Greta Van Susteren's surgery
Luk
looked beFORE?
Seems to me her face had more character before
she had it changed. She looked just fine. Why
mess with it?
Luk
Blastomere
-B
"Luk" <lukn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C614C91...@bellsouth.net...
Maggie
>Am I the only one who liked the wan Van Susteren
>looked beFORE?
***I liked the way she looked, too.
>
>Seems to me her face had more character before
>she had it changed. She looked just fine. Why
>mess with it?
***Because she's a woman in broadcasting. Too bad she didn't notice that Candy
Crowley is taken more seriously than Paula Zahn. OTOH, Paula makes a lot more
money.
Maggie
"The probability of a person being right increases in direct proportion to the
intensity with which others are trying to prove him wrong." --Bob Augdahl
mothra...@hotmail.com
I've said several times that I really liked her face before, especially
her crooked mouth. She just looks like some stupid starlet now.
Martha
***Are you saying that you are terminally ill with cancer? (I note that you
are alluding to that circumstance, but not exactly saying it). If so, I'm very
sorry to hear that and will be happy to make allowances for your posting
irregularities.-Maggie, Queen of Compassion
I hate TRAITORS
Because she wasn't pretty enough to be a talking
head. You know the culture. Women aren't allowed
to have character faces, only men :)
GM
Desi
Luk wrote in message <3C614C91...@bellsouth.net>...
I did too. She looks clownish now, something about the
mouth turning up and the *bambi* startled eyes
turn me off. Perhaps a lesser job or a better plastic
surgeon would have had better results. Reminds me of a
woman I knew who grew up poor and could not afford braces.
She had the worst protruding buck teeth , poor thing. After
she graduated, got her masters, became a speech pathologist!
; she decided to have her jaw broken, removed and the the
teeth fixed, but then she had her nose bobbed. I always
thought she was worse than before. Felt she should have just
done the braces.
desi>can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear
>
>
Desi
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote in message
<3C6173...@erols.com>...
>Luk wrote:
>>
>> Am I the only one who liked the wan Van Susteren
>> looked beFORE?
>>
>> Seems to me her face had more character before
>> she had it changed. She looked just fine. Why
>> mess with it?
>>
>
>I've said several times that I really liked her face
before, especially
>her crooked mouth. She just looks like some stupid starlet
now.
>
>Martha
She looked a *mannish*, a little hard. If they just softened
her look, hair and make-up, I think she would have been ok
desi>
Kris Baker
I hate TRAITORS wrote in message
<1c83d888.02020...@posting.google.com>...
Is this the same GM who was making some unknown
comments about my own appearance, about an hour
ago here?
Trust me, creep. You'd be surprised who here knows
me, and knows what I look like. You'd be so lucky --
EVEN at my age.
Kris
Luk
> Martha wrote:
> I've said several times that I really liked her face before, especially
> her crooked mouth.
First time for everything.
We agree on something.
Luk
Luk
Temperance Blalock wrote:
> I was happy that
> there was a woman on TV who was successful in spite of her appearance
> being less than spectacular. Thus, I was very disappointed in her
> lack of integrity to see that she has apparently capitulated to the
> demands of her new TV bosses to get the surgery. I am pretty sure
> that they asked her to do this, as part of their deal to hire her.
> Otherwise, I doubt that she'd have gotten the surgery - after all, if
> she wanted to do it for herself, then she'd have done it a lot
> earlier.
>
> So much for Fox News being "only about the news". Between their
> hiring of that narcissist Geraldo, their promotion of that bombastic
> blowhard O'Reilly, and their pressure on Van Sustern to "fix" her
> face, they reveal themselves to be much more shallow than CNN or
> MSNBC.
She denies she was pressured to do it.
I believe her.
I doubt Greta and I have the same politics,
but I liked her looks just fine before and I'm
surprised and a bit let down that she felt the
need to go to a surgeon.
I would not have thought she'd opt for that.
Luk
Walter Scott
Fox is mainly interested in "hunks" and "babes" as its big name
talent. it's that simple. To be fair, though, GV had cosmetic surgery
before she started with CNN in 1994. As sad as it may be, on-air
talent in news is more often valued highly as "eye-candy" rather than
for journalistic ability. If news programs and networks could get
away with Playboy and Playgirl centerfolds as news anchors, they'd do
it.
Of potential interest as a future trend: Sex appeal is becoming a
trend in politics across the World. Could it happen here for women in
politics, or is it already beginning? Taiwan, for example, has a
scandal in progress over a supposedly secret video made of a former
legislator (a woman) having sex. She's been on TV there to
apologize to the wife of the man she had sex with and to evade
questions about whether it was actually her in the video -- implying
this may have been a ploy to get herself some press, even if it isn't
of the most desirable caliber. People in Taiwan and Singapore can't
get enough of the video and any morsel of information they can
scrounge about the scandal. At the same time, a sitting Taiwanese
legislator just posed for the Chinese language edition of Playboy, but
not entirely unclothed. She's in her 40s and claims she will not bare
it all until she's 60 -- an obvious coquettish tease. Bottom line: sex
sells....
<<<<< Unless You Are A Court TV Consultant, Crime Doesn't Pay. >>>>>
Net-Tamer V 1.07X; Beta - Registered
I hate TRAITORS
What?
GM
Walter Scott
Why?
On 2002-02-06 lukn...@bellsouth.net said:
LUK>>I was happy that there was a woman on TV who was successful in
LUK>>spite of her appearance being less than spectacular. Thus, I
LUK>>was very disappointed in her lack of integrity to see that she has
LUK>>apparently capitulated to the demands of her new TV bosses to get
LUK>>the surgery. I am pretty sure that they asked her to do this, as
LUK>>part of their deal to hire her. Otherwise, I doubt that she'd
LUK>>have gotten the surgery - after all, if she wanted to do it for
LUK>>herself, then she'd have done it a lot earlier.
LUK>>So much for Fox News being "only about the news". Between their
LUK>>hiring of that narcissist Geraldo, their promotion of that
LUK>>bombastic blowhard O'Reilly, and their pressure on Van Sustern to
LUK>>"fix" her face, they reveal themselves to be much more shallow
LUK>>than CNN or MSNBC.
LUK>She denies she was pressured to do it.
LUK>I believe her.
Luk
Walter Scott wrote:
> Why?
Back for more?
Why is right. Why did you make
it look like I said all that stuff.
My own posts are bad enough.
Well I believe her when she says
nobody made her do it. Probably because
I don't believe any woman is dumb
enough to have plastic surgery because
some boss says do it.
OK?????????????
What do you think?
Should she have done it or not?
Luk
Walter Scott
Although not initially a direct response to the question asked, Luk's
response is interesting where it is indirect or irrelevant to the
question. "More," of course, is dependent no how "more" is defined.
