[anatomy of disgust] [long]
persephone
'kay so i figured i'd start a serious (don't look so shocked! :)
discussion about something that is bothering me a little...
"anatomy of disgust" is a program that's been showing over a few weeks
here (i dunno if any other UKpeeps have been watching it). anyway, last
night's episode was "anatomy of disgust: art" and it analysed the way
that artists (particularly modern ones) use disgust to make a statement.
the first "anatomy of disgust" program showed evidence that we are not
born with the ability to be disgusted, we are taught it. they claim that
babies can feel DISTASTE for things (bad smells/tastes/etc) but not
disgust. they did an odd experiment with different aged children,
offering them chocolate shaped like faeces. (the younger ones weren't
too bothered about eating it but, the older the children got, the more
reluctant they were to try the chocolate.)
this was all quite interesting. a bit weird but okay. however the
"anatomy of disgust: art" program i found more disturbing.
they showed a painting of the crucifiction, saying that the REALISM in
the painting was disturbing or disgusting. well, personally, i figure
that, if someone is a believer in christianity, they SHOULD understand
the realism of it. i mean, it's one thing to say that jesus was the
human son of god &died on the cross to save us but it's another thing to
see an image of that suffering. it's another thing ENTIRELY to realise
that the nails would have been put through his wrists, not his hands,
because nails through the wrists and ankles would support the weight of
his body.
i think that the artist has used disgust in a very GOOD way in that
picture. i like the realism. i like that we are made to think of this
saviour as human and suffering.
they also mentioned jenny saville's work. again, i like the way disgust
is used in her work. (i studied her work as part of my a-level course.)
i AGREE with the message that she puts across in her self-portraits:
hideous ugly FAT pictures of a woman who is NOT fat and NOT ugly. the
message these pictures give to /me/ is the idea that a person's self-
esteem &self-image can be VERY damaged by the way society is now. also
that the way someone SEES their self is not necessarily the way they
ARE. (i don't think i explained that very well but there you go. :)
now for the disturbing parts of the program...
an artist (i forget his name) throwing blood &faeces onto canvas and
calling it art. how is that art? where is the skill? where is the
beauty? apparently it is about the message: that life is bloody &messy,
etc. but can't the message be presented in a more clever &skillful way?
i'd like to do some work related to women's self-esteem and the way
media damages it but i don't intend to throw blubber from a liposuction
operation onto a canvas and call it art.
then there was the idea that we have to suspend disgust to be able to
"mate" (their word, not mine). now, personally, i don't find my lover's
body repulsive in any way whatsoever. i've seen him bleed, i've seen him
use the toilet, i've seen him vomit &i honestly find his beavis
&butthead impression MUCH more disturbing. :) so i am not sure that this
idea is true at all.
to back up this theory they showed the paintings of a female artist (i
don't remember her name either) who mostly seemed to paint half-naked or
completely naked people, apparently managing to make the same painting
both disgusting/disturbing and also pleasant at the same time.
they also showed a woman who used objects to make sexual pictures: fried
eggs, hot dogs, a vagina smoking a cigarette, photos of her eating a
sausage, smoking a bent cigarette. i thought this was all pretty
hysterical to be honest and not at all artistic.
this same artist said that people are always asking her why all her work
is about sex &she replies "because everything /IS/ about sex". she told
them to look out the window, look at the flowers. flowers are pure sex,
she says, they get energy and nutrients from the air and the soil &they
reproduce. she said that is what life's about.
the other female artist says "i paint because i am a dirty woman".
now i'll get to my main point:
i paint but i am not a dirty woman. i understand that sex is everywhere.
i am not ashamed of it. i just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why we are using
disgust to describe ourselves. why we belittle ourselves. why we allow
the media to dictate what is beautiful to us, why we judge ourselves
&berate ourselves &DAMAGE ourselves for not being "perfect".
why aren't there paintings CELEBRATING the human body? CELEBRATING sex.
not making these things into something disgusting &dirty? we're not in
the victorian era now, it's the year 2000, why aren't we recognising
that we are BEAUTIFUL CREATURES? we are potential demons and potential
angels. why do we still have to be ashamed?
anyways, i guess i'll shut up now. it's to confusing for me to
contemplate any longer. the program really was very good &thought
provoking. it gave me some very good ideas for paintings which,
obviously, will never be considered real works of art because they will
be a celebration of beauty (which can be found in EVERYONE, not just in
the select few that are size 8, 36DD and blonde).
rae
Anvil
>'kay so i figured i'd start a serious (don't look so shocked! :)
>discussion about something that is bothering me a little...
>"anatomy of disgust" is a program that's been showing...
<reference:>
The Anatomy of Disgust - by William Ian Miller
March 1997, Harvard University Press
ISBN 0-674-03155-5 paperback
>the first "anatomy of disgust" program showed evidence that we are
>not born with the ability to be disgusted, we are taught it.
<agreed disgust learned/developed, yet not all taught>
<an association disgust real/imagined>
>they did an odd experiment with different aged children, offering
>them chocolate shaped like feces. (the younger ones weren't too
>bothered about eating it but, the older the children got, the more
>reluctant they were to try the chocolate.)
<seeing trust perhaps not fully factored, yet understanding concept>
>jesus was the human son of god & died on the cross to save us but
>it's another thing to see an image of that suffering.
<snip>
>i think that the artist has used disgust in a very GOOD way in that
>picture. i like the realism. i like that we are made to think of
>this saviour as human and suffering.
<find such depictions sad I, image of positive teachings lost>
<seeing as incongruent, viewing image of death for those lost>
<memories of having lived prefer>
>they also mentioned jenny saville's work
<snip>
>The message these pictures give to /me/ is the idea that a person's
>self-esteem & self-image can be VERY damaged by the way society is
>now. Also that the way someone SEES their self is not necessarily
>the way they ARE. (i don't think i explained that very well but
>there you go. :)
<see themselves truly so very few, a lifetimes achievement>
<damaged self-image/self-esteem most all, skewed most perceptions>
>now for the disturbing parts of the program...
><snip> throwing blood & feces onto canvas and calling it art. how
>is that art? where is the skill?
<showing talent to convince peers only, his only skill/message>
>i'd like to do some work related to women's self-esteem and the
>way media damages it...
<topic excellent, contrasts/shades numerous>
<problem one of promoting change/self realization>
<exceed expression, art should teach>
>then there was the idea that we have to suspend disgust to be able
>to "mate" (their word, not mine). now, personally, i don't find my
>lover's body repulsive in any way whatsoever. i've seen him bleed,
>i've seen him use the toilet, i've seen him vomit & i honestly find
>his beavis & butthead impression MUCH more disturbing. :) so i am
>not sure that this idea is true at all.
<agreed, yet the "all taught" premise leads one to this>
<unlearning illogical/damaging associations a key direction>
>to back up this theory they showed the paintings of a female artist
<snip>
>i thought this was all pretty hysterical to be honest and not at
>all artistic.
>this same artist said that people are always asking her why all her
>work is about sex &she replies "because everything /IS/ about sex".
>she told them to look out the window, look at the flowers. flowers
>are pure sex, she says, they get energy and nutrients from the air
>and the soil & they reproduce. she said that is what life's about.
<sharing flowers imagination, offence to flowers that perhaps>
<pushing such as art for nutrients/reproduction only>
>now i'll get to my main point:
>i just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why we are using disgust to describe
>ourselves. why we belittle ourselves. why we allow the media to
>dictate what is beautiful to us, why we judge ourselves & berate
>ourselves & DAMAGE ourselves for not being "perfect".
>why aren't there paintings CELEBRATING the human body? CELEBRATING
>sex. not making these things into something disgusting & dirty?
>we're not in the victorian era now, it's the year 2000, why aren't
>we recognizing that we are BEAUTIFUL CREATURES? we are potential
>demons and potential angels. why do we still have to be ashamed?
<cycles tastes/history, Roman/Mycean/Greek having new variations>
<accelerate such changes one may, presenting such option/opinion>
>it gave me some very good ideas for paintings which, obviously,
>will never be considered real works of art because they will be a
>celebration of beauty (which can be found in EVERYONE, not just in
>the select few that are size 8, 36DD and blonde).
<outlasting Barbie statues Venus/Demeter as art>
<favor Arlin Robin's bronze "Unbridled Love", a worthy entry>
<sadly much remains hidden within galleries, not truly public>
<encourage such change I, please continue>
--
Anvil
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott
> 'kay so i figured i'd start a serious (don't look so shocked! :)
> discussion about something that is bothering me a little...
Very well said. I'm not sure how much I can add. Except that
societal conditioning is a lot stronger than we give it credit for ... I
consciously know that there's nothing wrong with my body (the irony being
that I actually do have a body which modern standards deem within the
traditional limits of beauty; I'm actually underweight for my height), and
it's not like I'm living with strangers at this point (as I was in the
dorms) or with my parents. And yet I won't wander around the house without
pants on, nor (generally) without a shirt.
So much of what we do is imprinted on us -- subconsciously, or with
our unrealized conscious help -- in our attempts to join with the crowd.
Now *that*'s disgusting.
Bax
--
BAXIL's meme-filled millennial 7-LINE .SIG FILE (04-09-2K) * _/|
The haiku, once seen, | DC2.~D Gm a(v++r) L12m W-- Pfwl B- * _-------C_/
is comprehended, only | F+o R+++! Ac J-~ S+++! Fr+++"kiwi" * |. CD |\
to become mere words. | U++ i-- H+ $- M+++!2xy O- V+++ Cgr * | ___ /_ \
The man-the myth-the meme: http://www.ecis.com/~ddragon/ # * |/---=___-' |
Jia's mate; still timestamping sig; new domain coming soon * / / /
QUESTIONS ABOUT DRACONITY? http://www.ecis.com/~ddragon/faq/ has answers!
