackett
Ben Hutchings wrote in message <7h1u85$49r$1...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>...
>
>In article <3731...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,
>Chris Horry <lo...@the.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>Place a little red teapot in the center of the room. Sit back, and watch.
><snip>
>
>Doesn't it start to rotate and wobble, and reflect multiple light
>sources in an extremely realistic way?
>
>Oh no, that's just an OpenGL demo.
>
>So, why are teapots mandatory in OpenGL demos?
As far as I can remember, the teapot was the standard test model for a
renderer. I don't know why (probably force of habit or too much caffeine),
but it is used for benchmarking, being a reasonably simple object with all
sorts of variations in smoothing and curves.
I know I talk rubbish, but this time it's true, I swear. I use 3D Studio
Max at work, and the selection of standard primitves are box, sphere, cone,
cylinder, and some others, and teapot, so the old habit still goes on.
Oops, I've just handed out normal, useful information... I need a lie down.
Cheers,
Kevin
A pet is for life, not just for breakfast
Marian
yo...@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Marian <marian_debor...@washcoll.edu>, is it true that on Fri,
> 07 May 1999 07:38:22 GMT, you claimed:
>
> >Bruci's back!
>
> Hey! Welcome back, Marian!
I missed the 'froup
> >First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He
> >needs to have nice shoulders. Both of the guys I'm dating have absolutely
>
> <snip> Um... Sure.
It's a long story. I've been dating the one since October and the other since
early April, both know about each other and I'm still dating both of them.
> >It has to be the shoulders. I've met some very nice guys who just had the
> >wrong type of shoulders, too frail or too big or what have you and just
> >wasn't interested for that reason alone.
>
> So define "too big" with regard to shoulders, then? <fx: preparing broad
> shoulders for possible offendedness and reminding them that the one that
> counts likes them just fine as big as they are...>
Well, um, like, <thinks> King Kong big . . .
The shoulders need to be proportioned just right in relationship to my own
football-player shoulders so that they make a nice pillow.
Marian
mag...@megabitch.tm wrote:
> Oh, and with an underwire bra, what happens is that the underwires,
> instead of laying snugly against my chest/decolletage/the bit between
> the tits, pout forward. This creates a very handy spot to put my keys
> (anyone who tries to nick 'em is going to have to get *rather*
> personal), but a rather ugly line on tshirts and suchlike.
>
> The point being, for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
> about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly. They're just not
> built to take the weight - the suspension system won't handle it.
> What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
> the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
> *easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
> the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
> dressmaking out there?
I don't think they could be worn with t-shirts, but Elizabethan bodices are
wonderful for support. Same goes for corsets. If you want to make on
yourself there is http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets and there are bunches
of places out there that sell them custom made.
Marian
Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3733363...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >You measure your ribcage immediatly under your bust and teh
> >fullest par of you bust then It's (all measurements in inches):
> <snip tables>
>
> Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
> of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)
Could someone repost Stephen's message, it isn't coming up on Dejanews.
jester
wrote:
<snip>
>Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
>of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)
Oh, don't worry about it. Those particular measurements don't always work.
It depedns on the manufacturer, Same as sizing any clothing really.
Andy Brown
--
http://www.innotts.co.uk/~jester/ | Unsound Engineer to the MAS
AFP Code V1.1a AC$/Mu-UK dx@ s-:@ a UP+ R>+ F h> P-- OSUD:>- ?C M-
pp>++ L C- B+ Cn-:+:+ PT++ PU68@ 5 X++ MT+ eV++ r>++ y*-- end
Jacqueline Hookey
> On 8 May 1999 18:06:41 GMT, Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
> >of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)
>
> Oh, don't worry about it. Those particular measurements don't always work.
> It depedns on the manufacturer, Same as sizing any clothing really.
This is *so* true... Just cause you find your bra size doesn't mean
it'll fit properly and look nice... One major thing can be the placing
of the cups - close together or set further apart... This can make a
huge difference in how a bra fits even the same size bra made by the
same manufacture can fit differently if it's a different style <sigh>
Ookey
--
<<<< Inline |Live your life with no regrets, love with all your
>>>>>>_o Skating |heart, for we know not what's to come, so now's the
<<<<<'/ Punk |time to start... AFPurity 27% AFPetite 'n insane ;)
[ÕÕÕÕ] Hedgehog|www.cadvision.com/woodrr & www.lacestudio.demon.co.uk
Natalie M., Renegade Soubrette
> wonderful for support. Same goes for corsets. If you want to make on
> yourself there is http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets and there are bunches
> of places out there that sell them custom made.
have the time I'll make one... Recently though I did manage to almost
give my theory prof a heart attack with the following exchange:
(I'm standing by the box office of our recital hall talking to a friend of
mine who's working that evening, D W-S (theory prof) marches up about 15
minutes late)
me: "What do you think you're doing coming here now?"
D W-S: "Well, I'm doing exactly that."
me (wagging a finger coyly): "Well, can I just reprimand you a little
bit?"
D W-S: "You're into that kind of thing, are you?"
me: "Yes, and I also enjoy corsetry."
OK, there was very little point to that, but it was funny when it
happened....
nattie, who had far too much fun with the bodices in last semester's opera
Natalie Mayer, driven feverish and delirious by spring
All new, all magnifical (?!?!) http://rohan.sdsu.edu/~nmayer
"No one pushed them into the canal..."
(PLEASE help me find a new sig-file quote!)
Paul E. Jamison
> In <3733A1A1...@wichita.infi.net>, paul...@wichita.infi.net made
> the world a better place by saying...
> > I;m reminded of an old jazz standard that Maria Muldaur covered back in the
> > '70s: "It Ain't the Meat, It's the Motion". Says it all for me, really.
>
> Related to Geoff Muldaur, i wonder? "Geee baby, ain't i good to you?"...
Just did a search on the 'net and according to a biography given on the All Music
Guide (www.allmusic.com), she was, kinda. They were married during the 60s, when
they were members of the I'mnotmakingthisup Kim Kweskin Jug Band. Maria and
Geoff divorced in '72, and she went on to a solo career. Her most famous single
would be, I suppose, "Midnight at the Oasis". From what I can see, she's still
recording. The site lists 20(!) albums.
I can remember listening to her stuff when it first came out. Gad, that makes me
feel old. I think it's time for a nap.
Elchonon Edelson
>
> Bruci's back!
And welcome.
[heavy snip]
> Long hair, height, humor, interests that they share other than tongue
> wrestling, shoulders . . . umm, shoulders . . . chest, shoulders . . . did I
> mention the shoulders? Oh yes, and a definite plus is if he can give a back
> rub. I melt at the mere mention of back rubs . . .
I'm sorry, I just can't resist this.
"back rubs".
<g>
--
Elchonon Edelson <e...@isoft.com>
We aim to please. Ourselves, mostly, but we do aim to please.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Japanese proverb:
There are two kinds of fools - those who never
climb Mt. Fuji, and those who climb it twice.
Charles A. Lieberman
Meg (the Magpie) Thornton
> for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
> about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly.
I'd wondered why so many women here[1] seem not to avail themselves of this
particular item.
[1] "women here"=female Boston University students
--
Charles A. Lieberman Brooklyn, NY, USA FairGo on IRC
AFP Code 1.1 ALi d? s:+ a-- U++ R F h? P! OSD--:-- ?C M-- pp--- L c B- Cn
PT--- Pu90@ !5 !X MT++ e r !y+ end
And I'd've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!