"More" of "what" would bring about a return in this instance? To
answer the question asked by Luk: A brief return is evident. "More"
is another matter. When Luk asks why an attempt was made to present a
sequence of quotes as though all words in quoted text seemed to be
Luk's, and when Luk states that Luk's own posts are "bad enough,"
it's observed that such is an interesting admission from Luk in and
of itself while Luk should note, for the record, that there was no
attempt made to imply Luk had stated something attributable to
someone else. Quote markings illustrate what is an original quote and
that which is "nested." Such posts as those authored by Luk are "bad
enough" in what context and manner? Would they be more difficult to
discern than, for instance, THIS posting?
As for Luk's direct response to the question originally asked:
Why is it Luk doesn't "believe any woman is dumb enough to have
plastic surgery because some boss says do it," and why would it
necessarily be "dumb" for the woman to do as requested in return
for lucrative employment and possibly an improved career?
TV, including TV news, is considered, by the pros, to be an
"entertainment" venue. Entertainment often, if not more often than
not, holds the prospect of illusion. Some would say that presentation
of the news is presentation of fact or purported fact all wrapped up
in the illusion those presenting the news have great knowledge of
that on which they report or "announce." Anyone who has worked in
television news knows this illusion and how often it is applied. In the
realm of physical illusions: It's well known that many news anchors
for years have been dressed well from the waste up and hardly or
poorly dressed from the waste down because it is only from the waste
up where the "illusion" counts. It's also true that male and female
anchors alike wear makeup to cover all manner of imperfections that
makeup can hide.
On illusion in general, as used for TV newscasts: A large portion of
technology implemented in the production of a newscast is designed
for the sake of illusion; that's what chroma-keys are all about, for
example. Those seemingly insightful questions asked in an interview
often come, not from the mind of a news anchor, but from a producer,
assistant producer, or researcher whispering into the news anchor's
cleverly concealed earpiece. "Illusion" is the name of the game in
TV.
Given the nature of TV entertainment and its general association with
news production, why would a woman be "dumb" to present herself as an
"illusion" of beauty she is not or was not until modern cosmetology
-- even to the extent of surgical alteration -- is employed to set
the illusion? How many as opposed to how few women set an illusion
for a "hot date," or some other important social event, through
clothes they seldom wear with hair rarely so well placed and
conditioned and makeup so masterfully applied? What is the difference
between one illusion and the other? And what about the men in
broadcasting or news in particular? How many newscasters who look
like "old farts" but are excellent journalists will the public see
behind an anchor desk? Not many and only a few whose long career and
fame make the exception instead of the rule is the typical answer --
especially on local TV. So yes; TV is about illusion; it's as plastic
as was GV's surgery. Should it be more genuine and less about
"illusion?" Certainly. But it just as certainly could not make a
buck, or at least as big a buck, as it does now.
Sahkanaga
"Temperance Blalock" <bla...@netstorm.net> wrote in message
news:srv26uc3ptf6ofees...@4ax.com...
> intellect or interviewing abilities were superior enough to justify
> all the hoopla she got at CNN. But at the same time, I was happy that
> there was a woman on TV who was successful in spite of her appearance
> being less than spectacular. Thus, I was very disappointed in her
> lack of integrity to see that she has apparently capitulated to the
> demands of her new TV bosses to get the surgery. I am pretty sure
> that they asked her to do this, as part of their deal to hire her.
> Otherwise, I doubt that she'd have gotten the surgery - after all, if
> she wanted to do it for herself, then she'd have done it a lot
> earlier.
>
> So much for Fox News being "only about the news". Between their
> blowhard O'Reilly, and their pressure on Van Sustern to "fix" her
> face, they reveal themselves to be much more shallow than CNN or
> MSNBC.
>
>
Sahkanaga
"Walter Scott" <74276.3616/\SPAMBLOCKED/\@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:a3sc7o$foq$1...@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com...
Walter Scott
Sahkanaga <sahk...@yahoo.com> asserts that Greta Van Susteren came
to "CNN in 1991, not 1994." Van Susteren did not come to CNN as
regular on-air talent until 1994 when her first assignment was
point-and-counter-point commentary and analysis along with Roger
Cossack on the trial of O.J. Simpson. Together, they hosted their
analysis segments as though such segments were a regular program
feature on CNN. Van Susteren's "association" with CNN prior to 1994
was as an infrequent "legal analyst" -- certainly not a full time
on-air position with the network. The program Burden of Proof -- Van
Susteren's first regular show outside analysis of the O.J. Simpson
trial -- did not begin until 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:WnK8ThAXvEAC:www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/cnn/vansusteren.greta.html+%22Greta+van+susteren&hl=en&lr=lang_zh-CN|lang_zh-TW|lang_cs|lang_en|lang_it|lang_ja|lang_es
Van Susteren began her association with CNN in 1991 as a legal
analyst. She has contributed analysis to such high-profile cases as
the William Kennedy Smith rape trial and the O.J. Simpson criminal
and civil trials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:DXkz71FYQjoC:custom.marketwatch.com/custom/esignal-com/news.asp%3Fcolumn%3DJon%2520Friedman%27s%2520Media%2520Web+%22Greta+van+susteren%22+AND+%221994%22&hl=en&lr=lang_zh-CN|lang_zh-TW|lang_cs|lang_en|lang_it|lang_ja|lang_es
Naturally, this didn't sit well at Fox, a News Corp. subsidiary
(NWS). Fox pounced earlier this week. It snatched the uber-sassy
Greta van Susteren, a legal expert who rose to prominence in 1994 as
one of the baying reporters on the trail of accused killer O.J.
Simpson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luk
Walter Scott wrote:
> As for Luk's direct response to the question originally asked:
> Why is it Luk doesn't "believe any woman is dumb enough to have
> plastic surgery because some boss says do it," and why would it
> necessarily be "dumb" for the woman to do as requested in return
> for lucrative employment and possibly an improved career?
The boss may suggest, advise, cajole, or plead.
But in the end the choice to get cosmetic sgy was made
by Ms Van Susteren. Was the boss on the operating
table?
> TV, including TV news, is considered, by the pros, to be an
> "entertainment" venue. Entertainment often, if not more often than
> not, holds the prospect of illusion.
If it's GVS's belief that this surgical transformation will
be transformed into a lot of money, we'll have to wait
to she whether she's right - or whether *that* is an
illusion.
> What is the difference
> between one illusion and the other? And what about the men in
> broadcasting or news in particular? How many newscasters who look
> like "old farts" but are excellent journalists will the public see
> behind an anchor desk? Not many and only a few whose long career and
> fame make the exception instead of the rule is the typical answer --
> especially on local TV. So yes; TV is about illusion; it's as plastic
> as was GV's surgery. Should it be more genuine and less about
> "illusion?" Certainly. But it just as certainly could not make a
> buck, or at least as big a buck, as it does now.
So I assume you believe GVS's new face will bring in the bucks.
Shall we set a time limit? What do you think? two years?
Luk
Maggie
>>looked beFORE?
>>
>>Seems to me her face had more character before
>>she had it changed. She looked just fine. Why
>>mess with it?