Marayong
Haven't heard of the show down here ... but my 5c (or pence) worth ..
> the first "anatomy of disgust" program showed evidence that we are not
> born with the ability to be disgusted, we are taught it...
Possibly .. but I suspect not. Like most things I daresay that the
ability to be disgusted is partially learnt and partially genetic. Not a
particularly good example, but I find the taste of coffee disgusting. I
know peeps who dislike it, but I dont know anyone else who finds the
taste and smell disgusting .. so that's not something I've likely
learnt.
> they claim that babies can feel DISTASTE for things (bad
> smells/tastes/etc) but not disgust.
The difference between the two is, I suspect, simply a matter of degree
and not nature. Disgust is an intense case of distaste.
> they did an odd experiment with different aged children,
> offering them chocolate shaped like faeces. (the younger ones weren't
> too bothered about eating it but, the older the children got, the more
> reluctant they were to try the chocolate.)
Which only proves that the disgust of some things are primarily learnt.
Doesn't prove it for all cases.
> this was all quite interesting. a bit weird but okay. however the
> "anatomy of disgust: art" program i found more disturbing.
Art is entirely subjective. One person's art is another's trash.
> they showed a painting of the crucifiction, saying that the REALISM in
> the painting was disturbing or disgusting. well, personally, i figure
> that, if someone is a believer in christianity, they SHOULD understand
> the realism of it. i mean, it's one thing to say that jesus was the
> human son of god &died on the cross to save us but it's another thing
> to see an image of that suffering. it's another thing ENTIRELY to
> realise that the nails would have been put through his wrists, not
> his hands, because nails through the wrists and ankles would support
> the weight of his body.
Indeed. I would not find such a work of art to be disgusting. I would
find it spiritual, and many other things. But to some, I'm sure, it
would be disgusting. Since presumably those who made the show saw it
that way.
But .. are they confusing disgust with other emotions and attitudes?
It's easy to say, looking at something, that it's "disgusting". But does
one truely mean "disgusting" (whatever the strict definition may be), or
does one find it in bad taste, poor executed, immoral, not to one's
style, or .. wotever.
> an artist (i forget his name) throwing blood &faeces onto canvas and
> calling it art.
Art's all in the beholder's eye. I remember a fuss some years back (was
in the uk I think) about a gallery that was showing some "art" which
consisted of animals sawn in half with chain saws and then embedded in
chunks of plastic (presumably to stop the viewers falling over from the
smell of rotting meat). Was this art? Or the produce of a deranged
butcher? When I saw the pictures of those "art" works, I wasn't
disgusted. I was astonished that people could call it art. I even
thought it was sick. But disgusted? No.
> then there was the idea that we have to suspend disgust to be able to
> "mate" ...
Sounds like they have some serious personality problems. :)
Myself, the though of being intimate with someone I don't love is, well,
unattractive. But that comes from my religious beliefs and morals, not
from any sense of disgust. Certainly there are plenty of people, of both
sexes, who have no trouble at all having casual sex.
> .. use the toilet, i've seen him vomit &i honestly find his beavis
> &butthead impression MUCH more disturbing. :)
I can understand that! <shudder>
> they also showed a woman who used objects to make sexual pictures:
> fried eggs, hot dogs, a vagina smoking a cigarette, photos of her
> eating a sausage, smoking a bent cigarette. i thought this was all
> pretty hysterical to be honest and not at all artistic.
Myself, I would say that the "artist" in question was not so much trying
to present some message but rather using shock tactics to catch peolpe's
attention. One of the prime functions of art is to catch the attention
of people, either to convey a message, sell something or make the artist
more famous. Just look at some of the adverts we are bombarded with.
Advertisers are well aware of the value of "shocking" images.
In the above example I suspect (IMHO!) that the artist was only trying
to shock and there wasn't an underlying message. But I could be wrong. I
no art expert.
> this same artist said that people are always asking her why all her
> work is about sex &she replies "because everything /IS/ about sex".
Is her name Freud? :) He believed everything was about sex. Personally,
I'd say anyone who made such a claim, no matter how distinguished they
were, has/had an unhealthy fascination with the subject. Not that sex in
unhealthy, but too much fascination with anything is unhealthy. There
are many more things in life than sex.
> the other female artist says "i paint because i am a dirty woman".
> now i'll get to my main point:
> i paint but i am not a dirty woman...
No need to judge your own motives by those of someone else .. and
someone who evidently isn't quite right in their head. I don't have the
talent to be an artist .. but I do do a lot of doodling. Does that make
me a frustrated sex pervert? <grin> I don't think so!
> i understand that sex is everywhere.
It's part of life. But so're many other things.
> why aren't there paintings CELEBRATING the human body? CELEBRATING
> sex.
Ther're plenty of paintings and works of art celebrating the human body.
But today's "art world" dismisses such art as old fashioned. The
masterful sculptures of the greeks and romans. The paintings and
sculptures of Da Vinci and his contemporaries. Many of them glorify and
celebrate the human body .. quite often the nude human body.
> not making these things into something disgusting &dirty? we're not in
> the victorian era now ...
As an aside .. the so-called victorian era was noted for it's sexual
immorality. :) It was NOT "victorian" .. ie: prudish.
cheers,
marayong
--
A stranger in a world I never made - Housman
DC2.D A+++! L^ Pfwl Bfl Fo R+++! Ac+ J-- S++ Fr+++! I+ H++ $ M V+++ Cag
http://xenon.triode.net.au/~dragon mailto:dra...@triode.net.au
persephone
baxil wrote:
>persephone thoughtfully scribed:
>> 'kay so i figured i'd start a serious (don't look so shocked! :)
>> discussion about something that is bothering me a little...
><snip>
>
> Very well said. I'm not sure how much I can add. Except that
>societal conditioning is a lot stronger than we give it credit for ... I
>consciously know that there's nothing wrong with my body
i know there's nothing wrong with my body IN THEORY. i'm about the right
weight for my height, no problem finding clothes in the right size, etc
BUT i am a casualty of all this skinny peeps = attractive media Stuff. i
wasn't happy when i was /under/weight - i still thought i was too big. i
still get panicky &upset about it.
>(the irony being
>that I actually do have a body which modern standards deem within the
>traditional limits of beauty; I'm actually underweight for my height), and
>it's not like I'm living with strangers at this point (as I was in the
>dorms) or with my parents. And yet I won't wander around the house without
>pants on, nor (generally) without a shirt.
i will not wear shorts, i will not wear a very small skirt i WILL NOT
wear any type of swimming costume, i panic trying to decide what to wear
for an evening out (sometimes to the extent of crying and refusing to go
out because i feel so bad :/)
> So much of what we do is imprinted on us -- subconsciously, or with
>our unrealized conscious help -- in our attempts to join with the crowd.
>Now *that*'s disgusting.
it is disgusting. it's also very sad. i've never tried to "join with the
crowd" - i'm comfortable with who i am i just want who i am to be very
skinny. all these magazines &teevee programs have severely f*xked my
head up.
>
>Bax
>
rae (F.I.N.E - f*xk*d up, insecure, neurotic &emotional :)
Polenth
>
>baxil wrote:
>>(the irony being
>>that I actually do have a body which modern standards deem within the
>>traditional limits of beauty; I'm actually underweight for my height), and
>>it's not like I'm living with strangers at this point (as I was in the
>>dorms) or with my parents. And yet I won't wander around the house without
>>pants on, nor (generally) without a shirt.
>
>i will not wear shorts, i will not wear a very small skirt i WILL NOT
>wear any type of swimming costume, i panic trying to decide what to wear
>for an evening out (sometimes to the extent of crying and refusing to go
>out because i feel so bad :/)
I have a strange problem with the general attractiveness thing. I just
don't understand the rules. I understand buying cloths in colours I
like, and with picture on I like, but that's the extent of it. I won't
go out of my way to be uncomfortable just to look nice. I pick cloths
based on comfort and practicality, and when I go anywhere I just wear
what I would if I wasn't going anywhere. I do get hassled about the fact
I should dress 'attractively', which shows how ingrained it all is in
people. Unfortunately people start getting creative and assuming its
because I have low self esteem, and try to 'cure' me of it. Or that I'd
think the cloths were wonderful if I tried them. 'Tis all rather futile,
but I suppose it gives them something to do.
--
Polenth
ICQ UIN: 8342844
http://www.polenth.demon.co.uk/
DC2.D Gf L14f Phw'lt Sks/u Cpu- B"alkali" A?
Fr++"Mushroom Spp." Nn M- Fo/v+ R+++ I---!
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott
> baxil wrote:
>> So much of what we do is imprinted on us -- subconsciously, or with
>>our unrealized conscious help -- in our attempts to join with the crowd.
>>Now *that*'s disgusting.
>
> it is disgusting. it's also very sad. i've never tried to "join with the
> crowd" - i'm comfortable with who i am i just want who i am to be very
> skinny. all these magazines &teevee programs have severely f*xked my
> head up.
I wasn't trying to say that only conformists get imprinted. I am
very much a free thinker; heck, look at me. ;) The problem is that in order
to survive in society -- because we are not self-sufficient for basic
survival needs, and must interact with other ppl in human bodies to obtain
them -- we MUST compromise on basic standards.
Sometimes this is a good thing. I heartily approve of laws against
murder; they limit my abilities to follow courses of action I may
occasionally want to take, but they also prevent other people from harming
me, and in general make the world a far more civil place. But there are
many "social standards" which are basically nothing more than the whim of
the fashion police which *all* of us nevertheless must recognize and obey,
lest we be trampled into the dust.