Philippa Chapman
>Hmmm... let me tell you about ill-fitting bras. I'm a size 18 E
>(Australian sizes - about 44E by the chart Stephen reproduced). This
>means that my breasts weigh about 1kg *each*. Most bras, oddly
>enough, are designed to support little B and C cup sizes (usually
>about 200g per breast). See the disparity there?
Um, yes.
>
>So this is what happens to my bras: First, the weight of the breast
>in the cup pulls the bra downward. This pulls the back strap (which
>is the *only* anchor most bras have) up my back. Then, when the back
>strap is as far up as it can manage (my shoulders get in the way -
>real design fault there, maybe I should get them removed), the sliding
>clip on the straps starts to work its way from the shortest possible
>length (which is what I *always* set them at - I've been living with
>this for years now, I'm used to it) to the longest. End result: My
>bras provide support for a maximum of 3 weeks. After that, they're
>useless.
>
I can only suggest specialist firms who make bespoke bras for larger
ladies. There are a few in Britain. I don't know where you'd find them in
Aus. Either that or (especially if they are causing back problems) the
radical alternative - reductive surgery. Not much of an option, I know,
but I sympathise.
>The point being, for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
>about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly. They're just not
>built to take the weight - the suspension system won't handle it.
>What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
>the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
>*easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
>the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
>dressmaking out there?
The idea of a corset that someone else suggested (like they had in Mozart's
day) with boning (it's plastic now!) might work. Try looking for a
dressmaker who specialises in undergarments. Your local theatre costume
mistress/master? An opera group? Someone like that, anyway.
<Wish you could send a cup size by the post or through the ether to
us...smaller...ladies!> <B cup!>
Philippa, Barbarian houri!
'I was Death! Death on a horse!' - Methos, Highlander
Jenny Holmberg
> I'd wondered why so many women here[1] seem not to avail themselves of this
> particular item.
Because it's uncomfortable?
Either you need a bra, because you're the shape that needs a bra to
feel comfortable, or you don't need it. If you don't need it, why use
it?
--
Jenny With the Axe, and the Temper http://www.algonet.se/~jenny-h/
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
"You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else."
--Ambassador Delenn, B5
co. & Ponder Stibbons
<marian_debor...@washcoll.edu> wrote:
>In article <7h1ufh$4ah$1...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>,
> Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <3733363...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >You measure your ribcage immediatly under your bust and teh
>> >fullest par of you bust then It's (all measurements in inches):
>> <snip tables>
>>
>> Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
>> of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)
>
>Could someone repost Stephen's message, it isn't coming up on Dejanews.
Has anyone (everyone?) noticed how Stephen keeps starting Bra threads?
I am beginning to think I may have misunderstood the meaning of
*Support Specialist* in his sig. <g,d,r>
--
Elaine, afphianced to Stephen, John, Matt and AfPhantom,
and eternally, undyingly afpbeloved of Karl
The Things are also People
esmi
demon...@oversized.freeserve.co.uk said...
> jester <jes...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 8 May 1999 18:06:41 GMT, Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)
> >
> > It depedns on the manufacturer, Same as sizing any clothing really.
>
> This is *so* true... Just cause you find your bra size doesn't mean
> it'll fit properly and look nice... One major thing can be the placing
> of the cups - close together or set further apart... This can make a
> huge difference in how a bra fits even the same size bra made by the
> same manufacture can fit differently if it's a different style <sigh>
Which is why, having found a bra that fits reasonably well, we'll go
through hell and high water to buy the same manufacturer and style each
time. And why, if that particular style is discontinued, we go into semi-
mourning!
esmi
--
Lspace Web: <http://www.lspace.org/>
Need help with afp?
Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
esmi
mag...@megabitch.tm said...
> <rant>
<hack, slash..>
> What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
> the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
> *easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
> the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
> dressmaking out there?
> </rant>
Hmm..do you mean something along the lines of a basque or shortened
corset? Decent basques have boning or other support at the front which is
designed to support the bust AFAIK. Have you ever tried one?
esmi
said...
<hack>
> Ideally you should
> try to get a proper fitting with a specialist bra fitter whenever
> you can.
Which, these days, is a heck of a lot easier said than done. Unless you
can get to a specialist lingerie shop or a decent (and maybe slightly
old-fashioned) department store, requests for a bra-fitting are usually
met with totally bemused expressions. *sigh*
esmi
who knows that she needs at least a size larger atm but would like to
make sure
Mike Knell
In article <3734...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,
Chris Horry <lo...@the.sig.invalid> wrote:
>Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk> stated:
>
>: So, why are teapots mandatory in OpenGL demos?
>
>Tradition.
Not just OpenGL - as has been previously mentioned, the teapot is _the_
standard item for rendering tests, probably 'cause it's an interesting
shape (spouty!) but not too hard to construct from primitives..
The earliest piece of "goshwow" rendering I remember seeing, many years
ago, was a teapot rendered on a Cray-1.
m.
Mike Knell
In article <37444075...@news.globalnet.co.uk>,
Philippa Chapman <phil...@dapc.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I can only suggest specialist firms who make bespoke bras for larger
>ladies.
Have I spent too long in the computer business, or does the obvious converse
of this ("turnkey bras") sound someone, er, odd?
Mike "one step away from a chastity belt" K.
Mike Knell
In article <vm7LdWBs...@jajones.demon.co.uk>,
Julia Jones <a...@jajones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm not repeating the story in a family newsgroup
No flame, but I should point out that alt.fan.pratchett should _not_ be
regarded as a family newsgroup in the "safe-for-the-kids" kind of way.
Any parent who lets their child wander around Usenet unsupervised needs
their head examining, as you never know what's going to crop up, even
in this place.
In my time on a.f.p I've seen plenty, er, full and frank discussions.
Family newsgroup it ain't - even to the extent that a lot of people don't
do that weaselly asterisking-out-your-swearwords bit...
Mike "fsck(8)" K.
Julia Jones
writes
>No flame, but I should point out that alt.fan.pratchett should _not_ be
>regarded as a family newsgroup in the "safe-for-the-kids" kind of way.
>Any parent who lets their child wander around Usenet unsupervised needs
>their head examining, as you never know what's going to crop up, even
>in this place.
Erm, yes, I should perhaps have inserted a smiley somewhere in there
lest someone take it as a serious endorsement of afp as safe for the
kiddiewinkies. Sorry.
co. & Ponder Stibbons
Booth) wrote:
>On Sun, 09 May 1999 12:28:03 GMT, elaine...@cwcom.net (co. &
>Ponder Stibbons ) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Has anyone (everyone?) noticed how Stephen keeps starting Bra threads?
>>
>>I am beginning to think I may have misunderstood the meaning of
>>*Support Specialist* in his sig. <g,d,r>
>
>
>No, I'm just sick and twisted. :-) anyway this only the second
>one -- this year.
<snip>
Sorry if I upset you by my joke, Stephen.
Reply sent by email.
{{{{{{Hugs}}}}}} to Stephen, my dearly beloved afphiance -
a thoroughly *Good Man* tm :-)
--
Edmund
aka Leonardo da Quirm, aka Ponder S.
The Things are Also People
co. & Ponder Stibbons
Ponder Stibbons ) wrote:
>On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:37:38 GMT, stephe...@bigfoot.com (Stephen
>Booth) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 1999 12:28:03 GMT, elaine...@cwcom.net (co. &
>>Ponder Stibbons ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Has anyone (everyone?) noticed how Stephen keeps starting Bra threads?
>>>
>>>I am beginning to think I may have misunderstood the meaning of
>>>*Support Specialist* in his sig. <g,d,r>
>>
>>
>>No, I'm just sick and twisted. :-) anyway this only the second
>>one -- this year.