>>
>>
>
>I didn't like her personally, because I never believed that her
>intellect or interviewing abilities were superior enough to justify
>all the hoopla she got at CNN. But at the same time, I was happy that
>there was a woman on TV who was successful in spite of her appearance
>being less than spectacular. Thus, I was very disappointed in her
>lack of integrity to see that she has apparently capitulated to the
>demands of her new TV bosses to get the surgery. I am pretty sure
>that they asked her to do this, as part of their deal to hire her.
>Otherwise, I doubt that she'd have gotten the surgery - after all, if
>she wanted to do it for herself, then she'd have done it a lot
>earlier.
>
>So much for Fox News being "only about the news". Between their
>hiring of that narcissist Geraldo, their promotion of that bombastic
>blowhard O'Reilly, and their pressure on Van Sustern to "fix" her
>face, they reveal themselves to be much more shallow than CNN or
>MSNBC.
***Greta says that she wanted to do it at CNN and her bosses wouldn't let her.
She had a one month break before she could start her job at Fox, so she decided
to give it a go. She says her Fox bosses weren't thrilled about it, but didn't
tell her she couldn't do it.
Maggie < a Greta-watcher since she did local commentary on WUSA in Washington
Luk
Maggie wrote:
>
> ***Greta says that she wanted to do it at CNN and her bosses wouldn't let her.
> She had a one month break before she could start her job at Fox, so she decided
> to give it a go. She says her Fox bosses weren't thrilled about it, but didn't
> tell her she couldn't do it.
Interesting. Didn't know that.
I wonder if she got more of a change in appearance than
she expected.
Luk
nan
Dear Luk,
Greta has a most unpleasing personality. As far as her looks are
concerned, her hair is an unkept, dried-out witche's mane. Her voice
is as lilting as a car skidding on hot pavement. Her facial features
are decidedly asymetrical and unattractive. Her raw appearance
detracts from her obvious intelligence and knowledge. Why would Fox
be willing to "groom" her? I am not sure she was so popular on CNN.
I remember Greta from the OJ trial days and I didn't think she was
very objective. FOX might prove yet to be in a FARCE FIGHT for
ratings. from Nan
Luk
nan wrote:
> Why would Fox
> be willing to "groom" her? I am not sure she was so popular on CNN.
> I remember Greta from the OJ trial days and I didn't think she was
> very objective. FOX might prove yet to be in a FARCE FIGHT for
> ratings.
Dear Nan,
I'll have to confess I've never taken time to decide
whether I like GVS as a TV personality. I caught a
glimpse of her every now and then - that's about it.
But my impression was that her looks were unusual,
certainly not glamorous, but rather interesting. I
But now she seems to be into the lipstick thing.
Luk
Walter Scott
Regarding Greta Van Susteren's "eyelift:" Maggie states Greta Van
Susteren "says her Fox bosses weren't thrilled about it, but didn't
tell her she couldn't do it." This notion, without qualification,
defies what appears to be common practice at Fox -- to cultivate
mostly or only "beautiful people" as big name on-air talent.
Therefore, skepticism is high from this quarter as to the idea Fox
would not be "thrilled" about Van Susteren having cosmetic surgery
*UNLESS* and only *IF* the surgery failed or Fox expected Van
Susteren might begin her new show too early and display obvious signs
of swelling from the surgery. The latter issue was in fact addressed
in Van Susteren's closing remarks on Monday evening, although nothing
was said about whether Fox executives were displeased with swelling
that had not subsided before the first edition of ON THE RECORD.
Walter Scott
Luk's assumption of belief from this quarter that "GVS's new face
will bring in the bucks" is incorrect. The properly attributable
belief is that it is the intention of Fox to further improve its
ratings against CNN. Such belief includes the perception an apparent
key element in ratings strategy at Fox is, of course, the quest for
entertaining and "beautiful people" as on-air talent. Better ratings
will usually equate to "bringing in the bucks" -- *MORE* bucks than
when ratings are low. Fox may believe the strategy noted above is
working insomuch as more people are watching FNC and fewer are
watching CNN -- especially when the "beautiful people" are on-air.
The issue for Van Susteren may have been whether she should jump from
CNN to Fox as an investment and improvement in her career. At least
one Report surfacing in January indicated CNN had the resources and
potentially the will to out-bid Fox in order that Van Susteren's
contract could be renewed. However, money in the short term may not
have been a factor that could over-ride the observation that CNN's
star as the cable source of record for news throughout all day-parts
is falling -- especially at those times when Van Susteren had on-air
exposure at CNN. Thus, Van Susteren may have determined that the
money Fox might pay her now is not so important as the money she will
make under a future contract when Fox and Van Susteren are riding
higher than they are now. This may be a gamble for Van Susteren; she
can't know for certain that good fortune at Fox will continue and
that her success will not falter instead of improve with her change
of employment. However, Geraldo may have chosen to leave CNBC with
similar risks and the promise of similar potential gain. Thus, Van
Susteren is likely not alone in the assessment that Fox, for now, is
the place to be.
"The boss [or potential NEW boss] may suggest, advise, cajole, or
plead," and a potential new employee may refuse those suggestions,
advice, cajoling and pleadings in the knowledge that he or she will
not get the job. Such does not necessarily indicate the potential new
employee is "dumb." However, does taking a suggestion or acceding to
subtle or not-so-subtle advice, cajoling or pleadings as have been
discussed or implied here necessarily make of a woman a "dumb" woman?
Perhaps Van Susteren was not presented a contract that stated she had
to have surgery in order to work at Fox but was subtly informed, not
by words but by behavior of those with whom she and/or her agent(s)
met from Fox, that there would be no interest in hiring her without
the surgery. Perhaps no-one at Fox mentioned cosmetic surgery but Van
Susteren scoped out the way things happen on Fox and what has seemed
to make it successful with the conclusion, that to be competitive on
Fox, she needed surgery. Would responding to either scenario by
having cosmetic surgery be a "dumb" thing to do?
Is it an "illusion" if Greta Van Susteren holds the perception
changing her appearance will help her career? Perhaps it is. As Luk
indicates, we'll have to wait and see. We also must hope, though, for
a strong distinction between success or failure associated with
physical appearance and success or failure associated more with
ability as a show host. Such distinction may, unfortunately, be hard
to come by. Even so, it does seem a no-brainer that the "beautiful
people" environment at Fox implied to Van Susteren she needed
cosmetic surgery to get in the door and to initially compete. The
skepticism expressed to Maggie as to what Fox would prefer also seems
to be a no-brainer.
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from Luk, calling from alt.true-crime:
>Well I believe her when she says
>nobody made her do it. Probably because
>I don't believe any woman is dumb
>enough to have plastic surgery because
>some boss says do it.
If that's a dumb reason, perhaps you'll enlighten me by listing some
of the possible sensible reasons.