There are fundamental examples that are easy to see: try lasting
through a job interview if you don't shower regularly. That's purely an
example of social pressure, because body odor is no indication of job skill,
it's merely an impression you make on the interviewer, who then will decide
to hire someone who conforms more closely to his nasal standards. The same
small pushes take place in emotional and philosophical arenas, although
fortunately there's an increasing tolerance and willingness to hold such
cases up to the light of discrimination laws.
Peer pressure works in the same way, although the physical
consequences can be less severe, replaced with emotional derision and
exclusion. While certain people have more tolerance for loneliness than
others, anyone who wants to fit into society must have *some* social peer
group, and consequently, sooner or later, breaks down and conforms.
These slips take place in different areas, but there is nobody on
this newsgroup (or the internet) who can say that their behavior is free of
this peer influence. Consider: Why do we use punctuation?
B
Fang Tsu: Shadow of Infinity
<ddr...@ecis.ecis.com> wrote:
> persephone thoughtfully scribed:
> > baxil wrote:
> >> So much of what we do is imprinted on us -- subconsciously, or with
> >>our unrealized conscious help -- in our attempts to join with the crowd.
> >>Now *that*'s disgusting.
> > it is disgusting. it's also very sad. i've never tried to "join with the
> > crowd" - i'm comfortable with who i am i just want who i am to be very
> > skinny. all these magazines &teevee programs have severely f*xked my
> > head up.
I've been quite pleased with not joining the in crowd and having to
copy their styles. Lately, I've been creating and to an extent even
sewing (yes, I'm male and I can sew!) some of my own. Surprisingly
enough, one or two members of the in crowd come to me instead! And
though there's alot of people who dislike me, most are atleast polite
and respectful to me, to some extent. Pretty big effect from a
highschool student, n'est-ce pas?
> I wasn't trying to say that only conformists get imprinted. I am
> very much a free thinker; heck, look at me. ;) The problem is that in order
> to survive in society -- because we are not self-sufficient for basic
> survival needs, and must interact with other ppl in human bodies to obtain
> them -- we MUST compromise on basic standards.
Yes... if not we couldn't even talk, speach being to distorted by
people's preferences of sounds. Dependency isn't totaly bad though, it
allows people freedoms and lets them act elsewhere, sometimes for
good.
> Sometimes this is a good thing. I heartily approve of laws against
> murder; they limit my abilities to follow courses of action I may
> occasionally want to take, but they also prevent other people from harming
> me, and in general make the world a far more civil place. But there are
> many "social standards" which are basically nothing more than the whim of
> the fashion police which *all* of us nevertheless must recognize and obey,
> lest we be trampled into the dust.
I agree. Alot of the non-violence things are more useful than their
detractors say, even if some of the paranoia in schools can be
harmful. One school I've heard of in the news forces all students to
have tranparent backpacks.
> There are fundamental examples that are easy to see: try lasting
> through a job interview if you don't shower regularly. That's purely an
> example of social pressure, because body odor is no indication of job skill,
> it's merely an impression you make on the interviewer, who then will decide
> to hire someone who conforms more closely to his nasal standards. The same
> small pushes take place in emotional and philosophical arenas, although
> fortunately there's an increasing tolerance and willingness to hold such
> cases up to the light of discrimination laws.
I can easily understand this one. It is a good thing to give people
wide bearth with their choice of life style, but in some cases, it
just makes your personal life miserable by their choice.
> Peer pressure works in the same way, although the physical
> consequences can be less severe, replaced with emotional derision and
> exclusion. While certain people have more tolerance for loneliness than
> others, anyone who wants to fit into society must have *some* social peer
> group, and consequently, sooner or later, breaks down and conforms.
Yes, even if it's people who fit together simply by shared interests,
or enjoying being unusual, there are always shared things, and that,
in a sense, is conforming.
> These slips take place in different areas, but there is nobody on
> this newsgroup (or the internet) who can say that their behavior is free of
> this peer influence. Consider: Why do we use punctuation?
I'd hope it's to be easily understood, but that's just why I use it. I
try to make everything I say more clear with it, and emphisize where
needed.
--
Fang Tsu, Shadow of Infinity, Oracle of Tears
Former Elf, Former Rakasha, Former King... but now?
Fang...@usa.net IM: FangTsu
Cerulean
>now for the disturbing parts of the program...
>
>an artist (i forget his name) throwing blood &faeces onto canvas and
>calling it art. how is that art? where is the skill? where is the
>beauty? apparently it is about the message: that life is bloody &messy,
>etc. but can't the message be presented in a more clever &skillful way?
Many "message" artists prefer to think that "pure expression" has
nothing to do with skill or cleverness. If they can _literally_ pull
it out of their arse, all the better.
Art is made up of two things: the idea and the execution. While I hold
that anything that someone calls art qualifies as art, some art is
just bad. When someone has an idea for a work of art and does
sonething with it, that's art, good or bad. If the same person,
instead of having another idea, executes the first idea a second time
in essentially the same way, that's a reproduction. As far as I'm
concerned, a lot of artists have only made one work of art and are
selling copies of it for the price of an original. Unfortunately, the
collector crowd _loves_ this kind of artist and will happily fawn over
a whole room of identical filth-smeared canvases, or solid black
canvases, or canvases with nothing on them at all.
And when the idea is nothing more than "I can shock people by throwing
sh_t on a canvas and calling it art," then you've got sh_tty art.
Dadaism ran its course decades ago; "look what I can get away with" is
not a new idea at all.
>then there was the idea that we have to suspend disgust to be able to
>"mate" (their word, not mine).
Sounds like someone is projecting their personal problems onto the
entirety of human experience. If that kind of generalization is what
someone has to do in order to deal with it, I can only shake my head
and sympathize.
>why aren't there paintings CELEBRATING the human body? CELEBRATING sex.
>not making these things into something disgusting &dirty? we're not in
>the victorian era now, it's the year 2000, why aren't we recognising
>that we are BEAUTIFUL CREATURES?
Because making it ugly is the only way to get away with this stuff.
Our culture says that if you're capable of enjoying it, it's
pornography. And it doesn't get to be Art if it's pornography. So,
artists deal with sexual subjects by making them so unpalatable that
not only is it unlikely to cause arousal, but it can kill any arousal
that might have been preexisting. In this way they force the people
who decide "what is Art" to take them seriously.
>why do we still have to be ashamed?
Because when you Break the Rules, you go to the House of Pain.
There's no _good_ reason.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( uos7aN a>!W - ,,'poo6 hue auo ou op sjJnwS,,
Lhexa
>
> These slips take place in different areas, but there is nobody on
> this newsgroup (or the internet) who can say that their behavior is free of
> this peer influence. Consider: Why do we use punctuation?
punctuation represents linguistic devices and actions that are not
actual enunciations for instance commas stand for pauses question marks
for rising inflections exclamation points for emphatic tone dashes for
sudden breaks in speech these usages although not representing actual
sounds do more to express emotion in speech than even choice of words
and thus are not a matter of arbitrary social conditioning i have read
and now written without punctuation and i cant stand it if you imagine
the speech represented by such words they seem as continuous ranting or
imbecility
Peer influence has a thoroughly negative connotation. Because of that,
it would not be correct to call every social convention peer
influence... and, what person learned Arabic numerals or the English
alphabet or punctuation from kids their own age?
> B
Lhexa
Guinearat
"persephone" <zep...@stormi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kheUhHAU...@stormi.demon.co.uk...
> i know there's nothing wrong with my body IN THEORY. i'm about the right
> weight for my height, no problem finding clothes in the right size, etc
> BUT i am a casualty of all this skinny peeps = attractive media Stuff. i
> wasn't happy when i was /under/weight - i still thought i was too big. i
> still get panicky &upset about it.
You know, this got me seriously thinking about media conditioning of my own
self image, and I really can't think of a single thing. And to be honest I
don't know if this is because the conditioning is so ingrained that I can't
even see it, or if I really just don't give a shit what anyone else thinks I
should look like. I've never been one to go along with the current fashions
(in fact 99% of the time I think what is considered "fashion" is someone's
idea of a sick joke). I grew up raising and training my own horses, and so
never wore anything other than jeans, casual shirts and boots, and I still
don't. I despise "lacy, frilly" female under things, and refuse to wear
pantyhose, or anything resembling a skirt. The only exception to this was
when I was in the Navy and had to wear my "Dress Blue Alphas" which included
skirt and pumps. And even then I wore the slacks anytime I got the chance.
The greatest day of my Naval career was when "crackerjacks" (tradtional male
dress uniform) became authorized for females and the skirt and heals became
optional!
As far as weight and body shape is concerned, I think that as long as you
are medically healthy that's all that matters. I am about 20 pounds over my
"ideal" weight according to medical guidlines, but my bloodpressure,
cholesterol, etc is right on point. I can run 1.5 miles (Navy standard
fitness test distance) easily, I don't smoke, and don't drink excessively.
I am working on losing that extra 20 pounds via strength training, but that
is because it's healthier in the long run, and strength training now will
help prevent health problems such as osteoporosis later. (Also, since my
mate and I have gotten seriously into sword fighting (using bamboo practice
swords, that is, not the real thing... we not *that* crazy!) being as
physically strong and conditioned reduces the risk of injury.)