>
><snip>
>
>Sorry if I upset you by my joke, Stephen.
>
>Reply sent by email.
>
>{{{{{{Hugs}}}}}} to Stephen, my dearly beloved afphiance -
>a thoroughly *Good Man* tm :-)
Ooops - Edmund posted and I forgot to change the sig. back! It was
me, of course!
Laurabelle
<big snippage>
[Hooks in the back of bras:]
> [1] I understand that most women actually do it up back to front
> around their waist and then twist it round and pull it up so this
> shouldn't be an issue. Possibly a case of a male designer not
> really understand how the product is used and solving a problem
> that isn't there. Or am I wrong?
Personally, I just hook my bras up in the back. I'm flexible, and I don't
find it that hard. I suppose it took a little bit of practice at first,
but that was quite a few years ago, so I don't remember. In addition, I
don't know of anyone who does it the way Stephen suggested; I suppose
there must be quite a few, but I personally find that really awkward and
time-consuming.
There is the alternative of bras which fasten in the front; however, those
cannot be adjusted like the hooks in the back. They're just not worth the
trouble.
As a side note, I also have noticed Stephen's tendency towards bra
threads. <g> I think he knows more than me about them, and I wear them!
--
Laurabelle, AFPrelated to more lovely AFPers than will fit in this sig
"What a sense of possession, of confidence, it gave one to have pockets,
to shove one's fists into them, as if in simply owning pockets one owned
riches, owned independence." -- Anita Desai, _Clear Light of Day_
Nathan F. Yospe
1999 19:37:38 GMT, you claimed:
>On Sun, 09 May 1999 12:28:03 GMT, elaine...@cwcom.net (co. &
>Ponder Stibbons ) wrote:
>>Has anyone (everyone?) noticed how Stephen keeps starting Bra threads?
>>I am beginning to think I may have misunderstood the meaning of
>>*Support Specialist* in his sig. <g,d,r>
>No, I'm just sick and twisted. :-) anyway this only the second
>one -- this year.
>Could be gender identity issues (I'm serious, note lack of
>smilies from here on in). I think what it probably comes down to
>is that I've always got on a lot better with women/girls as
>friends than I have in a sexual/pseudosexual context or with
>men/boys as friends (I've never been in a sexual relationship
>with MOTSS).
Although it is less pronounced than it was earlier in my life, I've been
the same for most of my postadolescent life. I don't think it reflects a
gender identity issue... women are encouraged to form deeper friendships
and stronger understandings. Quite simply, they make better friends. The
fact that befriending women tends to make it harder to take advantage of
them is not a flaw. It just means you can't be in a relationship if that
means you have to be a bastard... which all too often, it does.
>I'm currently 29 and have a had a total of 3 girlfriends, 2 of
>those before I was 16 and the third when I was 22 and she was 19.
>I have never had a one night stand or similar short relationship.
<snip more details on the third relationship>
Seven years is an awfully long time, I'll grant. And it does lead to the
sort of depression you are expressing, I'd imagine. I always valued time
I spent single, but it rarely lasted more than a few years. I've had the
benifit of both perspectives, though. I spent much of my life as you are
now, and was rather bitter about it... then I discovered that I'd turned
into a different person when I wasn't looking, somewhere along the line,
and for a while, I became the other sort, one of the bastards. Now, with
my best friend being a girl, and an attractive one at that, I doubt this
could have happened if she hadn't decided to try being a player for that
same period of time... which means I really got exposure to perspectives
upon perspectives. A few years ago, I got so disgusted with all of it, I
decided to go back to where you are, and gratefully.
A year ago, I seriously lucked out, by pure chance, and found the person
I could actually spend a lifetime with...
I'm not *sure* this person you met on a MUD was wrong for you, but I can
hardly believe she would be right. I'd say "no regrets" on that one, for
what it's worth.
I am sure, as one of those guys that spent years listening, that none of
the women you serve as a listener for *would* be right, even if they did
suddenly notice that you were male. I've been there, man. Lonely or not,
if one of *those* turns your way, RUN! I'm not talking about one who you
can speak to as well, who really listens to you and shares your life, as
you share hers... if one like that is attracted to you, and mutually, it
could be the basis of a real relationship, one worth entering. But those
that you simply serve as a listener to... look, there's nothing wrong if
you help them by listening, by sympathising, even, if it is withing your
means and knowledge, advising and aiding... but the type who *will* take
a guy like you, or me in that mode, as a listener, while dating the type
of bastard that requires them to have a listener... those are poison for
you and I. Even for me, because I never *liked* playing the bastard, and
tended to lose it after getting *into* a relationship... and for someone
who *can't*, they... well, there's a mode some of them will get into, in
between dating the bastards, one I've seen a few times... they need that
sympathy, and they latch onto the provider, and begin to drain... and if
they get enough of it, they start demanding that you turn into a bastard
type, one way or another.
That's not to say it's hopeless. Sometimes you meet someone who wants to
listen to you as much as talk to you... even better, sometimes she needs
only a competant partner to stand at her back. That, I think, is what it
really should be... and this is nothing but the vagrancy of chance. This
is not something you can control, or guarantee, but it isn't without the
hope of possibility.
>On the other hand I have had lots and lots of female friends,
>just friends. Very, very good friends but just friends. I
>suppose after a while I became an honourary girlie[1]. Somone to
>sit up with and drink wine and chat about this and that. Somone
>who'll commiserate with them about failed relationships (I've
>lost count of the number of times I've heard "All men as
>bastards![2] Except you Stephen." or for that matter threatened
>with a beating because the man she was running from thought she
>was running to me).
Been there. More times, with more women, than I can count. I've even got
a group of women... mostly social workers, no less... that has named me,
and another guy, honorary women. Of course, we muster token protests for
the emmasculation, but it is some small honor. On the other hand, one of
those women is a genuine, two way friend to the both of us.
As for the threatened beating... I've actually been hauled in as a false
"new beau" in extreme cases. I suppose I'd have objected more were I not
the equal of most guys in the physical department... nevertheless, there
was a time when this would happen, and I, having only had one girlfriend
since elementary school... perhaps two, if definitions were stretched...
and having a girl I was actually attracted to do this... would find that
I couldn't stand the charade. A part of me would protest, "If I'm not so
unattractive that you would *claim* to be dating me, why shouldn't you?"
and neglect the fact that I had never... have never, to this day... been
the one to make the first move, with no indication of the answer from my
prospective paramour.
I've always wondered how it was for other guys who couldn't ask first. I
suspect the lot of us either end up dating the agressive, or possessive,
or stumble across that unexpected, unsuspected, mutually undeniable love
interest, and finally discover a voice, when the question has become but
a formality.
>Somone who'll watch soppy movies with them.
>Somone who'll hug them and tell them that they're beautiful and
>not expect sex. Somone who'll take them out and get them utterly
>drunk when they need it, and not take advantage to cop a feel or
>more. Somone who'll say "Wow you look great!" and not "Oh,
>you've had you hair done.".
And none of these things are a fault... and the right one will know this
to be true. She can retain *her* friendships, and not worry about you as
a part of them, because you can be friends without chasing after more.
>But never somone who could ever possibly be a lover.
And this is bad because? Simply a lover is not something I'd want to be.
Seriously, have you looked at the way you described these relationships?
You're not in love... you aren't even a friendship on equal terms! There
isn't anything wrong with this, but you *should* be aware of it. There's
no even give and take... I mean, you turn to US when you need an ear! To
people you don't even really *know*!