--
AH
Luk
Alan Hope wrote:
A smarter reason would be to correct a major flaw. GVS
had no major flaw. Neither did Michael Jackson -
when he started getting cut on.
Luk
Luk
Greta Van Susteren's picture is in the URL (above) which
Walter Scott provided. Unless I'm mistaken that picture
was taken before surgery. Nothing wrong around the eyes
that I can see.
So what was wrong with them?
Luk
I hate TRAITORS
I just love that NAN. Isn't she brilliant?
I learn something from her every post.
GM
Luk
Walter Scott wrote:
> Luk's assumption of belief from this quarter that "GVS's new face
> will bring in the bucks" is incorrect. The properly attributable
> belief is that it is the intention of Fox to further improve its
> ratings against CNN. Such belief includes the perception an apparent
> key element in ratings strategy at Fox is, of course, the quest for
> entertaining and "beautiful people" as on-air talent. Better ratings
> will usually equate to "bringing in the bucks" -- *MORE* bucks than
> when ratings are low. Fox may believe the strategy noted above is
> working insomuch as more people are watching FNC and fewer are
> watching CNN -- especially when the "beautiful people" are on-air.
Nah. I still think it was her own idea. Let's say you're GVS's
boss. Are you going to stick your neck out and suggest
she get plastic surgery when you have no idea what will
come of it? All kinds of things could go wrong. 1. the
surgery might make her less attractive. 2. the surgery
might be successful but the audience may be turned off
just because of the change. 3. she could die on the
operating table. On the other hand, it's just the kind of
silly thing someone in the entertainment business might
well decide to do. Maggie's story makes sense to me.
>
> The issue for Van Susteren may have been whether she should jump from
> CNN to Fox as an investment and improvement in her career. At least
> one Report surfacing in January indicated CNN had the resources and
> potentially the will to out-bid Fox in order that Van Susteren's
> contract could be renewed. However, money in the short term may not
> have been a factor that could over-ride the observation that CNN's
> star as the cable source of record for news throughout all day-parts
> is falling -- especially at those times when Van Susteren had on-air
> exposure at CNN. Thus, Van Susteren may have determined that the
> money Fox might pay her now is not so important as the money she will
> make under a future contract when Fox and Van Susteren are riding
> higher than they are now. This may be a gamble for Van Susteren; she
> can't know for certain that good fortune at Fox will continue and
> that her success will not falter instead of improve with her change
> of employment. However, Geraldo may have chosen to leave CNBC with
> similar risks and the promise of similar potential gain. Thus, Van
> Susteren is likely not alone in the assessment that Fox, for now, is
> the place to be.
> Perhaps no-one at Fox mentioned cosmetic surgery but Van
> Susteren scoped out the way things happen on Fox and what has seemed
> to make it successful with the conclusion, that to be competitive on
> Fox, she needed surgery. Would responding to either scenario by
> having cosmetic surgery be a "dumb" thing to do?
You're still assuming she did it to be more competitive. I just
have a gut feeling she did it out of simple vanity.
> it does seem a no-brainer that the "beautiful
> people" environment at Fox implied to Van Susteren she needed
> cosmetic surgery to get in the door and to initially compete.
Who are all these beautiful people you're talking about?
Rita Cosby is nice looking. And they have a morning-show
girl that's a pretty-face type (whom I consider more or
less dispensable). Who else?
Luk
nan
Dear Luk,
"Certainly not glamorous" is an understatement, but Greta is an
intelligent, articulate woman. I think she is being "groomed"-an
overdue do over-by FOX. My impression is that she never cared about
her appearance. TV success seems to require "eye" appeal. I remember
when Peter Jennings was oh-so handsome and now he looks jaded and
worn-out, and what is worse SMUG. I avoid NETWork & Cable News -
doesn't represent journalism. Drudge has more of that old golden age
of journalism spirit - "scoop the poop." from Nan
Luk
I hate TRAITORS wrote:
> I just love that NAN. Isn't she brilliant?
> I learn something from her every post.
Nan's cool.
Luk
Sahkanaga
-Heller
"Walter Scott" <74276.3616/\SPAMBLOCKED/\@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
Luk
> Dear Luk,
> "Certainly not glamorous" is an understatement, but Greta is an
> intelligent, articulate woman. I think she is being "groomed"-an
> overdue do over-by FOX. My impression is that she never cared about
> her appearance. TV success seems to require "eye" appeal.
Nan -
You and Walter seem to have the same idea.
I guess we'll never know the truth.
Luk
Alan Hope
>Greta has a most unpleasing personality. As far as her looks are
>concerned, her hair is an unkept, dried-out witche's mane. Her voice
>is as lilting as a car skidding on hot pavement. Her facial features
>are decidedly asymetrical and unattractive. Her raw appearance
>detracts from her obvious intelligence and knowledge.
You're a beacon of enlightenment, nan. No wonder the TV screens are
populated exclusively by bimbos and himbos, when even someone of your
towering intellect holds -- and shamelessly announces -- such shallow,
trivial, air-headed views.
--
AH
Walter Scott
Luk asks for a list of the "beautiful people" that are typical of
FNC's on-air talent. It might be more useful to ask who does NOT
qualify as "beautiful people" among those who are on-air day in and
day out -- especially during important day-parts. However, if
examples are needed:
Patti Anne Browne
Shepard Smith
Laurie Dhue
Rick Folbaum
E. D. Donahey
Judith Regan
Terry Keenan
These are a FEW examples which are not offered as the most
"beautiful" of all but people who exhibit the fluffed and buffed
image FNC has earned.
Linda Griffith
her own idea.
(Me, too. Maybe she had been thinking about having it done, and here she
has a month or so for recuperation and decides to go for it.)
All kinds of things could go wrong. 1. the
> surgery might make her less attractive. 2. the surgery
> might be successful but the audience may be turned off
> just because of the change.
Reminds me of the "Twilight Zone" episode in which the girl goes in for
plastic surgery, and it's a failure because she doesn't look like the
pig-faced people around her.
> Who are all these beautiful people you're talking about?
> Rita Cosby is nice looking. And they have a morning-show
> girl that's a pretty-face type (whom I consider more or
> less dispensable). Who else?
>
> Luk
I watch MSNBC more often than CNN, but now I can't remember the nice-looking
women's names. I think MSNBC wins the prize for beautiful women, though.
(I know 'em when I see 'em!) Now that I try to remember names, the only one
that comes to mind is Ashleigh Banfield [what? Fox now?], and, though
attractive, she's not (imo) one of the very prettiest. I do think she is
earning her pay, and deserves whatever prize is given to reporters.
(Give me the first names or both initials of MSNBC people, and I'll be able
to tell you which ones I think are the most attractive.)
Linda
Linda Griffith
"beautiful people" that are typical of
> FNC's on-air talent. It might be more useful to ask who does NOT
> qualify as "beautiful people" among those who are on-air day in and
> day out -- especially during important day-parts. However, if
> examples are needed:
>
> Patti Anne Browne
> Shepard Smith
> Laurie Dhue
> Rick Folbaum
> E. D. Donahey
> Judith Regan
> Terry Keenan
I'll grant you Patti Anne Browne. Shepard Smith is okay, but something
about him bothers me. I'm not familiar with the others. I've heard of
Laurie Dhue; maybe if I saw her picture, I'd agree with you.