> i will not wear shorts, i will not wear a very small skirt i WILL NOT
> wear any type of swimming costume, i panic trying to decide what to wear
> for an evening out (sometimes to the extent of crying and refusing to go
> out because i feel so bad :/)
Like I mentioned above, my mode of dress is pretty standard. I don't wear
shorts or sandals because I simple got into the habit of always wearing
jeans and boots while working horses. *laughs* The one and only time I
ever went into the barn wearing sandals, I got my foot broke when a startled
horse came down on it! Never did that again, let me tell you!! And shorts
and saddles just don't mix, IMHO. I also never wore ear rings like other
girls my age, because I had seen one too many get the silly things tangled
in the horses gear and wind up getting their earlobe ripped open as a
result. I din't get my ears pierced until I was nearly 25, and then just
did it when I found a really cool pair of Dragon ear rings :}
When it comes to getting dressed up, I wear slacks, my dress boots, and a
nice shirt and jacket. I still don't like skirts and refuse to wear one.
Not only are they uncomfortable, but you can't fight in them easily!
> > So much of what we do is imprinted on us -- subconsciously, or
with
> >our unrealized conscious help -- in our attempts to join with the crowd.
> >Now *that*'s disgusting.
Never worried too much about "joining the crowd" and actually tend to scare
most of them. Most women I know tell me I'm too "masculine" in my attitudes,
and most men say I'm too aggressive (I remember over hearing an instructor I
had in the Navy, who was also a Navy Seal, tell another instructor that I
was one of the few people who scared him. Never found out why...).
What I *would* like to know is why what is considered "confidence" in a man
is considered "arrogance" or "bitchiness" in a woman?
--
May you ride the Winds in strength,
Kerowyn SilverDrake
*the silver-eyed, black Dragon*
Quality Control Official, Cheesist Faith
Matriarch of the Purity of Cheese
Head of the Order of Extra Sharp Chedder
DC2.Dw Gf L150f W PfPwPl Sks,wl Cbk,eag(ag horns&talons)
Bfl A Fr+ M++ O H++ $ Fo R+++! Ac J++ S+ U+ I# V+++ Q++ Tc+
DrakCat
>
> What I *would* like to know is why what is considered "confidence" in a man
SO WOULD I.
DrakCat - sick of the b!tch thing
--
DrakCat
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/drakcat/index.html
DC2.Mf^Dw Gf L-- W- T- Pf^l^tw Sku Cbk A Fr++
Nn M/ $ F++o R++ Ac++ J+++| S U2 I+ Df++
Harry Gibson
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott wrote:
Actually body odor is indicative of something. Of attitude. There was a case
back in the 70's in Berkeley of a commune whose members decided basic hygiene
was some kind of bourgeois BS. And then the members started showing up at the
free clinic with all sorts of diseases that had not been seen since the middle
ages. All kinds of cruds, skin diseases etc. Stuff we do not see today because
we bathe regularly.
It is one thing to question why a certain rule of society is made, and to most
of us, so far removed from the invention of bathing and basic hygiene. But to
blindly disregard those rules, with no thought to the consequences is not wise.
A disbelief in bathing does not protect one from all kinds of skin disease as
effectively as bathing does.
> Peer pressure works in the same way, although the physical
> consequences can be less severe, replaced with emotional derision and
> exclusion. While certain people have more tolerance for loneliness than
> others, anyone who wants to fit into society must have *some* social peer
> group, and consequently, sooner or later, breaks down and conforms.
> These slips take place in different areas, but there is nobody on
> this newsgroup (or the internet) who can say that their behavior is free of
> this peer influence. Consider: Why do we use punctuation?
Communication :) Without punctuation we would not be able to communicate very
well people will think we are saying one thing and not what we mean instead of
peer pressure think societal contract
Ben
aka Drakon@home
Rhynyx
>>
>> What I *would* like to know is why what is considered "confidence" in a man
>> is considered "arrogance" or "b!tchiness" in a woman?
>
>SO WOULD I.
>
>DrakCat - sick of the b!tch thing
Ditto here. If anyone ever figures it out, would ya pass it along?
--
Drakkina, Rhynyx, and other names too numerous to mention.
http://www.geocities.com/drakkina/
DC2.DGfLWPalvwSkhCbk,bgy-,ebl'BflA-Fr-R++Ac++J+S++U-I+#
Have you noticed I switch servers a lot? Hmm...
Fang Tsu: Shadow of Infinity
> >Guinearat wrote:
> >> What I *would* like to know is why what is considered "confidence" in a man
> >> is considered "arrogance" or "b!tchiness" in a woman?
> >SO WOULD I.
> >DrakCat - sick of the b!tch thing
> Ditto here. If anyone ever figures it out, would ya pass it along?
As a male, I actualy don't know. I have the same standards for people
regardless of gender, or atleast do my best to do so. Yes, I'll say a
guy is b!tchy or arrogent at the same point as I would of a girl, if
not quicker due to the fact alot of the "macho" stuff can annoy me too
easily if it goes too far.
Sigridir
>
> Guinearat wrote:
> >
> > What I *would* like to know is why what is considered "confidence" in a man
> > is considered "arrogance" or "b!tchiness" in a woman?
>
> SO WOULD I.
>
> DrakCat - sick of the b!tch thing
I'm sorry but it's not.
I'm self-confident, assertive to the point of arrogance, don't suffer
fools, bossy, stubborn, confrontational and opinionated. I speak my
mind loudly, and tell people they're wrong. I've disciplined staff,
bullied when necessary, applied the kick up the backside to
subordinates, told managers they're not doing their job properly and
delivered criticism. As far as I know, I've never been called a b*tch.
I've occasionally been called arrogant, bossy and awkward, but never a
b*tch.
Perhaps that's because I'm usually polite and calm, consider other
people's dignity, apologise for inappropriate behaviour and ill-chosen
words, am constructive in my criticism and reward good work with
praise. The only women I know who've been referred to as b*tches are
guilty of the sort of behaviour that would get a man called an equally
vituperative name.
Maybe it's different in the US, but if you regularly get called names,
perhaps you ought to consider whether it's how you express your
confidence that's the problem.
Sigridir
Sigridir
> i know there's nothing wrong with my body IN THEORY. i'm about the right
> weight for my height, no problem finding clothes in the right size, etc
> BUT i am a casualty of all this skinny peeps = attractive media Stuff. i
> wasn't happy when i was /under/weight - i still thought i was too big. i
> still get panicky &upset about it.
This is quite serious and you should consider seeking some sort of
counselling or help for it. If you are underweight and still feeling
distressed, particularly panicky/upset by it then you're in the early
stages of anorexia or bulimia. Being underweight is just as much of a
health issue as being overweight.
>
> >(the irony being
> >that I actually do have a body which modern standards deem within the
> >traditional limits of beauty; I'm actually underweight for my height), and
> >it's not like I'm living with strangers at this point (as I was in the
> >dorms) or with my parents. And yet I won't wander around the house without
> >pants on, nor (generally) without a shirt.
>
> i will not wear shorts, i will not wear a very small skirt i WILL NOT
> wear any type of swimming costume, i panic trying to decide what to wear
> for an evening out (sometimes to the extent of crying and refusing to go
> out because i feel so bad :/)
This worries me a great deal. It sounds to me like you are in danger
of an eating disorder. Here is not the place to discuss the issue, but
if you want to talk privately feel free to email me.
I do have an understanding of what it can be like. As a child I was
large for my age; not really fat, just big. If I were a boy, I'd have
been considered a serious rugby player. :> Being built like a brick
outhouse is no fun when you're a teenage girl. People's obsession with
my weight (which was later deemed normal for my frame by a world
authority) caused me to have a form of bulimia. Like most bulimics, I
ate a lot and then tried to make myself ill - at which I failed
dismally. Consequently I *did* become very fat and have spent the rest
of my life trying to recover from it. These days although still very
large, my self-image is much improved. I wear a swimming costume and
shorts under appropriate circumstances and do you know, hardly anyone
notices! I have a wardrobe full of nice clothes and love getting
dressed up. Don't be frightened of what people will think, even I've
had complete strangers come up to me and compliment me on my outfits.
You can learn to be more accepting of yourself and to appreciate that
people aren't as critical as you fear - but it's a long and difficult
process. However the difference it will make to your whole life is
worth it.
>
> > So much of what we do is imprinted on us -- subconsciously, or with
> >our unrealized conscious help -- in our attempts to join with the crowd.
> >Now *that*'s disgusting.
>
> it is disgusting. it's also very sad. i've never tried to "join with the
> crowd" - i'm comfortable with who i am i just want who i am to be very
> skinny. all these magazines &teevee programs have severely f*xked my
> head up.
>
No crowd would ever accept me, I was just too different. :>
> >
> >Bax
> >
>
> rae (F.I.N.E - f*xk*d up, insecure, neurotic &emotional :)
Sigridir
Occasionally fine, but mostly egocentric, voluble, individualistic and
large! :>
persephone
Guinearat <guin...@earthlink.net> writes
>> i know there's nothing wrong with my body IN THEORY. i'm about the right
>> weight for my height, no problem finding clothes in the right size, etc
>> BUT i am a casualty of all this skinny peeps = attractive media Stuff. i
>> wasn't happy when i was /under/weight - i still thought i was too big. i
>> still get panicky &upset about it.
>
>You know, this got me seriously thinking about media conditioning of my own
>self image, and I really can't think of a single thing. And to be honest I
>don't know if this is because the conditioning is so ingrained that I can't
>even see it, or if I really just don't give a shit what anyone else thinks I
>should look like. I've never been one to go along with the current fashions
>(in fact 99% of the time I think what is considered "fashion" is someone's
>idea of a sick joke).