And of course, I've been as guilty myself, in the past, and there's some
one-time regulars out there who know all about me and my woes with women
and self and life and sex... but it doesn't mean you want a relationship
with any sort of commitment to it with one of these female friends.
>When you are involved in disscussions about clothes, chocolate,
>periods, PMT, Evening Primrose Oil, cellulite and all the other
>things some of it sinks in.
Yes. Not to mention being taking along while shopping for unmentionables
and other delicate items...
>[2] I've come to the conclusion that many men are, unfortunately
>they're also good looking and drive cool cars and so get a lot of
>dates.
On the other hand, those dates lead to hollow relationships. Believe me,
it isn't worth being a bastard.
And I never drove a cool car.
--
Look, there's no reason we can't get along. Aside from one minor detail:
You're a rat, I'm a cat, cats eat rats. And I hate to befriend my lunch.
Nathan F. Yospe: email yospe#hawaii.edu; <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe>
University of Hawaii, Manoa Dept. of Physics; Textron Systems, Maui Ops.
jester
On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:37:38 GMT, Stephen Booth
<stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>No, I'm just sick and twisted. :-)
Nothing wrong with sick & twisted. Some people like that 8-)
>anyway this only the second one -- this year.
>
>Could be gender identity issues (I'm serious, note lack of
>smilies from here on in).
OK. Serious topic, but I think we can handle it, if not here, then by
e-mail. If I don't know the answer I'm sure I can find somebody to ask.
>I think what it probably comes down to
>is that I've always got on a lot better with women/girls as
>friends than I have in a sexual/pseudosexual context or with
>men/boys as friends (I've never been in a sexual relationship
>with MOTSS).
My first thought was 'snap'. Then I realised that I never got on with
anybody particularly well until recently (with a couple of exceptions)
>
>I'm currently 29 and have a had a total of 3 girlfriends, 2 of
>those before I was 16 and the third when I was 22 and she was 19.
I shouldn't worry about that too much. I'm thirty and in my first proper
relationship.
>I have never had a one night stand or similar short relationship.
From other posts, I think we've picked up the fact that you're a
gentleman, and like some others of us here aren't happy with that sort of
thing. Each to their own.
>The woman with whom I had my only adult relationship was
>bisexual, we met on a MUD where we were both playing opposite
>gender characters.
I'm not sure whether either of those is relevant. I know a couple of
people who made a habit of playing opposite gender characters without it
having any bearing on their own gender identity.
>We initiated a relationship based purely our
>similar tastes in music and cinema, and built from there.
Sounds like very good reasons to start with.
>We got engaged about a year later (she proposed to me) and split up 8
>months after that when she got thrown out of university and met
>someone else.
Sorry to hear that.
>We never consumated our relationship, mainly due to my fears.
Fear will do that to you. (BTDT, part of why I've been unattached so long)
<sniplet>
>On the other hand I have had lots and lots of female friends,
>just friends. Very, very good friends but just friends. I
>suppose after a while I became an honourary girlie[1]. Somone to
>sit up with and drink wine and chat about this and that. Somone
>who'll commiserate with them about failed relationships (I've
>lost count of the number of times I've heard "All men as
>bastards![2] Except you Stephen." or for that matter threatened
>with a beating because the man she was running from thought she
>was running to me). Somone who'll watch soppy movies with them.
>Somone who'll hug them and tell them that they're beautiful and
>not expect sex. Somone who'll take them out and get them utterly
>drunk when they need it, and not take advantage to cop a feel or
>more. Somone who'll say "Wow you look great!" and not "Oh,
>you've had you hair done.".
There's that gentleman coming through again. You're obviously somebody
they feel comfortable with, and you seem to have fairly good standards for
your own personal behaviour.
>
>But never somone who could ever possibly be a lover.
Ouch! Stick with it. Somewhere there's somebody for you (that's a belief
that kept me going for a long time)
>
>When you are involved in disscussions about clothes, chocolate,
>periods, PMT, Evening Primrose Oil, cellulite and all the other
>things some of it sinks in.
I'm sure it does.
Now, there's nothing in that lot which would immediately make me think
about any gender identity problems (when did I become an expert?), but
planety of stuff which says 'nice guy in a bastard's world'.
This is something which can be difficult to handle as well, when your own
ethics won't let you do things that other blokes get away with.
I'm sure there will be lots of posts coming along soon to say don't
change, cos the world needs fewer bastards.
That having been said, I'll just repeat the offer I made way back at the
top, and say that if you want to talk about anything related to this you
can e-mail me.
Ben Hutchings
I think I should have said rendering, since I have seen teapots
rendered in demos on the Amiga. My Amiga could manage about 0.5 fps
for a typical OpenGL teapot scene, so I rather think these demos are
using rather cleverer and less precise rendering ;-)
There was also a brief tradition of rendering ducks (shaped being more
like a bath-duck than a real one) in Amiga 3D demos. Another old
favourite is the torus, but some variation is required in rendering
that (e.g. holes in the surface or real-time distortions). Finally,
to show off, one should render a face.
--
Ben Hutchings - wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk, http://nowhere.at.the.moment
Team *AMIGA* | Jay Miner Society | Linux - the choice of a GNU generation
Sturgeons's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crud.
Jacqueline Hookey
> I'll bet nobody expected me to follow-up to this one *grin*
> On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:37:38 GMT, Stephen Booth
> <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >No, I'm just sick and twisted. :-)
>
> Nothing wrong with sick & twisted. Some people like that 8-)
Heck, it'd be one big boring World if we all felt, looked and thought
the same way... ;)
> >anyway this only the second one -- this year.
> >
> >Could be gender identity issues (I'm serious, note lack of
> >smilies from here on in).
>
> OK. Serious topic, but I think we can handle it, if not here, then by
> e-mail. If I don't know the answer I'm sure I can find somebody to ask.
I tend to agree, we can deal with most things here - and if not in
public, then in private by e-mail...
> >I think what it probably comes down to
> >is that I've always got on a lot better with women/girls as
> >friends than I have in a sexual/pseudosexual context or with
> >men/boys as friends (I've never been in a sexual relationship
> >with MOTSS).
>
> My first thought was 'snap'. Then I realised that I never got on with
> anybody particularly well until recently (with a couple of exceptions)
I have probably more male frineds than female myself... Oh and I do
mean friends and nothing more - no wondering about my being feamle
though... I just tend to get on well with men (except those I've benn
fool enough to marry in the past) ;)
> >I'm currently 29 and have a had a total of 3 girlfriends, 2 of
> >those before I was 16 and the third when I was 22 and she was 19.
>
> I shouldn't worry about that too much. I'm thirty and in my first proper
> relationship.
This really isn't all that unusual - though I might have been in
relationships in the past, I really don't think until quite recently I
was mentally ready to deal with a real relationship - it's been like
part of me wasn't there... <sigh>
> >I have never had a one night stand or similar short relationship.
>
> From other posts, I think we've picked up the fact that you're a
> gentleman, and like some others of us here aren't happy with that sort of
> thing. Each to their own.
Again, we are all different - what's right for one isn't necessarily
right for another...
> >The woman with whom I had my only adult relationship was
> >bisexual, we met on a MUD where we were both playing opposite
> >gender characters.
>
> I'm not sure whether either of those is relevant. I know a couple of
> people who made a habit of playing opposite gender characters without it
> having any bearing on their own gender identity.