Linda
P.S.: I think Patti Anne Browne is the one who looks like the twin (or at
least sister) of an MSNBC reporter. Both beautiful.
Linda Griffith
> "Certainly not glamorous" is an understatement, but Greta is an
> intelligent, articulate woman. I think she is being "groomed"-an
> overdue do over-by FOX. My impression is that she never cared about
> her appearance.
Well now, Nan...I have to put myself in with Greta. (Of course, I'm not on
TV, so it doesn't matter as much.) I don't like the way I've aged, and I
always said I'd get my eyes done if they ended up looking the way they do
now. However, I've never had surgery for *anything*, and now I don't want
to volunteer to go under the knife. And my family says it's a stupid idea
('though they sometimes tease me about my "slitty" eyes).
It's kinda funny: in the 20s and 30s, looks are everything; but in the 50s,
they don't matter so much. (Or am I deluding myself?)
Linda
Maggie
>I watch MSNBC more often than CNN, but now I can't remember the nice-looking
>women's names. I think MSNBC wins the prize for beautiful women, though.
>(I know 'em when I see 'em!) Now that I try to remember names, the only
>one
>that comes to mind is Ashleigh Banfield [what? Fox now?], and, though
>attractive, she's not (imo) one of the very prettiest. I do think she is
>earning her pay, and deserves whatever prize is given to reporters.
>
>(Give me the first names or both initials of MSNBC people, and I'll be able
>to tell you which ones I think are the most attractive.)
***Nora O'Donnell (sp?) is drop-dead gorgeous (I think she's the White House
correspondent.). Can't think of any other beautiful women, though. Ashleigh
Banfield doesn't qualify, IMO.
But that Lester Holt is pretty hot.
Maggie
"The probability of a person being right increases in direct proportion to the
intensity with which others are trying to prove him wrong." --Bob Augdahl
TRUTHSEEKER
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20020207235020...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> Linda said:
> >I watch MSNBC more often than CNN, but now I can't remember the
nice-looking
> >women's names. I think MSNBC wins the prize for beautiful women, though.
> >(I know 'em when I see 'em!) Now that I try to remember names, the only
> >one
> >that comes to mind is Ashleigh Banfield [what? Fox now?], and, though
> >attractive, she's not (imo) one of the very prettiest. I do think she is
> >earning her pay, and deserves whatever prize is given to reporters.
> >
> >(Give me the first names or both initials of MSNBC people, and I'll be
able
> >to tell you which ones I think are the most attractive.)
>
> ***Nora O'Donnell (sp?) is drop-dead gorgeous (I think she's the White
House
> correspondent.). Can't think of any other beautiful women, though.
Ashleigh
> Banfield doesn't qualify, IMO.
>
> But that Lester Holt is pretty hot.
>
> Maggie
>
Linda Griffith
hot.
>
> Maggie
Yes, I like Lester, too. If I could come up with the names of the beautiful
women, I bet you'd agree with me, Maggie. I'll take notes tomorrow. There
are two other guys whom I like, as well.
Linda
Walter Scott
For the benefit of Linda Griffith and others, here are some bios
with pictures of the FNC on-air talent previously listed with a few
extras thrown in:
Laurie Dhue
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1228,00.html
Patti Anne Browne
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1190,00.html
Shepard Smith
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1260,00.html
Judith Regan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1275,00.html
Molly Falconer
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1187,00.html
Rich Folbaum
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1188,00.html
E. D. Donahey
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1237,00.html
Terry Keenan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,24448,00.html
Linda Vester
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1262,00.html
Desi
Linda Griffith wrote in message ...
>
>Reminds me of the "Twilight Zone" episode in which the girl
goes in for
>plastic surgery, and it's a failure because she doesn't
look like the
>pig-faced people around her.
~~~Darn her name is on the tip of my tongue...she was fat ,
now slim??? Help !!
>> Who are all these beautiful people you're talking about?
>> Rita Cosby is nice looking. And they have a morning-show
>> girl that's a pretty-face type (whom I consider more or
>> less dispensable). Who else?
>>
>> Luk
>
>I watch MSNBC more often than CNN, but now I can't remember
the nice-looking
>women's names. I think MSNBC wins the prize for beautiful
women, though.
>(I know 'em when I see 'em!) Now that I try to remember
names, the only one
>that comes to mind is Ashleigh Banfield [what? Fox now?],
and, though
>attractive, she's not (imo) one of the very prettiest. I
do think she is
>earning her pay, and deserves whatever prize is given to
reporters.
>
>(Give me the first names or both initials of MSNBC people,
and I'll be able
>to tell you which ones I think are the most attractive.)
>
>Linda
~~~The *Money Honey* Maria Bartiromo is my favorite and
quite astute on the stock market/ I guess my best favorite
is Warren Buffet, (not on TV) who eats Mc Donalds on his
corporate jet flights. He's my hero..*.buy and hold* , I've
read his every word,in reports and books, and follow his
advice. I think Maria is cuter than Warren
desi
>
>
Rick
I've always felt that her appearance could be helped if she did something,
anything with just her hair. I personally have never liked her because her
politics is so obviously opposite of mine. Once I discovered she was a
Scientologist I mentally set her aside for observation.
Rick
Angie (cucci)
looked like Eli May from the Beverly hillbillies, you think?
Angie
Desi <de...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:3c636e3a$0$20064$e2e...@nntp.cts.com...
Luk
But it's interesting that these aren't the names
from Fox that are most familiar to me. Except
for Shepard Smith. On the other hand, Greta
is very recognizable (or used to be).
Ken
"Walter Scott" <74276.3616/\SPAMBLOCKED/\@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
>
> Luk asks for a list of the "beautiful people" that are typical of
> FNC's on-air talent. It might be more useful to ask who does NOT
> qualify as "beautiful people" among those who are on-air day in and
> day out -- especially during important day-parts. However, if
> examples are needed:
>
> Patti Anne Browne
> Shepard Smith
> Laurie Dhue
> Rick Folbaum
> E. D. Donahey
> Judith Regan
> Terry Keenan
Laurie Dhue is cute, as is Linda Vester. Lauren Green is stunning. The gal
in Pakistan, can't think of her name is cute too.
Ken
>
>
> nan wrote:
>
> > Why would Fox
> > be willing to "groom" her? I am not sure she was so popular on CNN.
> > I remember Greta from the OJ trial days and I didn't think she was
> > very objective. FOX might prove yet to be in a FARCE FIGHT for
> > ratings.
>
> Dear Nan,
>
> I'll have to confess I've never taken time to decide
> whether I like GVS as a TV personality. I caught a
> glimpse of her every now and then - that's about it.