*hee* i'm not particularly fashionable at ALL. i won't buy something
because it is fashionable BUT, if i happen to like something that is
fashionable &it SUITS me, i'll buy it. i buy what makes me look good
(my idea of good = stylish, almost professional... rae would be v. happy
if she could wander around all day in a skirt suit with heels :)
>I grew up raising and training my own horses, and so
>never wore anything other than jeans, casual shirts and boots, and I still
>don't. I despise "lacy, frilly" female under things, and refuse to wear
>pantyhose, or anything resembling a skirt. The only exception to this was
>when I was in the Navy and had to wear my "Dress Blue Alphas" which included
>skirt and pumps. And even then I wore the slacks anytime I got the chance.
>The greatest day of my Naval career was when "crackerjacks" (tradtional male
>dress uniform) became authorized for females and the skirt and heals became
>optional!
>
ah! i am HOPELESS at buying casual clothes, i /will/ /not/ wear
shapeless, baggy clothes - they make me look fat. i wear fitted things.
i can't even wear jeans. it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to find a pair of jeans
that fit. this is because i have a very small waist compared to the rest
of me (i'm kinda an odd hourglass shape, i guess) my hips &shoulders are
wide so non-stretchy trousers are a problem. also i am mostly made up of
arms and legs - i have a very short body &long legs &a high waist. this
means that the waistband on jeans only reaches my hips. this means that
it won't do up unless i get a bigger pair of jeans, which makes the
jeans too baggy for my legs. i hate this.
i like to wear skirts but, again, i can't wear long skirts because my
hips are too wide &they make me look fat. also, ankle length skirts
never actually reach my ankles. (i'm just under 5'8" - not a giant or
anything! :) if i got a bigger skirt it might reach my ankles but it'd
be too big round my waist.
>As far as weight and body shape is concerned, I think that as long as you
>are medically healthy that's all that matters. I am about 20 pounds over my
>"ideal" weight according to medical guidlines, but my bloodpressure,
>cholesterol, etc is right on point. I can run 1.5 miles (Navy standard
>fitness test distance) easily, I don't smoke, and don't drink excessively.
>I am working on losing that extra 20 pounds via strength training, but that
>is because it's healthier in the long run, and strength training now will
>help prevent health problems such as osteoporosis later. (Also, since my
>mate and I have gotten seriously into sword fighting (using bamboo practice
>swords, that is, not the real thing... we not *that* crazy!) being as
>physically strong and conditioned reduces the risk of injury.)
oh yeah! as long as yr healthy, it's okay but you have to be happy, too.
i dunno.. i guess i might be fitter now i've put on a bit of weight, my
blood pressure's normal instead of low &everything. but when i was
thinner i used to be able to walk ALL DAY ¬ eat a thing. 'course
that's probably not too healthy but i must've been pretty strong! :) i
didn't smoke then, though.
>
>> i will not wear shorts, i will not wear a very small skirt i WILL NOT
>> wear any type of swimming costume, i panic trying to decide what to wear
>> for an evening out (sometimes to the extent of crying and refusing to go
>> out because i feel so bad :/)
>
>Like I mentioned above, my mode of dress is pretty standard. I don't wear
>shorts or sandals because I simple got into the habit of always wearing
>jeans and boots while working horses. *laughs* The one and only time I
>ever went into the barn wearing sandals, I got my foot broke when a startled
>horse came down on it! Never did that again, let me tell you!! And shorts
>and saddles just don't mix, IMHO.
ugh, definitely not. i rode wearing shorts once. i was about 7 &on
holiday &it was hot so i figured i would ride in shorts. i ended up with
the saddle rubbing sores on the insides of my legs. ugh. :/
> I also never wore ear rings like other
>girls my age, because I had seen one too many get the silly things tangled
>in the horses gear and wind up getting their earlobe ripped open as a
>result. I din't get my ears pierced until I was nearly 25, and then just
>did it when I found a really cool pair of Dragon ear rings :}
i like earrings! in fact, i like piercings in general. i've got seven
earrings plus one belly button piercing (did have two but it caused
problems when i sat down - they get all tangled in yr waistband - plus
it looked like i had a lump of shrapnel in my stomach :)
>
>
>--
>May you ride the Winds in strength,
>Kerowyn SilverDrake
rae
Arinalla/zowie
"Dracana" <Dra...@dragonsight.zzn.com> wrote
> Just something to add to all this. Not even I have been totally able
> to defeat the programming that I have received from those images and
> people around me. I still have twinges of shame and longings to look
> better when I look at myself in a mirror sometimes. I have yet to
> disregard what I look like and try to have more of a social life
> outside those I have come to know already.
I know this feeling all too well. I swing from "I dont care, I am gonna
look how I want to look"" and dressing to suit my mood, to "I hate myself,
my body, my clothing and everything" and depending on how bad it is,
dressing in trousers and baggy shirts. t's a rarety that i dres in a
skirt - only a couple of times a year - I just never seem to have the
confidence for it. It's a case that when I do, I already feel great, and
wearing it makes me selfconsious as i never really wear one. i can't win so
I just wear trousers all the time.
> I have improved a lot since when I was first beginning to discover my
> true identity but I have a I still have a way to go before I can
> defeat such programming. That is because it technically has been there
> while I am stick in this human form for so much longer than the
> knowledge of my true identity. That makes a lot more of a difference
> than some might think.
One thing that always amused me, was how in school, there were so many
lectures on "Mathematics for girls" and "Physics for girls" just to show
that girls could take these subjects. I never felt any pressure that as a
female that I couldn't - if anything, I was determined to do better than
any guy just so i could prove that girls were as good - it always amused me
that i was one of two girls in a class of 12 doing the main math papers in
my final year at secondary school.
--
Arinalla
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/greenzowie
Elfwood gallery: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/loth/k/i/kirsi/kirsi.html
ICQ#: 420687
Wyrm
"Sigridir" <sigr...@bibliophage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39B4EF3F...@bibliophage.demon.co.uk...
> DrakCat wrote:
> > Guinearat wrote:
> > > What I *would* like to know is why what is considered "confidence" in
a man
> > > is considered "arrogance" or "b!tchiness" in a woman?
> > SO WOULD I.
> I'm sorry but it's not.
> Maybe it's different in the US, but if you regularly get called names,
> perhaps you ought to consider whether it's how you express your
> confidence that's the problem.
You can always just devour them of course! :8)
--
Wyrm: http://www.wyrm.org.uk/
DC2.DGmA+++!L700fW--T-PhlltBflF~+++!R+++!Ac++J+++
NfSFr+++!U+++!I++H++$M/O/V+++!Q---Tc+++Cre'Sks
Dragon's, coming, out of the sea.
Shimmering silver head of wisdom looking at me.
Peter Gabriel - Genesis.
caind...@my-deja.com
> > > > What I *would* like to know is why what is
considered "confidence" in
> a man is considered "arrogance" or "b!tchiness" in a woman?
> > > SO WOULD I.
> > I'm sorry but it's not.
> > Maybe it's different in the US, but if you regularly get called
names,> > perhaps you ought to consider whether it's how you express
your> > confidence that's the problem.
>
> You can always just devour them of course! :8)
> --
> Wyrm: http://www.wyrm.org.uk/
>
> DC2.DGmA+++!L700fW--T-PhlltBflF~+++!R+++!Ac++J+++
> NfSFr+++!U+++!I++H++$M/O/V+++!Q---Tc+++Cre'Sks
>
> Dragon's, coming, out of the sea.
> Shimmering silver head of wisdom looking at me.
> Peter Gabriel - Genesis.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott
> Peer pressure works in the same way, although the physical
> consequences can be less severe, replaced with emotional derision and
> exclusion. While certain people have more tolerance for loneliness than
> others, anyone who wants to fit into society must have *some* social peer
> group, and consequently, sooner or later, breaks down and conforms.
>
> These slips take place in different areas, but there is nobody on this
> newsgroup (or the internet) who can say that their behavior is free of
> this peer influence. Consider: Why do we use punctuation?
<<responses snipped>>
Excellent answers all around. Most of you picked up on what I was
trying to say: that we willingly sacrifice our "freedom" to write however we
darn well please in order to get our point across more clearly.
In retrospect it was a pretty poor example (and, as someone pointed
out, this really isn't a "peer group"-influenced behavior). I think what I
originally meant to show with it was that we care what other people think of
us (and of our opinions), so we modify our behaviors to cater to those
others. It's kind of a stretch though, so I'll drop it and try to find a
better metaphor.
Bax
--
BAXIL's compact-yet-feature-filled 7-LINE .SIG (8-04-2K) * _/|
~Mate of Jia~ :) | DC2.D~ Gm L12m W-- Pfwl Cgr,bbl+ B- * _-------C_/
"Mythology tells | A(v++r) Fr+++"kiwi" M+++!2xy O- H+ $- * |. CD |\
us our natures." | F+o R+++! Ac J-~ S+++! U++ I-- V+++ * | ___ /_ \
Professional spokesbeing for the online dragon community * |/---=___-' |
Web turf: www.tomorrowlands.org & www.ecis.com/~ddragon/ * / / /
QUESTIONS ABOUT DRACONITY? Answers at http://www.ecis.com/~ddragon/faq/
AMW
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott wrote:
>
> Harry Gibson thoughtfully scribed:
> > Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott wrote:
> >> But there are
> >> many "social standards" which are basically nothing more than the whim of
> >> the fashion police which *all* of us nevertheless must recognize and obey,
> >> lest we be trampled into the dust.
> >> There are fundamental examples that are easy to see: try lasting
> >> through a job interview if you don't shower regularly. That's purely an
> >> example of social pressure, because body odor is no indication of job skill
> <snip>
> > Actually body odor is indicative of something. Of attitude.
>
> Is it really? Or is that just the traditional justification of the
> discriminatory manager?