This is not something I've come across, so I've no knowledge abse to
work from - but that does seem to make sence to me... Just cause you
play a role, doesn't mean it has to affect who you are when out of that
role - if not we'd have some seriously screwed up actors! ;)
> >We initiated a relationship based purely our
> >similar tastes in music and cinema, and built from there.
>
> Sounds like very good reasons to start with.
Mutual likes and interests are a great place to start IMHO
> >We got engaged about a year later (she proposed to me) and split up 8
> >months after that when she got thrown out of university and met
> >someone else.
>
> Sorry to hear that.
Relationships ending is never easy to deal with (not even if you want
them to be over...) but it's part of life... <sigh>
> >We never consumated our relationship, mainly due to my fears.
>
> Fear will do that to you. (BTDT, part of why I've been unattached so long)
Fear can be utterly dibilitating, whether it's a fear that keeps you in
a relationship that is not doing you an ounce of good, or one that stops
you getting involved with anyone in the first place - neither are
good... But you can get past these fears, with time and understanding,
I've found little that can't be over come...
> <sniplet>
> >On the other hand I have had lots and lots of female friends,
> >just friends. Very, very good friends but just friends. I
> >suppose after a while I became an honourary girlie[1]. Somone to
> >sit up with and drink wine and chat about this and that. Somone
> >who'll commiserate with them about failed relationships (I've
> >lost count of the number of times I've heard "All men as
> >bastards![2] Except you Stephen." or for that matter threatened
> >with a beating because the man she was running from thought she
> >was running to me). Somone who'll watch soppy movies with them.
> >Somone who'll hug them and tell them that they're beautiful and
> >not expect sex. Somone who'll take them out and get them utterly
> >drunk when they need it, and not take advantage to cop a feel or
> >more. Somone who'll say "Wow you look great!" and not "Oh,
> >you've had you hair done.".
>
> There's that gentleman coming through again. You're obviously somebody
> they feel comfortable with, and you seem to have fairly good standards for
> your own personal behaviour.
Oh I do so with there were more men like you two out there, ones who'll
bother to comment on an effort made, a new hair style/colour, a nice
meal (not so often it feels fake though)
> >But never somone who could ever possibly be a lover.
>
> Ouch! Stick with it. Somewhere there's somebody for you (that's a belief
> that kept me going for a long time)
Over the years I've come to relaize I'd rather wake up next to someone I
care for and respect than someone who looks incredible - don't give up,
there are women out there looking for men like you, there really are..
> >When you are involved in disscussions about clothes, chocolate,
> >periods, PMT, Evening Primrose Oil, cellulite and all the other
> >things some of it sinks in.
>
> I'm sure it does.
It's very nice to have a man who's willing to talk about things you're
passionate about - what ever they may be, rather than do that typical
(sorry to those male afpers who're not like this) male "zone out" thing
when you talk about anything they don't understand or care about...
It's dead frustrating to have someone ask how your day was or what ever
and 2 secs later have 'em zone out on you... <sigh>
> Now, there's nothing in that lot which would immediately make me think
> about any gender identity problems (when did I become an expert?), but
> planety of stuff which says 'nice guy in a bastard's world'.
I've gotta agree there...
> This is something which can be difficult to handle as well, when your own
> ethics won't let you do things that other blokes get away with.
> I'm sure there will be lots of posts coming along soon to say don't
> change, cos the world needs fewer bastards.
Oh gods yes, more good guys are needed - the ones who'll listen to a
woman when she's upset and not think she's being a hysterical nit twit.
The kind who'll take your phone call in the early morning cause you've
woken yourself up with the worst nightmare of your life and you're all
alone and need reasuring... I've had my fill of bastards in my life,
what I want more than anything now is someone I can talk to and feel
safe with... <sigh>
<snip>
Ookey
--
<<<< Inline |Live your life with no regrets, love with all your
>>>>>>_o Skating |heart, for we know not what's to come, so now's the
<<<<<'/ Punk |time to start... AFPurity 27% AFPetite 'n insane ;)
[照照] Hedgehog|www.cadvision.com/woodrr & www.lacestudio.demon.co.uk
Nathan F. Yospe
03:28:24 GMT, you claimed:
>Nathan F. Yospe <yo...@hawaii.edu> wrote in
><3735665e...@news.lspace.org>:
>[Monster snippage]
>AOL.
>I was looking for the words. Nathan found them.
Wow. *blush* Two emails and a followup... I dunno. Guess there's lots of
guys who've seen this...
>There's friends an' theres lovers. You will know the difference.
>In the mean time, don't date the friends, swapping a good friend for an ex-
>girlfriend is a poor swap.
That too. Heck, swapping *anything* for an *ex*-girlfriend has got to be
a poor swap in my book. On the other hand... I've kept two ex-datees, of
the not-that-serious variety, as good friends. :)
>So basically everything Nathan said, well until this bit:
>>Yes. Not to mention being taking along while shopping for unmentionables
>>and other delicate items...
>Lucky bastard, none of em ever took me shopping for yer unmentionables
>like.
Under duress! Protesting the whole time! Especially when asked to hold a
few samples while others were being tried on (out of my sight, thank you
very much!) Utterly embarassing!
>>And I never drove a cool car.
>Although, driving a cool car is in and of itself fairly satisfying.
Yeah. Lucky b*stards what can afford them...
Daniel Smart
<3735665e...@news.lspace.org>:
[Monster snippage]
AOL.
I was looking for the words. Nathan found them.
There's friends an' theres lovers. You will know the difference.
In the mean time, don't date the friends, swapping a good friend for an ex-
girlfriend is a poor swap.
So basically everything Nathan said, well until this bit:
>
>Yes. Not to mention being taking along while shopping for unmentionables
>and other delicate items...
>
Lucky bastard, none of em ever took me shopping for yer unmentionables
like.
>>[2] I've come to the conclusion that many men are, unfortunately
>>they're also good looking and drive cool cars and so get a lot of
>>dates.
>
>On the other hand, those dates lead to hollow relationships. Believe me,
>it isn't worth being a bastard.
>
>And I never drove a cool car.
Although, driving a cool car is in and of itself fairly satisfying.
Dan
--
\\\\\ Pope Dan (afp...@dansmart.com)
\\\\\\\__o The Reformed Church of The Hedgehog
____\\\\\\\'/____ We sacked the Inquisition and hired Lawyers,
Private Eyes, and Spammers. Thanks L Ron. Sue the Heretic!
Livia Mitson
Nathan F. Yospe <yo...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>stephe...@bigfoot.com (Stephen Booth), is it true that on Sun, 09 May
>1999 19:37:38 GMT, you claimed:
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 1999 12:28:03 GMT, elaine...@cwcom.net (co. &
>>Ponder Stibbons ) wrote:
>
>>>Has anyone (everyone?) noticed how Stephen keeps starting Bra threads?
>
>>>I am beginning to think I may have misunderstood the meaning of
>>>*Support Specialist* in his sig. <g,d,r>
>
>>No, I'm just sick and twisted. :-) anyway this only the second
>>one -- this year.
>
>>Could be gender identity issues (I'm serious, note lack of
>>smilies from here on in). I think what it probably comes down to
>>is that I've always got on a lot better with women/girls as
>>friends than I have in a sexual/pseudosexual context or with
>>men/boys as friends (I've never been in a sexual relationship
>>with MOTSS).
>
>Although it is less pronounced than it was earlier in my life, I've been
>the same for most of my postadolescent life. I don't think it reflects a
>gender identity issue... women are encouraged to form deeper friendships
>and stronger understandings. Quite simply, they make better friends. The
>fact that befriending women tends to make it harder to take advantage of
>them is not a flaw. It just means you can't be in a relationship if that
>means you have to be a bastard... which all too often, it does.