> But my impression was that her looks were unusual,
> certainly not glamorous, but rather interesting. I
> But now she seems to be into the lipstick thing.
Her "new look" is NOT an improvement. She looks now like she is sitting bare
butt on an electrical socket!
Ken
> Well, OK. These are reasonably pretty people.
> But it's interesting that these aren't the names
> from Fox that are most familiar to me. Except
> for Shepard Smith. On the other hand, Greta
> is very recognizable (or used to be).
For some reason Linda Vester to me is just HOT!
Luk
OK OK
I guess I just don't get turned on by hot looking women.
Luk
Ken
"Linda Griffith" <grif...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:u66j591...@corp.supernews.com...
> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Dear Luk,
> > "Certainly not glamorous" is an understatement, but Greta is an
> > intelligent, articulate woman. I think she is being "groomed"-an
> > overdue do over-by FOX. My impression is that she never cared about
> > her appearance.
>
> Well now, Nan...I have to put myself in with Greta. (Of course, I'm not
on
> TV, so it doesn't matter as much.) I don't like the way I've aged, and I
I can say this, Fox NEEDS a consultant oh hair styles for its female anchors
BAD! Not to mention a fashion consultant. Many of their outfits are fashion
DON'TS!
hjkl
>I can say this, Fox NEEDS a consultant oh hair styles for its female anchors
>BAD! Not to mention a fashion consultant. Many of their outfits are fashion
>DON'TS!
Hard to improve (or mess up) Laurie Dhue.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
>> programme, like this one from Luk, calling from alt.true-crime:
>> >Well I believe her when she says
>> >nobody made her do it. Probably because
>> >I don't believe any woman is dumb
>> >enough to have plastic surgery because
>> >some boss says do it.
>> If that's a dumb reason, perhaps you'll enlighten me by listing some
>> of the possible sensible reasons.
>A smarter reason would be to correct a major flaw. GVS
>had no major flaw. Neither did Michael Jackson -
>when he started getting cut on.
Quite. So whatever reason she had was probably just as dumb as the
reason you dismissed.
I agree she had no major flaw. Her face had what someone else called
character. She was what the French call "jolie-laide" -- an ugly
beauty. It's not as contradictory as it sounds -- think of Lauren
Bacall, for example, whose beauty stood outside conventional norms.
It's a concept utterly foreign to TV networks, of course, at least in
respect of women: men are held to a quite different standard.
Her creation of a successful TV career ought to have been seen as a
reinforcement of whatever characteristics she has that *aren't* a
pretty face, and so something to be proud of. She should have worn her
imperfections as a badge of pride.
I know I do.
--
AH
hjkl
>She should have worn her imperfections as a badge of pride.
>
>I know I do.
That's a big-ass badge, bro -- who helps you carry it?
Sorry, couldn't resist that one. You know, Friday and all... :-)
Alan Hope
I'm seeing a new, gentler, more feminine side to you, Ken. You'll be
telling us next what's wrong with her exfoliation routine.
I'm very surprised, and also, oddly ... aroused.
--
AH
nan
Dear Luk,
I have to revised my "opinion" of Greta somewhat. I caught her in a
chatty group of Foxers as I was channel surfing. Greta was quite
vivacious and charming. She made an indirect apologetic remark about
her supporting the OJ Defense. While she briefly criticized the
prosecution, she should have critcized Judge Ito and defense tactics.
from Nan
Luk
nan wrote:
> Dear Luk,
> I have to revised my "opinion" of Greta somewhat. I caught her in a
> chatty group of Foxers as I was channel surfing. Greta was quite
> vivacious and charming. She made an indirect apologetic remark about
> her supporting the OJ Defense. While she briefly criticized the
> prosecution, she should have critcized Judge Ito and defense tactics.
> from Nan
Dear Nan,
I plan to take the time to decide whether my politics are very
different from those of GVS. They may well be. However,
I was rather pleased in the past to see that a woman who was
not particularly glamorous occupied such a prominent
position at CNN. As to her hair, I thought the style might be
a bit over-youthful, but it seemed to fit her.
I'm also not commenting on her current look since I don't
think there's been enough time after surgery to decide.
There was probably still swelling when I last saw her.
I will say this - she was wearing rather a lot of lipstick
and that seemed out of character.
Luk
nan
Dear Linda,
I find my increasingly poor eyesight provides consoling self-delusion.
Does my mirror lie? Wait until you are in the late 60's as I am.
Only waking up the next day matters. This morning the sun shines
brightly in NH and I am thankful for it. There are far worse things
than "slitty" eyes. Better to enjoy your good health and a loving
family. Hope Greta doesn't become too vain and self-conscious, and
turns into just another bimbo flipping her hair-do every second like
that idiot actress who is on Court TV's (very)fictional "Profiler"
series.
Regards, from Nan
nan
Well, Ken
I think Lauren Green (sp&correct name?)who is a newscaster on FOX
qualifies for ultra class and taste in appearance and demeanor. That
"Edie" gal is an overt hick. from Nan
Ken
news:o4g86ukak2ku6tnsp...@4ax.com...
Hey, Fox has some real babes, CNN's "girls" look the babe part, the
women of Fox dress like they are 80 and their hair styles are Dreadful.
Compare, for example Daryn Kagan at CNN. Look at her Doos and her outfits.
She dresses like Sacks and the Fox gals dress like Wal Mart.
Ken
> > I can say this, Fox NEEDS a consultant oh hair styles for its female
anchors
> > BAD! Not to mention a fashion consultant. Many of their outfits are
fashion
> > DON'TS!
> Well, Ken
> I think Lauren Green (sp&correct name?)who is a newscaster on FOX
> qualifies for ultra class and taste in appearance and demeanor. That
> "Edie" gal is an overt hick. from Nan
E.D. ( or Edie) was not on my list. Lauren Green was. There is lots of
potential in the women of FOX. But take a look at
Daryn Kagan at CNN. Some of her dresses are in the upper price class. I bet
you could dress all the women at Fox for a week in what is spent on one of
her outfits. Linda Vester is high on the cute meter, but she looks like her
hair was cut by Briggs and Stratton. He outfits fit a women who is nearing
80 instead of early 30's,
As to Miss Donahey (ED) she'd do better as Jerry Springer's co-host.
nan
> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
>
> >Greta has a most unpleasing personality. As far as her looks are
> >concerned, her hair is an unkept, dried-out witche's mane. Her voice
> >is as lilting as a car skidding on hot pavement. Her facial features
> >are decidedly asymetrical and unattractive. Her raw appearance
> >detracts from her obvious intelligence and knowledge.
>
> You're a beacon of enlightenment, nan. No wonder the TV screens are
> populated exclusively by bimbos and himbos, when even someone of your
> towering intellect holds -- and shamelessly announces -- such shallow,
> trivial, air-headed views.