It is. Think about it a moment. the societal norm is of a clean smelling
or at the very least the lack of an unpleasant aroma. The person in
question is either not aware that their odor is offensive, or simply
does not care. Depending on how strong the odor may be, the first
possibility may be suspect. And if they are willing to break that norm,
then what other norms they will willingly violate is left as an open
question. And that lack of information in a manager is problematic to
him.
> What about the Southern Californian who passionately believes in
> water conservation (seeing as how they, y'know, live in a desert) and so
> showers once a week? (Technically "regularly", but not "regularly" enough
> to stay odorless, so it falls in under my hypothetical situation above.)
> What about the homeless man who is looking for a job so he can find a place
> where he *can* shower regularly? What about the people whose personal odors
> are just stronger than others, the type who can still smell after taking a
> shower? I personally know three people of these types whose work ethic is
> unimpugnable.
Then we get into an area where the individual in question simply cannot
help the way he smells. That it is a third alternative explanation. But
as you point out, these individuals have already proven themselves in
other areas to overcome any bias toward their odor.
> Or, if you're still going to maintain that odor indicates attitude,
> then why are highly overperfumed (rather, "overscented" in general, since
> some men do it too) workers hired? I'm personally acquainted with people
> who get allergic reactions to perfumed air. Potentially more serious than a
> coworker just smelling a little odd.
Tell me about it. I have found that I am allergic to most perfumes.
Gives me really bad headaches.
There are two separate issues here. Pleasant and unpleasant odors. Most
people think the smell of perfume is pleasant while the smell of a sweat
or other natural odors of the human body are unpleasant. And people
would rather be in pleasant environments than unpleasant one.
> There is a *social standard* at work here which tells us that
> overscenting is better than body odor. Objectively, both bother people, but
> one is discriminated against and the other isn't. Heck, objectively,
> overperfuming is *worse*, cause I've never heard of a single case of
> coworker B.O. setting off an asthma attack.
Won't even begin to disagree with you here. :)
There are cultures where perfume is used to mask the natural odor, to
change the odor of a person from unpleasant to pleasant. Mostly in those
areas of the world where water is scarcest. And for that reason.
> > There was a case back in the 70's in Berkeley of a commune whose members
> > decided basic hygiene was some kind of bourgeois BS. And then the members
> > started showing up at the free clinic with all sorts of diseases that had
> > not been seen since the middle ages. All kinds of cruds, skin diseases
> > etc. Stuff we do not see today because we bathe regularly.
>
> Sorry at losing my temper here ... but congratulations on inserting
> a completely true, and completely irrelevant, example. If your only
> argument against people whose smell may offend is "guilt by association"
> with those who represent the most radical extreme, you've shown nothing.
Mr. Ramspott, if this is your idea of losing your temper, I must admit
to being quite impressed. You did not degenerate into some mindless
irrational name-calling or some such, but gave a clear and well written
rebuttal to my remarks.
But it is not guilt by association. Too often I see that the questioning
of societal norms is used as an excuse to simply drop them. With no
regard for figuring out why those norms were adopted in the first place.
In the provided example, hygiene was not so much questioned, but thrown
away, to the detriment of those who did so. In an expressed effort to
question such bourgeois attitudes, the people provided us with a good
example of why those norms are in place.
So you question the societal norm on body odor. From your tone, you seem
willing to toss the norm aside. So I offer an admittedly extreme example
of a societal norm that was tossed aside, because it was questioned (or
at least the questioning was used as an excuse to toss it out) to
disastrous results.
Ben
aka Drakon@work
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott
(Note to self: My original thesis was "we need to compromise
ourselves to meet social standards, but there are standards it is good to
question." Note to self: My original thesis was "we need to compromise
ourselves to meet social standards, but there are standards it is good to
question." Note to self ...)
AMW thoughtfully scribed:
> Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott wrote:
>> Excellent answers all around. Most of you picked up on what I was trying
>> to say: that we willingly sacrifice our "freedom" to write however we
>> darn well please in order to get our point across more clearly.
>>
>> In retrospect it was a pretty poor example (and, as someone pointed out,
>> this really isn't a "peer group"-influenced behavior). I think what I
>> originally meant to show with it was that we care what other people think
>> of us (and of our opinions), so we modify our behaviors to cater to those
>> others. It's kind of a stretch though, so I'll drop it and try to find a
>> better metaphor.
> At the risk of angering you again, :) I have to disagree. We don't
> "willingly sacrifice our "freedom" to write however we darn well please
> in order to get our point across more clearly." We recognize that while
> we are free to write however we want, if we want to communicate, we have
> to write in a certain manner.
But that was my point exactly. We decide consciously that we want
to communicate. Therefore we *willingly* sacrifice our freedom to not make
sense.
If I wanted to *not* communicate, I could unusually vicious
defensive diadem, a religion, new pathology of largo inflammation.
> You want a drink of water. You are perfectly free to look in the oven
> for that drink. It does not mean that you will find it there.
I must object to this as a poor example. Looking in the oven for
that drink is not interacting with another entity with free will; we're
talking about social interactions here.
I see your point though. (which I suspect is also my point, read
properly. ;)) I am perfectly free, if thirsty, to say, "Hey Drakon, get me
a glass of water." I have better probabilities of getting a drink if I walk
to the sink. ;)
> You are free to use punctuation however you feel like. But you are not
> free to decide how others will respond to your choices. You are not free
> to choose my actions, my response to yours. I get to choose that. So if
> you want to communicate with me, (as one example) you have to speak in a
> language I understand. If I started talking to you in say Klingon, or
> Latin (assuming that I know enough to speak intelligently in either and
> you know nothing of them) then you would have no idea what I was saying.
> likewise if, i# started using, Punctuation however i felt like it?
> syntax understand Or but of the that could discard rules mean would
> would you I me. You'd have to put additional effort into figuring out
> what I mean, and even then it might not be worth your time to do so.
To return to the water example, and perhaps even improve it: If
we're in the same room (which is to say, you are physically capable of
getting me water ;)) then I have the freedom to choose between the following
options:
(A) "Hey, Drakon, could you please get me some water?"
(B) "Yo, you fairy b*tch. Get me some f*cking water now."
I somehow just maybe think that conforming to societal norms here
will not only perhaps get me some water, but (relative to the other choice)
contribute to my continued well-being as a living organism. ];=8)
> In an earlier life, I rode submarines. One of our societal norms was one
> never closed a valve. One could open or shut a valve (or hatch, or
> whatever) but never close them. The reason was that the word 'close'
> sounds too much like the word 'blow' and the only thing that got blown
> on a submarine was the main ballast tanks in order to take the sub to
> the surface.
And a very prudent societal norm it is! See below.
> The problem with most of these societal norms you are talking about is
> the original principles behind and rationales for are lost in the sands
> of time.
<snip>
> But just because we do not know what those reasons are is no reason in and
> of itself to discard them. At least not until we are sure that our
> solution is less dangerous than the original.
At the risk of blurring the line between our sub-threads here, I'm
dragging your original objection to the smell issue in here. My argument on
"guilt by association", I think, still stands: nothing has been shown about
the wisdom of the societal norm, only of the consequences of breaking it in
one particular way. And I provided several counterexamples of people who
don't break the norm in that extreme of a fashion ... the argument of
"they'll get horrid skin diseases" wilts in those cases, and you're left
with the original, unanswered, question.
More simply, the commune you referred to was an example *not* of
"people who discarded societal norms" but of "people who discarded societal
norms in an extreme way." The societal norm is against smelling bad. One
can smell bad without skin diseases. Thus the only role "smelling bad = the
commune" serves is as a scare tactic. (Your other objection carried far
more weight. I've addressed it in another post.)
I am agreeing with you, insofar as you said "just because we
do not know what those reasons are is no reason in and of itself to discard
them. At least not until we are sure that our solution is less dangerous
than the original." The problem is that blindly obeying the social standard
until that certainty has been achieved is often just as detrimental.
There's a social standard against dragons being real, for instance.
I dare say that this is a good standard to discard. ;) There are certainly
people who have discarded that standard in ways which have negatively
influenced their lives; should we shrivel up under the weight of their
examples, or should we keep poking at the boundaries while looking for ways
to discard it safely?
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott
> Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott wrote:
>> > Actually body odor is indicative of something. Of attitude.
>>
>> Is it really? Or is that just the traditional justification of
>> the discriminatory manager?
>
> It is. Think about it a moment. the societal norm is of a clean smelling
> or at the very least the lack of an unpleasant aroma. The person in
> question is either not aware that their odor is offensive, or simply
> does not care. Depending on how strong the odor may be, the first
> possibility may be suspect. And if they are willing to break that norm,
> then what other norms they will willingly violate is left as an open
> question. And that lack of information in a manager is problematic to
> him.
In many cases your line of logic is sound. I notice you
acknowledged an alternative below. Does the fact that your deductions will
*often* be right give the manager the right to make that *assumption*?
That's what I'm saying.
You raise another question here, which has no good objective answer:
How important is "employee interrelations" compared to "ability to produce
work to specs"? This varies from workplace to workplace, and from
department to department within workplaces, and from manager to manager.
While I firmly believe that the latter is more valuable than the former
(it's what you get paid for, after all!), there is still certainly value to
the former. It's not an "either/or." Managers IMHO should look for, and
screen out, potential employees who will "poke the hornet's nest" and cause
more losses in employee productivity than they will gain in the work they
do.
Is body odor alone an indicator of this? Hardly. Body odor in
conjunction with several other factors? Far more likely. "What other norms
will they willingly violate?" is a great question when you've perceived a
*pattern* of violation. Not just someone smelling bad.
>> What about the Southern Californian who passionately believes in
>> water conservation (seeing as how they, y'know, live in a desert) and so
>> showers once a week? (Technically "regularly", but not "regularly" enough
>> to stay odorless, so it falls in under my hypothetical situation above.)
