Hopefully my mistaking the two is understandable - Paltrow on the right.

Light in a vagina? That's a novelty.

Paltrow on the right - "Little song, little dance, batman's head on a lance"

I think Galadriel looks more Paltrowy than Paltrow herself.

Paltrow was probably at her best though when she sang about her cat

zulumoose wrote:Paltrow was probably at her best though when she sang about her cat

Now that's trolling with style

Well, I guess I just reinforced my own view of how much people can differ in their perceptions.

Cate [ strange spelling ] Blanchett has absolutely no sex appeal at all
She never smiles and does not possess a natural female beauty / symmetry
I do not found her remotely attractive as she is sad to say completely bland
Meryl Streep who is old enough to be her mother and is not naturally sexy either is way sexier than she is
You are absolutely right Fall : there sure as hell is plenty of weird perception interpretation going on here

I mean, I wasn't talking about sexiness, but ok.

zulumoose wrote:

Ironclad wrote::lol:
That's Blanchett you nutter!

SHIT!

They look the same to me.

Racist!

surreptitious57 wrote:Cate [ strange spelling ] Blanchett has absolutely no sex appeal at all
She never smiles and does not possess a natural female beauty / symmetry
I do not found her remotely attractive as she is sad to say completely bland
Meryl Streep who is old enough to be her mother and is not naturally sexy either is way sexier than she is
You are absolutely right Fall : there sure as hell is plenty of weird perception interpretation going on here

Have you not seen her in The Hobbit, or (especially in) Ragnarok? Imo she was divine in one, and stingingly hot in the other with the green catsuit..
Unless it's the Bic razor talking..

Sorry, can't stop picking.

She never smiles

https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1280&bih=650&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=r7pZXJ7LCq-o1fAP1ay34AY&q=cate+blanchett+smiling&oq=cate+blanchett+smiling&gs_l=img.12...0.0..9986...0.0..0.0.0.......1......gws-wiz-img.Q-JOOSPm5oQ

and does not possess a natural female beauty / symmetry

A joke, yes?

Notes on a Scandel. As hot as a hot hoty hoty hot hot.

We post two photographs to apparently disprove my claim of her lacking beauty / symmetry
And lo and behold they do the complete opposite ! That second photo of her is truly awful !

She unfortunately has a large nose and they re absolutely not sexy on any woman
What makes it worse is that they re in the centre of the face so cannot be ignored

Julia Roberts also has one and is the reason why I am not attracted to her though in all other respects she is absolutely fine
Princess Diana also had one but she was royalty and universally loved and so it would be wrong to think of her in that way

Women who have nose jobs always have them reduced because they know that big ones arent sexy or very practical
Maybe you dont see the sex appeal because you re a woman yourself but I notice it straight away so now you know

I overlook her gigantic nose by staring at her ass.

*damnit, Bic razor talking*

Er...they don't do the complete opposite. What you mean is they don't appeal to your subjective view of 'a natural female beauty', which seems to boil down to 'I don't like noses on women that I think are big'. If what you are saying were true, no one would regard Cate Blanchett or Julia Roberts as beautiful, which rather obviously they do.

Princess Diana...I don't really know what to do with that comment. Well...she's not universally loved, for a start. For example, I don't love her. Why she can't be thought of in terms of her nose because she's royalty/loved is beyond me. If you don't think one woman should be judged on the basis of the size of her schnoz, why do you think any woman should?

Maybe I don't see what sex appeal? Because I'm a woman I can't find women attractive? Mate, with respect, what are you on about with any of this?

Obviously it doesnt appeal to my subjective view because thats what beauty is
There is no objective metric for measuring it so it is simply a matter of opinion

Princess Diana is much loved as you very well know and I am saying that as a republican
So you not liking her yourself for whatever reason does not detract from that fact at all

You mentioned not talking about sexiness hence why I said you may not notice sex appeal

surreptitious57 wrote:Obviously it doesnt appeal to my subjective view because thats what beauty is
There is no objective metric for measuring it so it is simply a matter of opinion

Then your initial comment without qualification was inaccurately composed. As it stands, it says precisely that Cate Blanchett doesn't possess natural female beauty/symmetry, with no acknowledgement that there is no such objective thing.

Princess Diana is much loved as you very well know and I am saying that as a republican
So you not liking her yourself for whatever reason does not detract from that fact at all

You've mangled what was said. You and I as republicans don't love her, yet your comment was that she is universally loved. You did not say she was 'much loved'. So don't take the tone of a scolding parent with me about what I very well know, like I'm just being difficult. Words have meanings. Secondly, I didn't say I don't like her. You made that up. The fact that I (and you) don't love her does detract from your original remark that everyone does.

As I asked before, why does her royalty or large fan base exclude her from the Land of Broken Toys according to surreptitious?

You mentioned not talking about sexiness hence why I said you may not notice sex appeal

No, you said I might not notice sex appeal because I am a woman myself. Again, how does that follow? Also, this is a very strange way of determining what people notice or don't. If someone wasn't talking about a thing someone else brings up afterwards because their point was different, it means they didn't notice it. Thanks for that one, surr. So if I am talking about trains, I haven't noticed cars. Good to know.

We both know that there is no such thing as an objective criteria for measuring beauty
Because we both know it there is no reason to specifically mention its non objectivity

You treat words as prescriptive whereas I treat them as descriptive and given that some confusion is inevitable
You re probably thinking I am moving the goalposts here but I am just more flexible with language than you are
I am not suggesting you are wrong / I am right just that we have different approaches as you know only very well
Sometimes rigorous application of definition is required but sometimes not and I find you too pedantic on occasion

When I say that Diana was universally loved I dont mean it in the literal sense you imagine
Likewise I see no real distinction between saying she was universally loved and much loved

We re just having a conversation about a relatively trivial subject so we can be a bit loose with language

surreptitious57 wrote:We both know that there is no such thing as an objective criteria for measuring beauty
Because we both know it there is no reason to specifically mention its non objectivity

The reason is to avoid getting yourself into a situation where you end up walking back what you said because it's demonstrably wrong. Like in this situation.

You treat words as prescriptive whereas I treat them as descriptive and given that some confusion is inevitable
You re probably thinking I am moving the goalposts here but I am just more flexible with language than you are

I don't treat words as prescriptive, but descriptive, much like you. The word 'universally' describes a case of 'everyone, without exception'. If you don't mean that, don't use the word that describes it. Yes, you are moving the goalposts. I would say that this is 'universally' the case with your posts, but I like to use words that accurately describe the situation I am trying to convey, so I'll just say that your posts often contain examples of you moving the goalposts.

I am not suggesting you are wrong / I am right just that we have different approaches as you know only very well
Sometimes rigorous application of definition is required but sometimes not and I find you too pedantic on occasion

I find you often walk back what you said when you've made sweeping comments, and place the blame for having to do so at the door of those who choose to challenge you.

When I say that Diana was universally loved I dont mean it in the literal sense you imagine

We re just having a conversation about a relatively trivial subject so we can be a bit loose with language

Although I could do, I'm not going to be following your breadcrumb trail into the ever decreasing circle of what you choose to respond to. I invite you instead to re-expand your scope and respond more fully to what I said, perhaps attempt to answer the questions I have asked you. Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to shift the focus.