Dear Alan,
Unlike you, I have no pretensions of holding-up myself as a beacon of
enlightenment and I have no intellect whatsoever which would point me
to insight. Obviously, the only way you an assert your viewpoint is
by attempting to insult and aggravate. However, by these shallow and
petty means, you negate any value of your commentary. Your beacon
ever flickers in futility and never shines on revelation. Yet, we need
YOU to reaffirm that "nothing in itself exists except by contrast."
You provide the necessary evil of antithesis.
from Nan
Luk
Ken wrote:
> E.D. ( or Edie) was not on my list. Lauren Green was. There is lots of
> potential in the women of FOX. But take a look at
> Daryn Kagan at CNN. Some of her dresses are in the upper price class. I bet
> you could dress all the women at Fox for a week in what is spent on one of
> her outfits. Linda Vester is high on the cute meter, but she looks like her
> hair was cut by Briggs and Stratton. He outfits fit a women who is nearing
> 80 instead of early 30's,
I just don't get it. Are we watching news or fashion runways?
What difference does it make what the women wear?
Admittedly, blue jeans wouldn't cut it but....
If that's the attitude of audiences these days, no wonder
GVS thought she had to go under the knife.
This is all so silly.
Luk
Ben Dover
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:<83966u896q1j0th86...@4ax.com>...
> > Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
> > programme, like this one from nan, calling from alt.true-crime:
> >
> > >Greta has a most unpleasing personality. As far as her looks are
> > >concerned, her hair is an unkept, dried-out witche's mane. Her voice
> > >is as lilting as a car skidding on hot pavement. Her facial features
> > >are decidedly asymetrical and unattractive. Her raw appearance
> > >detracts from her obvious intelligence and knowledge.
> >
Yeah, but I'd still do her!
nan
Dear Luk,
YOU started it! Yes, this thread is a fashion *runaway*!
When Alan Hope interjects...well, who listens. Who ever said before
that Greta's main distraction was her hair is critically correct. My
horse on his worse hair-day with brittle, weather-worn,
burr-encrusted, sundried tangles has a better mane than Greta did
have. Her self-defeating features seemed to have delayed a more
promising personality. For the viewers' sakes, let's hope that she has
insightful commentary. from Nan
Hale
FNC: If FOX only hires pretty girls & boys...then why is Allan Colmes
on air. Sad to say ... he has a great face for radio! And Sean
Hannity...ugh.. The women wear TOO MUCH makeup! Esp. Laurie Dew-ey
look. She wears enough lip gloss that I can see the reflection of the
cameraman in them.
CNN: Larry King. Enough said.
MSNBC: Norah O'Donnell and the newish anchor guy with the blondish
hair are great looking but I get distracted with the BRIGHT blue
contacts.
Allan Keyes. Someone should try to break him of the habit of using
his hands too much when he speaks. But his multi-colored cardigan
sweater has gotta go.
NBC: Katie Couric is getting a little too old to still talk and dress
as if she was a high school coed.
And at least Greta has a sense of humor about her plastic surgery.
But it won't make me watch her. I didn't before and won't now.
Linda Griffith
> I find my increasingly poor eyesight provides consoling self-delusion.
> Does my mirror lie?
I know exactly what you mean, nan! It's kind of like that "joke" about
older women that's going around the Internet: The hair on our legs stops
growing, giving us more time to concentrate on our newly-acquired
moustaches. (Or something similar)
Wait until you are in the late 60's as I am.
> Only waking up the next day matters. This morning the sun shines
> brightly in NH and I am thankful for it. There are far worse things
> than "slitty" eyes. Better to enjoy your good health and a loving
> family.
Yes, I am truly grateful for what I have. I consider myself as healthy as a
horse, and I have a very loving family. We even blend well with [truly
like] the family into which our son married, and I'm afraid that's not all
that common an occurrence.
Hope Greta doesn't become too vain and self-conscious, and
> turns into just another bimbo flipping her hair-do every second like
> that idiot actress who is on Court TV's (very)fictional "Profiler"
> series.
They do "flip" their hair, don't they? I haven't noticed it on TV, but I do
see it in church whenever I sit behind a young woman with long hair. It's
as if they don't even realize they're doing it. (But I'd do it if I could!)
Linda
> Regards, from Nan
shar...@mindspring.com
nan <nanl...@hotmail.com>
> Dear Linda,
> I find my increasingly poor eyesight provides consoling self-delusion.
> Does my mirror lie? Wait until you are in the late 60's as I am.
> Only waking up the next day matters. This morning the sun shines
> brightly in NH and I am thankful for it. There are far worse things
> than "slitty" eyes. Better to enjoy your good health and a loving
> family. Hope Greta doesn't become too vain and self-conscious, and
> turns into just another bimbo flipping her hair-do every second like
> that idiot actress who is on Court TV's (very)fictional "Profiler"
> series.
> Regards, from Nan
I quit watching that show because of "that idiot actress"; it seemed to
me that she was "chemically impaired"?
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from nan, calling from alt.true-crime:
>You provide the necessary evil of antithesis.
Thank you. It's not often I get the appreciation I deserve.
--
AH
Ken
Is it? Golly, now I was watching Dari Alexander on Fox, another "babe."
The sad fact is that people respond well to attractive men and women. That
is a fact of life. You may not notice whether the women are attractive, and
IF that is really the case. Ask your doctor for some Viagra.
Patty
http://people.aol.com/people/magazine/coverstoryexcerpt/0,11369,199422,00.html
I'm a pro-choice person, whatever makes the person happy. I may not
do it myself but it's their life and it doesn't affect my life one way
or the other.
Patty
nan
Dear Linda,
I don't want to over-reach into your personal domain, but...why can't
you flip your hair if you want to? I was a hair twister, never a
flipper, when I had long hair. I can't imagine what they pay that
idiot (alleged) actress for flipping her hair EVERY second and for
mumbling her limited dialogue.
Regards, from Nan
nan
Dear Sharon,
Yes, "chemically impaired" with hard stuff as rumoured. The series'
plots & characters are not feasible - I would say the series is
credibility-impaired.
from Nan
shar...@mindspring.com
nan <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote
> <shar...@mindspring.com> wrote
> > I quit watching that show because of "that idiot actress"; it seemed
to
> > me that she was "chemically impaired"?
>
> Dear Sharon,
> Yes, "chemically impaired" with hard stuff as rumoured. The series'
> plots & characters are not feasible - I would say the series is
> credibility-impaired.
> from Nan
Hi Nan!
I used to enjoy some of the "credibility-impaired" shows; I'm a fantasy
and science fiction fan. I also like mysteries a la Alfred Hitchcock and
Ellery Queen. I rarely watch any TV now, though I try to catch Judge Joe
and Judge Judy when I can.
nan
Dear Patty,
Some of my best friends are happy hedonists. Of course, we have
mankind's history full of happy hedonists. Nero, d'Sade and Attila are
among my favorites. What is "pro-choice" compared ethical
distinction? I wager Kenneth Lay is a "pro-choice" sort of guy too. It
is far easier to be "happy" than to be painfully self-denyingly
ethical, and er, wholesome. from Nan
Linda Griffith
> you flip your hair if you want to? I was a hair twister, never a
> flipper, when I had long hair. I can't imagine what they pay that
> idiot (alleged) actress for flipping her hair EVERY second and for
> mumbling her limited dialogue.