>
I've always thought I was a bit weird - and now I know it - most of my
friends are blokes. In fact, when I got married last June, I didn't
bother having a hen night for my two female friends, and all my male
friends went on Allen's stag night.
Livia
(some of my friends lurk, and occasionally post on afp, so I'm expecting
emails now asking who my other female friend is...)
--
--
Livia Mitson | li...@wheelwright.net | FirstClass Livia Mitson
http://www.wheelwright.net/livia | E36D 5841 3C18 0E16 1143 00B7 F688 6083
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above,
as apparently my cats have learnt to type.
in...@fdhoekstra.nl
> There was also a brief tradition of rendering ducks (shaped being more
> like a bath-duck than a real one) in Amiga 3D demos. Another old
> favourite is the torus, but some variation is required in rendering
> that (e.g. holes in the surface or real-time distortions). Finally,
> to show off, one should render a face.
And, of course, stupid birds with lamps and balls. Those, thank
goodness, seem to have perished in the megaflop race. Not
impressive anymore, I guess. Good thing, too.
Richard
Dooferlad
<wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>There was also a brief tradition of rendering ducks (shaped being more
>like a bath-duck than a real one) in Amiga 3D demos. Another old
>favourite is the torus, but some variation is required in rendering
>that (e.g. holes in the surface or real-time distortions). Finally,
>to show off, one should render a face.
Hahahahahahahahahaha! I haven't seen a decent face yet. The bigest
problem is getting the hair and reflections right. The reflection bit
is done now I think but as far as I know the separate hair stuff is
still being developed. That said the last update i had was about a
year ago now when they had a very cute fluffy monky to show us.
Oook.
-- Dooferlad --
AFPince of Naomi *hugs*
The Masked Orangutan
Dooferlad wrote:
> That said the last update i had was about a
> year ago now when they had a very cute fluffy monky to show us.
>
> ^^^^^^
> Oook.
^^^^^^
What exactly are you trying to say here?[1]
--
Mike, fixing my pitiful 70% afpurity score
AFPcode1.1 ANL d--- s--:--- a20 UP+
R+++ F++ hP-- OSD+++:--- M- pp--- L*+>++
c+++ b+>+++ Cn PT--- Pu74 e+ r++++ z++++
[1] :)[2]
[2] Need to be sure not to leave that where It might be found. Orangutans
are kinda sensitive about these things.
Lindsay Endell
> I don't think they could be worn with t-shirts, but Elizabethan bodices are
> wonderful for support. Same goes for corsets. If you want to make on
> yourself there is http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets and there are bunches
> of places out there that sell them custom made.
>
Marks and Spencer has just started doing what looked like a very
interesting bodicey type thing. Except they don't undo, you have to
pull them on. Now, I'm probably not alone in being a different
(smaller) size on top than I am around the hips. I couldn't get teh
size 8/10 job over my hips.
Nice try, M&S, now, back to the drawing board...
Linz
--
Oh, not really a pedant, I wouldn't say.
http://www.gofar.demon.co.uk/ - Issue 2.0 available now
In AUE all Englishes are equal, though each is more
equal than all the others. Bob Lieblich, aue
esmi
> >I'm not repeating the story in a family newsgroup
> No flame, but I should point out that alt.fan.pratchett should _not_ be
> regarded as a family newsgroup in the "safe-for-the-kids" kind of way.
> Any parent who lets their child wander around Usenet unsupervised needs
> their head examining, as you never know what's going to crop up, even
> in this place.
AOL! In fact the 'net, per se, is not a place for any youngster to wander
around unsupervised. WWW, irc, usenet, even email (especially spam and/or
mail arising from email addys on web pages) - all have their distinctly
nasty sides. Personally I will not allow either of my children net access
unless I am either actually present as they "surf" or can filter any
content myself before they see it. Yes, afp is a relatively harmless
arena most of the time and in some ways is better than most ngs but
ultimately it is a place for adults who sometimes want to have "adult"
conversations.
esmi
Maurice Barnes
multitude :
>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
I think this whole size is not important thing has gone too far. I'm
not cutting an inch and a half off for anybody.
--
Maurice Barnes - bar...@hortic.globalnet.co.uk
"There's no need to get dramatic" said Dougal "but there may
be something in what you say."
Mad Dragon
(Maurice Barnes) enlightened us with:
>Julia Jones <a...@nospam.demon.co.uk> annunciated to the gathered
>multitude :
>
>>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>
>I think this whole size is not important thing has gone too far. I'm
>not cutting an inch and a half off for anybody.
So your bonsi tree is ten inches tall now is it :-).. i could never
get mine to live long enough to grow that big.. got any tips?
Mad Dragon
--
A happy dragon with a happy hoarde
Maurice Barnes
gathered multitude :
>So your bonsi tree is ten inches tall now is it :-).. i could never
>get mine to live long enough to grow that big.. got any tips?
That would depend on the species but I'm getting pretty good with Oak.
They're quite "woody" <groan>.
Bernard M. Earp
tic.globalnet.co.uk> writes
>I think this whole size is not important thing has gone too far. I'm
>not cutting an inch and a half off for anybody.
"Why are women bad at parking?"
"Because they are so used to men saying `Of course that's 9inches`"
--
Bernard M. Earp
Aliens 4 Babylon 5
(penalty shootout after extra time)
Paul E. Jamison
>
> So your bonsi tree is ten inches tall now is it :-).. i could never
> get mine to live long enough to grow that big.. got any tips?
>
Don't take just the tip ... take the whole thing!
Paul E. Jamison, Esq. ("Mind in the gutter"? And your point is...?)
--
"So this Vorlon says to me, 'Never ask that question!' And I go, I says,
'IT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I'VE GOT, BABY!!"
- The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs Space Stations at Midnight
frogjuice
Stephen Booth wrote
> (co. & Ponder Stibbons ) wrote:
>>Has anyone (everyone?) noticed how Stephen keeps starting Bra threads?
>>
>>I am beginning to think I may have misunderstood the meaning of
>>*Support Specialist* in his sig. <g,d,r>
>
>
>No, I'm just sick and twisted. :-) anyway this only the second
>one -- this year.
:)
>Could be gender identity issues (I'm serious, note lack of
>smilies from here on in). I think what it probably comes down to
>is that I've always got on a lot better with women/girls as
>friends than I have in a sexual/pseudosexual context or with
>men/boys as friends (I've never been in a sexual relationship
>with MOTSS).
Ditto sweetie, only in reverse. I have one, one ( counts on fingers and
checks to make sure) female friend. the rest are all blokes.
>I'm currently 29 and have a had a total of 3 girlfriends, 2 of
>those before I was 16 and the third when I was 22 and she was 19.
>I have never had a one night stand or similar short relationship.
I never had a 'boyfriend' until i was sixteen. i had plenty of male friends
but, they were y'know friends. in the last eight years ive had four
relationships, and i dont have short term ones. id rather not
be involved unless i really really like someone.
>The woman with whom I had my only adult relationship was
>bisexual, we met on a MUD where we were both playing opposite
>gender characters.
I did and still do, in any MUD, story, situation, identify with male
characters.
When im writing i have trouble getting into girls heads. most girls
dont make sense to me.
> We initiated a relationship based purely our
>similar tastes in music and cinema, and built from there.
That sounds like a reasonable place to start.
>We got
>engaged about a year later (she proposed to me) and split up 8
>months after that when she got thrown out of university and met
>someone else.