>> What about the homeless man who is looking for a job so he can find a place
>> where he *can* shower regularly? What about the people whose personal odors
>> are just stronger than others, the type who can still smell after taking a
>> shower? I personally know three people of these types whose work ethic is
>> unimpugnable.
>
> Then we get into an area where the individual in question simply cannot
> help the way he smells. That it is a third alternative explanation. But
> as you point out, these individuals have already proven themselves in
> other areas to overcome any bias toward their odor.
>
>> Or, if you're still going to maintain that odor indicates attitude,
>> then why are highly overperfumed (rather, "overscented" in general, since
>> some men do it too) workers hired? I'm personally acquainted with people
>> who get allergic reactions to perfumed air. Potentially more serious than a
>> coworker just smelling a little odd.
>
> Tell me about it. I have found that I am allergic to most perfumes.
> Gives me really bad headaches.
>
> There are two separate issues here. Pleasant and unpleasant odors. Most
> people think the smell of perfume is pleasant while the smell of a sweat
> or other natural odors of the human body are unpleasant. And people
> would rather be in pleasant environments than unpleasant one.
Again, "most" people. As I said, perfumes have negative
effects as well as their "pleasant" smell. A standard which tolerates those
effects as a trade-off deserves to be questioned. It may be right, but
there may be a better solution, and if nobody is willing to break the wall,
how can we tell?
> There are cultures where perfume is used to mask the natural odor, to
> change the odor of a person from unpleasant to pleasant. Mostly in those
> areas of the world where water is scarcest. And for that reason.
Tell that to the peons of the gray race in, say, Seattle. ];=8)
Perfume makes me lightheaded, too. ;P
>> Sorry at losing my temper here ... but congratulations on inserting
>> a completely true, and completely irrelevant, example. If your only
>> argument against people whose smell may offend is "guilt by association"
>> with those who represent the most radical extreme, you've shown nothing.
>
> Mr. Ramspott, if this is your idea of losing your temper, I must admit
> to being quite impressed. You did not degenerate into some mindless
> irrational name-calling or some such, but gave a clear and well written
> rebuttal to my remarks.
Thanks for the kind words. The fact remains that your earlier
argument bugged me to the point where I was arguing from emotion -- a need
to be right -- rather than reason -- a wish to search for the truth. I
turned my rebuttal over in my mind for several hours, which is why it came
out so coherently, but it was still basically a mental knife instead of a
handshake.
I'm awfully good at repressing myself. I still regret that I wasted
so much time on that point (and caused myself so much stress). I'm kind of
bitter that I got to thinking of this as an argument that needed to be
"won", rather than talked about; that's what I was apologizing for. I guess
my standards are just much higher than the "normal" debater's -- some pride
themselves on being civil, I see it as a necessity for communication.
> But it is not guilt by association. Too often I see that the questioning
> of societal norms is used as an excuse to simply drop them.
All I have to say to this is: Re-read what you just wrote. :-)
> With no
> regard for figuring out why those norms were adopted in the first place.
> In the provided example, hygiene was not so much questioned, but thrown
> away, to the detriment of those who did so. In an expressed effort to
> question such bourgeois attitudes, the people provided us with a good
> example of why those norms are in place.
The norm of "not smelling", as opposed to the norm of "basic
hygiene"? See my other post in this thread.
> So you question the societal norm on body odor. From your tone, you seem
> willing to toss the norm aside.
I'll be frank here: I've been criticized for odor in the past. So,
no, that example didn't come out of the blue. Still, it was just an
example.
Personally speaking, I'm not as vehement on tearing down that
particular wall as you might infer. I wear clean clothes and shower
regularly (though my definition of "regularly" is less strict than the
corporate drone's). I'd rather do it that way than go in to work reeking,
even if the standard didn't exist. But I used the example because I do
believe that it's one that is taken far too seriously by the Powers That Be.
When you've hiked in the backwoods for a month with a group of total
strangers, you learn that odor has a lot less to do with how people behave
than you think.
Bax
--
BAXIL's compact-yet-feature-filled 7-LINE .SIG (8-04-2K) * _/|
~Mate of Jia~ :) | DC2.D~ Gm L12m W-- Pfwl Cgr,bbl+ B- * _-------C_/
"Mythology tells | A(v++r) Fr+++"kiwi" M+++!2xy O- H+ $- * |. CD |\
us our natures." | F+o R+++! Ac J-~ S+++! U++ I-- V+++ * | ___ /_ \
Professional spokesbeing for the online dragon community * |/---=___-' |
Web turf: www.tomorrowlands.org & www.ecis.com/~ddragon/ * / / /
QUESTIONS ABOUT DRACONITY? Answers at http://www.ecis.com/~ddragon/faq/
DrakCat
> DrakCat wrote:
> > Guinearat wrote:
> > > What I *would* like to know is why what is considered "confidence" in a
> > > man
> > > is considered "arrogance" or "b!tchiness" in a woman?
> > SO WOULD I.
> > DrakCat - sick of the b!tch thing
> I'm sorry but it's not.
Well, yeah it is. By some.
> Maybe it's different in the US, but if you regularly get called names,
> perhaps you ought to consider whether it's how you express your
> confidence that's the problem.
Well, I never did say *I* was the one getting called names. But I do
back out, with no argument, and slap a big fat hypocrit sticker on my
head. I don't know why I even wrote that post. I'm no one to talk.
Rai
[munch]
>At the risk of angering you again, :) I have to disagree. We don't
>"willingly sacrifice our "freedom" to write however we darn well
>please in order to get our point across more clearly." We recognize
>that while we are free to write however we want, if we want to
>communicate, we have to write in a certain manner.
You should have used single quotation marks inside the double ones.
*grins, ducks and runs*
--
_________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) ~~ Rai ~~ O .---. . F
| \ \ o / O> \/| i
\ `^--^ DC2.De Gm L W-- T Phflt Sks Cbk,sbk o \_. /\| s
\ \ \ Bwi A Fr++ M R Ac J++ I-- V Q++ Tc+ `---' ` h
ksj ^--^ _________________________________________________________
Rai
[munch]
>Think about it a moment. the societal norm is of a clean
>smelling or at the very least the lack of an unpleasant aroma. The
>person in question is either not aware that their odor is offensive,
>or simply does not care. Depending on how strong the odor may be,
>the first possibility may be suspect. And if they are willing to
>break that norm, then what other norms they will willingly violate
>is left as an open question. And that lack of information in a
>manager is problematic to him.
Some people have medical conditions that cause excessive body odour --
I've known a couple. They are aware of it, and find it extremely
frustrating they can do little about it. Such conditions can place
all parties concerned in rather difficult circumstances. :=8(
havoc
> These slips take place in different areas, but there is nobody on
>this newsgroup (or the internet) who can say that their behavior is free of
>this peer influence. Consider: Why do we use punctuation?
>
>B
>
Because we wish to be understood. Punctuation is part of language.
Language, like any other information exchange protocol, must conform very
strictly to certain basic forms, or it becomes useless. Witness what happens
when a speaker of Mandarin and a speaker of English try to communicate. Each
understands a beautiful language, yet understanding is impossible. In
language, conformity is the key to understanding.
That is not to say that your writing has to conform exactly to everyone
else's. In the first place, "the rules" have a lot of slop built into them.
In the second place, the point of writing is communication. You can do
ANYTHING, according to the rules or in direct violation of them, if it makes
your writing more clear.
its good to have a good reason for it though just leaving out punctuation or
capital letters or wRiTiNg In AlTeRnAtInG cApS aNd SmAlLs tends to annoy
people unless they see there's a good reason why you did it mainly cuz its so
blasted hard to read
What does this have to do with greater philosophical issues? I don't know.
Maybe that the degree of conformity necessary in social interactions varies
greatly depending on what those interactions are. You and I probably are
forced to have more conformity in language structure than we do in religious
belief, with clothing and such somewhere in between.
Conformity is so sneaky, though. Every time I've seen a nonconformist
movement.. there's an oxymoron for you.. they were more conformist than the
public at large.
For example, at furry conventions I sometimes wear a black tee shirt and a
button which says "Identically Individualistic Black Clad Minion." That
arises from my first furry con, where I noticed that I was in the company of
about fifteen hundred nonconformists, almost all of whom dressed in black.
They were nonconformists from the point of view of the greater society, but
they were surely conformists within their own group. That little mental short
circuit gave me a chuckle I still haven't quite grown out of.
OK, so I'm easy to amuse. :)
AMW
Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott wrote:
>
> AMW thoughtfully scribed:
> > Tad 'Baxil' Ramspott wrote:
> >> > Actually body odor is indicative of something. Of attitude.
> >>
> >> Is it really? Or is that just the traditional justification of
> >> the discriminatory manager?
> >
> > It is. Think about it a moment. the societal norm is of a clean smelling
> > or at the very least the lack of an unpleasant aroma. The person in
> > question is either not aware that their odor is offensive, or simply
> > does not care. Depending on how strong the odor may be, the first
> > possibility may be suspect. And if they are willing to break that norm,
> > then what other norms they will willingly violate is left as an open
> > question. And that lack of information in a manager is problematic to
> > him.
>
> In many cases your line of logic is sound. I notice you
> acknowledged an alternative below. Does the fact that your deductions will
> *often* be right give the manager the right to make that *assumption*?
> That's what I'm saying.
Okay first off, we have to clarify what exactly you mean by "rights".
Does the employer have the right to hire only those people who will make
his working environment as pleasant as possible for as many as possible?
Does he have the right those you he expects will do the most for his
company? Or does the employee have the right to a job? Is the employer
legally restricted to ignoring such a factor as unpleasant body odor in
his hiring decisions?