> Regards, from Nan
The ones who "flip" so insouciantly all seem to have long, straight hair.
Mine's neither long enough nor straight enough to flip convincingly. I am
letting mine grow out a bit (not really for flipping), and it's in that
horrible in-between stage right now. Makes me want to pull these bangs up
like a Shih Tzu or Lhasa apso.
Linda
Linda
Patty
> >
> > http://people.aol.com/people/magazine/coverstoryexcerpt/0,11369,199422,00.html
> >
> >
> > I'm a pro-choice person, whatever makes the person happy. I may not
> > do it myself but it's their life and it doesn't affect my life one way
> > or the other.
> >
> > Patty
>
> Dear Patty,
> Some of my best friends are happy hedonists. Of course, we have
> mankind's history full of happy hedonists. Nero, d'Sade and Attila are
> among my favorites. What is "pro-choice" compared ethical
> distinction? I wager Kenneth Lay is a "pro-choice" sort of guy too. It
> is far easier to be "happy" than to be painfully self-denyingly
> ethical, and er, wholesome. from Nan
Whether to have cosmetic surgery can hardly be compared to the
decisions that the Enron VPs made. Cosmetic surgery is neither
illegal nor immoral, and it doesn't hurt anyone. It's a personal
choice. The Enron execs lied, cheated, and stole and their actions
hurt thousands, maybe millions.
Personally, I liked Greta the way she was. Hey, I'm all for low
maintenance of looks, and I loved it when they said she asked AFTER
her show if her hair had been combed. But if looks are a priority in
a person's value system, and spending money on surgery or hours on
grooming, so be it. If that makes them happy, so be it.
I went backpacking to Europe when I was young, lived in basically the
same clothes for days and hardly worried about how I looked. Then I
met a couple of girls from a university in Minnesota who actually
carried electric rollers, curling iron, and other appliances in their
backpacks. I couldn't believe it but they said it was very important
how they looked and if they felt they didn't look their best, it
affected their attitude. They were always happy and looked great when
they went out. My value system may be different and I may have valued
sleep time or museum time more than grooming time, but I learned
through those girls not to put those down who do.
Patty
nan
Dear Patty,
All my grooming time is spent on horses and pets. I spoke to the
GENERAL value system of "pro-choice", and I thought I was still in the
Van Dam topic referencing parent "swingers". So, again I am
confounded by this crappy Google format and a rebellious mouse. I'm
with you. I would rather do anything than sit in front of my vanity.
I prefer being wholesome. However, my attitude about
pro-choice/hedonism still holds, just doesn't apply here.
from Nan
BRogers115
reason her face looks changed is that there is still some puffiness from the
surgery but that in time her face will look the same.
Brenda
mothra...@hotmail.com
Is she now saying she had her eyes "done"? Originally, her story was
that she had only had the bags under her eyes removed, but if you
compare the angle of her eyebrows before and after, it's clear that she
had something lifted. There's no discernible swelling--I'm sure she
would not have returned to TV with swelling visible.
Martha
***Are you saying that you are terminally ill with cancer? (I note that you
are alluding to that circumstance, but not exactly saying it). If so, I'm very
sorry to hear that and will be happy to make allowances for your posting
irregularities.-Maggie, Queen of Compassion
Cinnamon
> There's no discernible swelling--I'm sure she
> would not have returned to TV with swelling visible.
>
> Martha
I saw Greta herself talking on the TV about the swelling and it did look
like swelling to me. The woman interviewing her (I can't recall who that
was) said that everyone was talking about Greta's "new look" and she asked
what all Greta had had done. Greta insisted that, even though others seemed
to think differently, ALL she'd had done was her eyes and that the reason
she looked so different was because the swelling hadn't gone down yet. She
kind of touched her face lightly when referring to the puffiness.
--Ginger
mothra...@hotmail.com
Well (are you a Spice Girl, btw?), far be it from me to contradict the
owner of the face! If she's saying she had her eyes "done," that's
enough for me because "done" could include lifting them. I thought she
said she'd only had bags removed, but I wasn't there in the OR, dammit.
Lady Taker
>like swelling to me. The woman interviewing her (I can't recall who that
>was) said that everyone was talking about Greta's "new look" and she asked
>what all Greta had had done. Greta insisted that, even though others seemed
>to think differently, ALL she'd had done was her eyes and that the reason
>she looked so different was because the swelling hadn't gone down yet. She
>kind of touched her face lightly when referring to the puffiness.
>
>--Ginger
If you put two photos of her, an old one and a new one, side by side, you will
see that the length of her nose is more than a little bobbed. There's no way
that such a drastic change in looks is due only to bag removal. Even steamer
trunk removal wouldn't have made that much of a change.
Volfie
I don't care what anybody says, "Planet of the Apes" is unrealistic. Any
scientist will tell you that on a planet full of monkeys, someone's throwing
some feces. - Davejames, Ruminations Mailing List
Lady Taker
>owner of the face! If she's saying she had her eyes "done," that's
>enough for me because "done" could include lifting them. I thought she
>said she'd only had bags removed, but I wasn't there in the OR, dammit.
>
>Martha
>***Are you saying that you are terminally ill with cancer? (I note that you
>are alluding to that circumstance, but not exactly saying it). If so, I'm
>very
>sorry to hear that and will be happy to make allowances for your posting
>irregularities.-Maggie, Queen of Compassion
So, are you saying you believe Michael Jackson when he says he hasn't had any
facial alterations? Can I interest you in this ocean front property I have in
Oklahoma?
mothra...@hotmail.com
> So, are you saying you believe Michael Jackson when he says he hasn't had any
> facial alterations? Can I interest you in this ocean front property I have in
> Oklahoma?
But Greta von Susteren is a *journalist*, Volfie! *Journalists* never
lie!
Lady Taker
>lie!
>
>Martha
>***Are you saying that you are terminally ill with cancer? (I note that you
>are alluding to that circumstance, but not exactly saying it). If so, I'm
>very
>sorry to hear that and will be happy to make allowances for your posting
>irregularities.-Maggie, Queen of Compassion
So Geraldo really did almost get hit by a bullet in Afghanistan?
That property isn't going to last long, ya' know. How many acres do you want?
ncghost
> > ~~~The *Money Honey* Maria Bartiromo is my favorite and
> > quite astute on the stock market/ I guess my best favorite
> > is Warren Buffet, (not on TV) who eats Mc Donalds on his
> > corporate jet flights. He's my hero..*.buy and hold* , I've
> > read his every word,in reports and books, and follow his
> > advice. I think Maria is cuter than Warren
> >
> > desi
> > >
> > >
> >
> >Maria B. song here...