<big hugs>
>We never consumated our relationship, mainly due
>to my fears.
ITs a big step, being afraid is normal,
> She got married to this new guy the following
>February 14th, my friends took me out and got me very, very
>drunk.
More hugs. no platitudes.
>On the other hand I have had lots and lots of female friends,
>just friends. Very, very good friends but just friends. I
>suppose after a while I became an honourary girlie[1]. Somone to
>sit up with and drink wine and chat about this and that. Somone
>who'll commiserate with them about failed relationships (I've
>lost count of the number of times I've heard "All men as
>bastards![2] Except you Stephen." or for that matter threatened
>with a beating because the man she was running from thought she
>was running to me). Somone who'll watch soppy movies with them.
>Somone who'll hug them and tell them that they're beautiful and
>not expect sex. Somone who'll take them out and get them utterly
>drunk when they need it, and not take advantage to cop a feel or
>more. Somone who'll say "Wow you look great!" and not "Oh,
>you've had you hair done.".
Then you are a good friend, regardless of your gender. Which, speaking from
the other side as being a girl with male friends such as you, has nothing to do
with your sex. which can occasianlly be very frustrating. such as when theyre
eyeing up other girls and a little niggle creeps in, and goes- but im a girl!
Whats wrong with me? I go to the pub with my mates and listen to them beefing
about their girlfiends/wives and get to go to all kinds of cool shops. well
allright,
its me that has to be dragged out of the tool shops.
>But never somone who could ever possibly be a lover.
dont necessarily count on that. sometimes soemthing just goes
'spung' for want of a better word,and people realise that you are
well, appropriate. Im happily living with my best friend now. he was my best
friend
for four years before i even thought of him that way, and vice versa.
>When you are involved in disscussions about clothes, chocolate,
>periods, PMT, Evening Primrose Oil, cellulite and all the other
>things some of it sinks in.
Oh lindt i wish it would. games workshop, pc parts, motorbikes, stereos
Do you know how many evenings ive spent with my mates rating passing girls on
looks/friendliness/appraochability.? I can critique i suppose, even if im not
yet that
way inclined.
>Stephen
>
>[1] To use a term they use to describe themselves.
I am not and have never been a girlie. or even an honorary girlie. or a bloke
i try very hard just to be me, im just a sam and knickers to anyone trying
to quantify me.
>[2] I've come to the conclusion that many men are, unfortunately
>they're also good looking and drive cool cars and so get a lot of
>dates.
Hmm. Yes . quite possibly- but women dont stay with them becasue they
hog the bathroom, all the wardrobe space and spend too much time and
money on stick on bits for their cars.
Oh yes, Ii just love your chrome tail pipe and those 17" 3 spoke
anteras just make my knees all wobbly.
Can i borrow your clinique face wash sweetie?
Nice to look at wouldnt want to keep one. although of course *MY* SO is
just devastatingly gorgeous. all right so he keeps shaving his <sob> long dark
curly
hair off, and his beard cant decide wehter he wants to be ginger or not and
i cant see his face some days for the bike lid, and he will chew his toenails,
and
you get the picture?
Stephen, just be who you are.
Anyone who's worth you will like you and love you for it.
( and i said no platitudes...)
Sam(antha)
--
Afpfiancee a Dids
ICQ 29033135
Tom Walsh
news:7h49jc$5s8$1...@dagda.tuatha.org...
>
> In article <3734...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,
> Chris Horry <lo...@the.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk> stated:
> >
> >: So, why are teapots mandatory in OpenGL demos?
> >
> >Tradition.
>
> Not just OpenGL - as has been previously mentioned, the teapot is
_the_
> standard item for rendering tests, probably 'cause it's an interesting
> shape (spouty!) but not too hard to construct from primitives..
>
(teapotahedron) actually existed, and was digitised for the specific
purpose of rendering tests...mainly because, as Mike says, it's
'spouty.' Is that actually a word? Anyway...
http://web2.airmail.net/~sjbaker1/software/teapot.html was the first
thing altavista gave me, it seems to cover all the bases fairly well...
Tom.
Richard Eney
Laurabelle <lbme...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>Stephen Booth (stephe...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>[Hooks in the back of bras:]
>> [1] I understand that most women actually do it up back to front
>> around their waist and then twist it round and pull it up [...]
>> Or am I wrong?
>
>Personally, I just hook my bras up in the back. I'm flexible, and I don't
>find it that hard. I suppose it took a little bit of practice at first,
>but that was quite a few years ago, so I don't remember. In addition, I
>don't know of anyone who does it the way Stephen suggested; I suppose
>there must be quite a few, but I personally find that really awkward and
>time-consuming.
I used to hook them in back, when I was young and flexible. Then I had
bursitis for a year, and got in the habit of doing it as he describes,
after I read about the method in a book on coping with disabilities.
>There is the alternative of bras which fasten in the front; however,
>those cannot be adjusted like the hooks in the back. They're just not
>worth the trouble.
They also tend to come undone occasionally.
>"What a sense of possession, of confidence, it gave one to have pockets,
>to shove one's fists into them, as if in simply owning pockets one owned
>riches, owned independence." -- Anita Desai, _Clear Light of Day_
Pockets, I love them. Most of my clothes have pockets.
=Tamar
T J Wilkinson
Booth) wrote:
<snip>
>[1] I understand that most women actually do it up back to front
>around their waist and then twist it round and pull it up so this
>shouldn't be an issue. Possibly a case of a male designer not
>really understand how the product is used and solving a problem
>that isn't there. Or am I wrong?
I do up my bra behind my back without thinking about it now but I
remember when I got my first bra I used the method you described a few
times before I got the hang of it. I can't recall any woman in
changing rooms resorting to the procedure that you describe but then I
am not exactly dedicated to observing other women's changing
techniques. And probably there are many women out there who, for
whatever reason, cannot easily reach round the back.
I currently have a bra which does up in the front and is comfortable,
but doesn't give quite the support of a normal one.[1]
Tracy
[1] Am I right in suspecting that there is something other than size
that determines whether you really need support? I've had to wear a
bra whenever I want to do something active, like cycling, going down
stairs, or walking quickly, ever since I was an A cup, but other women
seem to regard wearing one as much more optional.
--
tajw...@ihug.co.nz
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tajwileb/
The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body.
This means that only left handed people are in their right mind.
Marian
in...@fdhoekstra.nl wrote:
> Gizelle wrote:
> >
> > Tom Lawton wrote :
> >
> > >sounds like the now infamous "Teapot" "Experiment".
> > >
> > Hmmm. literally *in*-famous, I have never heard of it :-). Care
> > to elucidate?
>
> It was a bit of ground-breaking social research by our esteemed
> co-afp'er Chris J. Horry, who conducted it by simply placing a
> teapot in the middle of the group and watching the group's
> reactions. The teapot was a small and red one[1].
> I don't know what interesting, perhaps scientifically significant,
> conclusions Mr. Horry drew from this experiment, but we certainly
> enjoyed the tea[2].
>
> Richard
>
> [1] This kind of detail is important in describing experiments :-)
> [2] Well, I'm a teaoholic, ok?
A real life version of the teapot experiment, conducted in an AOL
chatroom today by yours truly:
Maddrash: *hands*
V1ILDANAP: ha ha ha
Edele 007: *HANDS*
JWent1: hi
Brucianna: hello
trekie39 has entered the room.
JWent1: *raises his hand and waves it*
V1ILDANAP has left the room.
Maddrash: waves what????????
trekie39 has left the room.