> > Tell me about it. I have found that I am allergic to most perfumes.
> > Gives me really bad headaches.
> >
> > There are two separate issues here. Pleasant and unpleasant odors. Most
> > people think the smell of perfume is pleasant while the smell of a sweat
> > or other natural odors of the human body are unpleasant. And people
> > would rather be in pleasant environments than unpleasant one.
>
> Again, "most" people. As I said, perfumes have negative
> effects as well as their "pleasant" smell. A standard which tolerates those
> effects as a trade-off deserves to be questioned. It may be right, but
> there may be a better solution, and if nobody is willing to break the wall,
> how can we tell?
I have not found anyone that to my knowledge prefers an unpleasant
environment to a pleasant one. While what qualifies as pleasant and
unpleasant is largely an individual factor, I have yet to meet anyone
who prefers an unpleasant environment.
> > Mr. Ramspott, if this is your idea of losing your temper, I must admit
> > to being quite impressed. You did not degenerate into some mindless
> > irrational name-calling or some such, but gave a clear and well written
> > rebuttal to my remarks.
>
> Thanks for the kind words. The fact remains that your earlier
> argument bugged me to the point where I was arguing from emotion -- a need
> to be right -- rather than reason -- a wish to search for the truth. I
> turned my rebuttal over in my mind for several hours, which is why it came
> out so coherently, but it was still basically a mental knife instead of a
> handshake.
> I'm awfully good at repressing myself. I still regret that I wasted
> so much time on that point (and caused myself so much stress). I'm kind of
> bitter that I got to thinking of this as an argument that needed to be
> "won", rather than talked about; that's what I was apologizing for. I guess
> my standards are just much higher than the "normal" debater's -- some pride
> themselves on being civil, I see it as a necessity for communication.
And that is something else that you should be congratulated about.
This important difference between seeking the right answer and winning a
debate largely rules out the use of emotions. Once emotions come into
play, well reason leaves the scene, and nothing gets accomplished. While
playing to your opponents emotions can win the argument for you,
allowing yourself to get emotional and converting a discussion from a
debate to a flame war, well, that just does not work. You do not win the
argument either.
> > So you question the societal norm on body odor. From your tone, you seem
> > willing to toss the norm aside.
>
> I'll be frank here: I've been criticized for odor in the past. So,
> no, that example didn't come out of the blue. Still, it was just an
> example.
> Personally speaking, I'm not as vehement on tearing down that
> particular wall as you might infer. I wear clean clothes and shower
> regularly (though my definition of "regularly" is less strict than the
> corporate drone's). I'd rather do it that way than go in to work reeking,
> even if the standard didn't exist. But I used the example because I do
> believe that it's one that is taken far too seriously by the Powers That Be.
> When you've hiked in the backwoods for a month with a group of total
> strangers, you learn that odor has a lot less to do with how people behave
> than you think.
And since we no longer live in a society that spends all its time out
doors and bathes quite frequently, yes that gets forgotten. It may be
taken far too seriously, and I doubt most people even make the conscious
connection between odor and illness. Most people simply sleep walk
through life, adopting conventions and ideas without regard to checking
them, figuring out what they are or where they got them, or much of
anything. Do things the way they have always done things and don't think
about it.
And you will get as a reaction, when someone starts to question their
ideas the automatic rejection of an idea. It is being just as mentally
lazy on the other extreme.
ben
aka Drakon@work
AMW
grin. And again, we could go on as to how you know that another does
have free will and all your sensory awareness is not the result of some
other outside influence. That it is not all shadows on the wall or the
inputs of some computer or demon.
> I see your point though. (which I suspect is also my point, read
> properly. ;)) I am perfectly free, if thirsty, to say, "Hey Drakon, get me
> a glass of water." I have better probabilities of getting a drink if I walk
> to the sink. ;)
Depends upon our relative locations. :) You are also free to say. "Hey
asshole, Get me a drink before I bust your teeth in." Or you could say
the same thing in Swahili. In each example you are using your freedom.
You are applying that freedom of will that you possess. It is a simple
fact that some tactics will work, will accomplish what you want to do
and some won't.
> > You are free to use punctuation however you feel like. But you are not
> > free to decide how others will respond to your choices. You are not free
> > to choose my actions, my response to yours. I get to choose that. So if
> > you want to communicate with me, (as one example) you have to speak in a
> > language I understand. If I started talking to you in say Klingon, or
> > Latin (assuming that I know enough to speak intelligently in either and
> > you know nothing of them) then you would have no idea what I was saying.
> > likewise if, i# started using, Punctuation however i felt like it?
> > syntax understand Or but of the that could discard rules mean would
> > would you I me. You'd have to put additional effort into figuring out
> > what I mean, and even then it might not be worth your time to do so.
>
> To return to the water example, and perhaps even improve it: If
> we're in the same room (which is to say, you are physically capable of
> getting me water ;)) then I have the freedom to choose between the following
> options:
> (A) "Hey, Drakon, could you please get me some water?"
> (B) "Yo, you fairy b*tch. Get me some f*cking water now."
>
> I somehow just maybe think that conforming to societal norms here
> will not only perhaps get me some water, but (relative to the other choice)
> contribute to my continued well-being as a living organism. ];=8)
Grin. True. As if you used the second example, I would be looking for
who you were talking to, and you would go thirsty.
As a matter of fact this is a good example for another reason. Because
of my particular experiences, I am unsure whether you are referring to a
female member of one of the pagan traditions or something else. There is
an added note of confusion involved.
For some reason I am reminded of W.C.Feilds quote of why he does not
drink water.
No. Again, it was merely an extreme example of a particular societal
norm that was discarded in an extreme way. There was no guilt by
association intended and to be honest, I don't see how it was implied,
except it was in a post about smelling bad. Perhaps noting the word
"commune", in your mind, you assume that it means "hippy" which you then
may have assumed has a negative connotation to me. The fact that the
group called their dwelling a commune themselves appears to be
irrelevant, but that is what they called it. It was nothing more than a
report of an extreme example which has bearing on the question of
societal norms.
> I am agreeing with you, insofar as you said "just because we
> do not know what those reasons are is no reason in and of itself to discard
> them. At least not until we are sure that our solution is less dangerous
> than the original." The problem is that blindly obeying the social standard
> until that certainty has been achieved is often just as detrimental.
> There's a social standard against dragons being real, for instance.
> I dare say that this is a good standard to discard. ;) There are certainly
> people who have discarded that standard in ways which have negatively
> influenced their lives; should we shrivel up under the weight of their
> examples, or should we keep poking at the boundaries while looking for ways
> to discard it safely?
Well I think I have said it before. Too often the act of questioning is
viewed as sufficient cause to discard a societal norm. That instead of
questioning, it is simply rejected.
Poke for crying out loud. But honestly poke and try to find the answers
to a question instead of simply assuming an answer.
ben
aka Drakon@work
Lothaekor
wrote:
>Quoth AMW <am...@slac.stanford.edu>:
>[munch]
>
>>At the risk of angering you again, :) I have to disagree. We don't
>>"willingly sacrifice our "freedom" to write however we darn well
>>please in order to get our point across more clearly." We recognize
>>that while we are free to write however we want, if we want to
>>communicate, we have to write in a certain manner.
>
>You should have used single quotation marks inside the double ones.
>
>*grins, ducks and runs*
Rai...Pedantic as usual ;=8)
Lothaekor
Rai
>>>We recognize that while we are free to write however we want, if
>>>we want to communicate, we have to write in a certain manner.
>>
>>You should have used single quotation marks inside the double ones.
>>
>>*grins, ducks and runs*
>
>Rai...Pedantic as usual ;=8)
Pedantic? Moi? O:=8)
Lothaekor
wrote:
>>>>We recognize that while we are free to write however we want, if
>>>>we want to communicate, we have to write in a certain manner.
>>>
>>>You should have used single quotation marks inside the double ones.
>>>
>>>*grins, ducks and runs*
>>
>>Rai...Pedantic as usual ;=8)
>
>Pedantic? Moi? O:=8)
No, the other Rai ;=8) Of course you, you siwwy dwaggie! :=8)
Lothaekor
The Rai in Spain falls mainly on the plains. Good thing Rai is in the
UK ;=8)
Rai
>>>Rai...Pedantic as usual ;=8)
>>
>>Pedantic? Moi? O:=8)
>
>No, the other Rai ;=8) Of course you, you siwwy dwaggie! :=8)
Silly? Moi? ;=8D
>The Rai in Spain falls mainly on the plains. Good thing Rai is in the
>UK ;=8)
*chuckle* Lucky that Liza never listened to you. Rai doesn't rhyme
with Spain -- it sounds more like pie.
Mmm, pie...
Lothaekor
wrote:
>Quoth Lothaekor <loth...@hotmail.com>:
>>Sam...@daisho.prestel.co.uk (Rai) wrote:
>[munch]
>
>>>>Rai...Pedantic as usual ;=8)
>>>
>>>Pedantic? Moi? O:=8)
>>
>>No, the other Rai ;=8) Of course you, you siwwy dwaggie! :=8)
>
>Silly? Moi? ;=8D
*Grin*
You're gonna keep doing this to me, aren't you? ;=8)
>>The Rai in Spain falls mainly on the plains. Good thing Rai is in the
>>UK ;=8)
>
>*chuckle* Lucky that Liza never listened to you. Rai doesn't rhyme
>with Spain -- it sounds more like pie.
I know that :=8) I'm just being silly :=8)
hmm...
The pie in Spain falls mainly on the plains? :=8D
>Mmm, pie...
*spluts Rai with a banana creme pie*
SPLUT!
Lothaekor