Maddrash: sick
JWent1: *his hand*
Brucianna: *puts a little red teapot in the center of the room*
JWent1: *knocks the teapot over*
JWent1: opps¨¨
Brucianna: Careful!
Maddrash: *picks up teapot and hits james over the head with it*
Edele 007: Edele thinx, *What the hell is James going on about*
Edele 007: He he he
Maddrash: *....and put is back carefully*
JWent1: owwww
Maddrash: dunno
JWent1: that stings*
Brucianna: I
Brucianna: I'd imagine so
JWent1: *pours himself a cup of tea
onehotguy9 has entered the room.
JWent1: *hand round cups of tea*
Brucianna: I never said there was tea in the pot just that there was a
teapot
onehotguy9: so whats up
Maddrash: hahah backfired james!!!!
JWent1: iehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Edele 007: *Gets the teapot and smashes it to billions of little pieces*
JWent1: i ummmmmmm
JWent1: ehhhhhh
JWent1: ohhhhhh
JWent1: i give up
JWent1: i'm going
JWent1: to stay here
onehotguy9: maddrash what r u looking for
Brucianna: My teapot! <shriek> Oh my poor teapot. Look what you've
done!? The horror, the infinite horror of it all . . . !
JWent1: a life!
onehotguy9: lol
Edele 007: Yeah what r u on
Maddrash: heloo?
JWent1: *raofl*
Maddrash: Repeat|??
onehotguy9: what r u looking for?
Brucianna: Me, right now, or in the recent past?
Edele 007: Oi! Bruccy, r u male
Brucianna: no, definitely not3
JWent1: no shhe aint
onehotguy9: madd???
Brucianna: Brucianna di Rosenkavaliera at your service good m'lords *
curtsies*
Maddrash: WHAT????
JWent1: ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
onehotguy9: did you create this room
JWent1: u sell yourself?
Edele 007: WILL U F*ING GET A LIFE
Maddrash: Yup i sure did
onehotguy9: what r u looking for
JWent1: is that your service?
Brucianna: The name has a _really_ long story behind it
Edele 007: If u r 18 maybe u should be acting a little more mature??????
Brucianna: Yes, that was my tea service but James smashed it
Maddrash: hear hear
onehotguy9: edele what is this ????
Maddrash: how do y'know his name??
Edele 007: I dunno, some freak show
Brucianna: He mentioned it in this room
onehotguy9: bye
onehotguy9 has left the room.
Maddrash: onehotguy, what r u on aboot??
Maddrash: he cometh, he goeth,
Maddrash: so long sukker
Brucianna: I act fairly mature
Edele 007: sucker
JWent1: FAIRLY
Maddrash: yeah, for a toddler
Edele 007: Sure ya do
JWent1: *lol* thats a laugh!!!!
Maddrash: 4 some1 wearing nappies
Maddrash: ..& drinkin outta bottle
Brucianna: *pout*
Brucianna: I am not a toddler!
Maddrash: Oh, diddums
Brucianna: *chews on thumbnail . . . 8
Maddrash: go cry to mummy
Brucianna: Can't, mommy is at home and I'm at school
JWent1: -try this site-
JWent1: ahhhhhhhhhhh
Maddrash: ... whassamatta, tryin to think of a witty insult???
Brucianna: Can you give me a proper link for it, the computer doesn't seem
to like it
Maddrash: ...but r 2 slow to|??
JWent1: hahahahahah
Maddrash: Edele, get in on this
JWent1: hey there
Brucianna: No, I'm on a bloody Macintrash computer and I can't access the
link because it is a _Mac_ and Macs suck eggs . . .
Maddrash: OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhk
JWent1: who dropped this *holds up a banna skin*
JWent1: *puts banana skin bhind MADD*
Maddrash: I must have been u james, coz u love to play
JWent1: *he slips*
Brucianna: Look, I only brough a teapot, a few books, some embroidery, and
a can of sardines in here with me, it isn't mine!
Maddrash: sure
JWent1: the teapot whats it 4?
Brucianna: Ahh, thou hast never heard of the infamous
Brucianna: "little red teapot" experiment?
Edele 007: Oh why not take your little tea pot and yourself to a different
room!
JWent1: nope
JWent1: no
JWent1: don't
Brucianna: I can't take it, James broke it.
Maddrash: Oh, james has feeling 4 the lyer
JWent1: sorry
Brucianna: He broke my little teapot! <cry>
JWent1: *hangs head
Maddrash: go home and cry to yo momma
Edele 007: *U should start your own room with each other*
Brucianna: I'm going home on Saturday
Brucianna: I still have to take my finals
Edele 007: *u r both as gay as one another*
Brucianna: I am not gay except in the sense of happy, gay, and carefree .
. . tralalalalalalala
JWent1: i didn't break it i just knocked it over!!
Edele 007: *Looks around and thinks why the hell i am here?*
JWent1: good question
Edele 007: am i
JWent1: y r ne of us here
Maddrash: I wanna know that too
Brucianna: I'm soory, it was Edele who broke my poor teapot . . .
apologies James
JWent1: what is it we r here 4?
Edele 007: Fuck u
Maddrash: bitch
Brucianna: Cause we were invited in by u
Brucianna: Who me?
Maddrash: leaver her alone
Edele 007: i didn't touch your god damn pot
Maddrash: u sad lonely individual
Brucianna: *tokes*
JWent1: u did
Brucianna: no, you didn't
Edele 007: Oooooh gettin kinda touchy
--
"I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you,
and so following; but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor
pray with you. What news on the Rialto?"
- Merchant of Venice I.ii.35-38
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Marian
Elchonon Edelson <e...@isoft.com> wrote:
> Marian wrote:
> >
> > Bruci's back!
>
> And welcome.
>
> [heavy snip]
>
> > Long hair, height, humor, interests that they share other than tongue
> > wrestling, shoulders . . . umm, shoulders . . . chest, shoulders . . . did I
> > mention the shoulders? Oh yes, and a definite plus is if he can give a back
> > rub. I melt at the mere mention of back rubs . . .
>
> I'm sorry, I just can't resist this.
>
> "back rubs".
<Marian melts into a little puddle of Marian-shaped goo begging the same
question as when a cat sits on ones lap, where did all the bones go?>
> <g>
>
> --
> Elchonon Edelson <e...@isoft.com>
> We aim to please. Ourselves, mostly, but we do aim to please.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Old Japanese proverb:
> There are two kinds of fools - those who never
> climb Mt. Fuji, and those who climb it twice.
There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who think there are
two kinds of people, and those who don't.
Marian
phil...@dapc.globalnet.co.uk (Philippa Chapman) wrote:
> The idea of a corset that someone else suggested (like they had in Mozart's
> day) with boning (it's plastic now!) might work. Try looking for a
> dressmaker who specialises in undergarments. Your local theatre costume
> mistress/master? An opera group? Someone like that, anyway.
SCA group, or local Renn Faire people. Also if you take a look at the
web there are a number of great places out there that do custom work as
well as places which sell the supplies to make your own and many places
with instructions on making them.
Speaking as someone who reads alt.faires.renaissance, rec.org.sca, sca-
garb, and read (for a while) sca-arts, I personally have not had the
chance to make any garb yet but DON'T USE PLASTIC BONING. It buckles
under the weight of corsets/bodices made as support garments.
http://www.alteryears.com has supplies as well as kits which include
everything necessary to make a bodice or corset. I'm to understand they
even have wooden busks. Look to the reenactor crowds, they make this
clothing to wear, theatre places make it as costumes. And quality
clothes last much longer than a costume.